The Nintendo Wii topic

[Kittie Rose]

I wasn't sure where else to put this.

Is anyone else interested in the Nintendo Wii? I'm interested in it, but the graphics are really terrible. PS3 and 360 aren't anything too amazing for the most part, but a lot of Wii games really do look dreadful.

The console is promising, I've pre-ordered one with Zelda, but charging $315(that's how much it costs in Europe, E250) for a console who's best looking game is a Gamecube port? Come on. Tilt sensors and accelerometers aren't exactly the highest tech in the word... R&D costs for the Wii must have been quite low too.

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/815/815492/img_3973181.html

That is terrible. Far Cry looks worse than it did on the original Xbox. I know I'm not buying it for the graphics, but they shouldn't be charging a price higher than the Gamecube did when it was a top of the range console.

In my opinion, the Wii is a good console but an utter rip off. Nintendo have an annoying habit of doing this.

[maagimies]

Well, my friend is getting one, so I can go to his place to check it out. People have said that the motion sensing is really cool and well done.
I know that I'm going to stay away from Red Steel however :mrgreen:

[Kittie Rose]

Red Steel looks quite stylish, but the turning ruins it. If it wasn't for that, it would be a good game, I think.

I hope they improve Metroid.

[peak_performance]

I hear most first gen games play a bit bad. While still being pretty good games. Thankfully, play-tests of games like Metroid and Super Mario Galaxy says that the controls really are better, especially Metroid vs. launch FPS:es.

I'm picking a system up when it launches here in Sweden, with Zelda and probably Red Steel as well. Will get Trauma Center when it arrives a couple of weeks later.

And lastly, I'm really overwhelmed by the reaction from main stream press the Wii gets. Non-gamers are actually finding it a great play, which was my worry when Nintendo started talking about broadening the market. Of course, they made it with the DS, but that's cheap. The Wii isn't.

[chaosgeisterchen]

Nintendo did not disappoint me yet. They are the only ones who really provide some revolutionary gameplay style in comparison to mere improved graphics on the side of Microsoft and Sony.

They have always shown that they have their emphasis on having fun while playing games and not the latest hardware. I really much appreciate that and the Nintendo developers should be praised for their efforts.

Anyway, there's no way I will purchase a Wii in the next few years. I simply won't have the time to use it in any way, so I will still spend my money on computers and peripherals.

To all people who are intending to buy a Wii instead of their competitiors on the console market: Go ahead! I am convinced, you won't regret it. Enjoy the fun playing it a-live.

[Kittie Rose]

The DS is a little pricey for what it does, but I imagine Touch Screens are expensive enough to make since they're not just funny little gyroscope thingies.

[raublekick]

The Wii is top notch. I got one on the US launch and do not regret the time and money I put into getting one. I got Excitetruck and Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz and of course Wii Sports. No Zelda yet, simply because it is the end of the semester and I have other priorities unfortunately. Excitetruck is so fun, and challenging too. Super Monkey Ball has a solid single player mode, but the minigames don't quite live up to the ones from SMB 1 and 2. Wii Sports though... man this game is great. Sure, the graphics look like crap, but I could play it all day long.

The graphics are not a big part of these games, but Nintendo delivered the fun 100%.

[mrgnash]

It's just a piece of junk as far as I'm concerned. The graphics are old-hat, and so are the mascots they trot out for virtually every game. Controller gimmicks, like they other slew of device gimmicks they released for the GC, don't mean a thing to me... only good games and robust hardware to provide the greatest immersion factor, really impresses me.

[Brunellus]

I'm holding off to see who delivers the most fun for my buck.

Xbox360 looks promising, but I've been out of console gaming since the days of the SNES. The Wii might entice me back.

Frankly, the whole arms race of bling doesn't do it for me as a gamer. I simply don't enjoy playing most of the games currently out. Yet ANOTHER shooter? ANOTHER overdone RPG from Square? I'll pass. The more "advanced" video games have gotten, the more I've enjoyed reading books. On paper.

[mrgnash]

I'm holding off to see who delivers the most fun for my buck.

Xbox360 looks promising, but I've been out of console gaming since the days of the SNES. The Wii might entice me back.

Frankly, the whole arms race of bling doesn't do it for me as a gamer. I simply don't enjoy playing most of the games currently out. Yet ANOTHER shooter? ANOTHER overdone RPG from Square? I'll pass. The more "advanced" video games have gotten, the more I've enjoyed reading books. On paper.

Amen to that.

The only game that has provided any enjoyment for me in a long time has been Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion... and that's still generic as hell, and below par in other respects -- what it does have going for it is a high degree of freedom and immersion.

[Polygon]

i have a wii, and i cant wait for some good games to come out (we already own zelda and cod3)

and i believe that patches for games will be possible, so dven if there is some bugs or whatnot they can patch em.

Right now, the wii is doing better then the ps3 :D

[djsroknrol]

My stepson's wife has already been to the Dr. for tennis elbow from playing...seems like there will be much more of this as more people get up off the couch and get "interactive" with the action.....

[Kittie Rose]

The graphics are not a big part of these games,

Then they shouldn't be charging a price for the console that suggests it has the power to make it so.

[Johnsie]

I'm going to buy a wii. I dont see anything new about the ps3 or x-box that isnt ripped directly off pc technology. Putting extra graphics in games doesn't mean alot to me. I'd rather play pacman for free than spend $xx on a game that I'll get bored of in 10 minutes. I want originality, not FPS or extra processing power. Games nowadays are too generic and bore me. I is not a big fan of the current state of consoles but at least wii is trying something new.

It's 2006 and we still don't have a decent VR console with headset.... What the crap? Why are we still playing games on our TV screens?

[Velotix]

It's going to set me back £180, but I'm getting a Wii, no question. My 20+ GCN games compared to my 6 Xbox and 0 PS2 games are a symbol of how I much prefer Nintendo's methods and games over their competitors.

On a side note, I find it very interesting how there is such a tremendous gulf between people who game regularly and people who don't, especially in terms of computer enthusiasts. On the one hand, you have places like this where games are seldom mentioned (outside of the game forum for obvious reasons) and on the other hand you have major gaming sites where "Linux" is practically a dirty word. I hate this gaping maw in society and seeing as I'm doing a Games Technology course with the full intention of working in the industry, I'm going to ensure the bridges are built.

Anywho, as to Wii specifically (which I think will begin to create the aforementioned bridges): it's not out here until Dec 8th so I have a while to wait yet, but I'm practically jumping up and down with excitement. The sole game I'll be buying at launch is Zelda (three guesses why :P) though I'll definitely give Wii Sports a long look considering it's packaged free.

[mrgnash]

I'm going to buy a wii. I dont see anything new about the ps3 or x-box that isnt ripped directly off pc technology. Putting extra graphics in games doesn't mean alot to me. I'd rather play pacman for free than spend $xx on a game that I'll get bored of in 10 minutes. I want originality, not FPS or extra processing power. Games nowadays are too generic and bore me. I is not a big fan of the current state of consoles but at least wii is trying something new.

It's 2006 and we still don't have a decent VR console with headset.... What the crap? Why are we still playing games on our TV screens?

Originality doesn't dervive from input methods or fancy-headgear or any of that other nonsense... that is to say, it is not peripheral-driven, as Nintendo seems to think.

Did Virgil, Chaucer or Bronte didn't need pop-up books to weave compelling tales, and it's the same with games. What's needed is an advance in narrative complexity and maturity, and a greater degree of player involvement in decision making which actually leads to greater environmental and situational impact.

Audio/visual sophistication is integral to the process of creating immsersive/interactive worlds, and inventive storytellers and designers are integral to engaging and/or challenging the gamer in the same way that a good movie, or tv-shows like Deadwood, BSG, and Huff do the viewer. Nintendo doesn't have either of those things going for them at the moment.

[banjobacon]

I bought a Wii, and the enjoyment it's provided me has been worth every penny.


Did Virgil, Chaucer or Bronte didn't need pop-up books to weave compelling tales...

Audio/visual sophistication is integral to the process of creating immsersive/interactive worlds

Wouldn't pop-up books be to literature what audio/visual sophistication is to video games? Isn't "robust hardware" like a pop-up book?

You're bored with video games. That doesn't necessarily mean the industry is in a sad state.

[Johnsie]

Different peripherals change the way the user interacts with the game. That's original because it hasn't been done before that way and because it makes things different.

Making games look better is old and getting quite boring... It's about time they started concentrating on other things. I've played games since the 80's and very little has changed in the way things were played since people started using joypads and mice instead of joysticks :-)

Too much concentration on graphics and not enough concentration on the tools with which people play. Immersion can also be caused/helped by good peripheral controllers.

Maybe you dont like Nintendo's strategy, thats up to you lol. I do and thats why I'm gonna buy one. It's a free country hahaha :-)

[Kittie Rose]

Just because they CAN charge that much of it, doesn't mean they should.

The fact is that the Wii is not delivering on a technical level, however high the "fun" factor. Whether through optimizing the system or just plain charging less, or both, they could have made the Wii a MUCH better deal. I don't think graphics mean little at all. I can name a number of games where graphics really have heightened my enjoyment of a game; the Sonic Adventures, Shenmue, Metroid Prime,

Quite frankly, Shenmue would not have worked without the graphics.

If you're selling a system on IMMERSION, it only makes sense to have realistic graphics. Some Wii games are just plain ugly - blurry textures and jagged edges.

You're also forgetting that the Wii most likely underpeforms on a computing basis too; it won't be able to handle advanced AI, Crysis like destructible scenery, Elder Scrolls like worlds, etc.

I don't know about the "10 minutes" thing, the Xbox has Oblivion and a few other games that require a long haul, the PS3 is bound to have a few lengthy RPGs too. It looks to me that the Wii is the most guilty of shorter, "gimmicky" games
currently.

I like them emphasizing game play over graphics. However, gameplay is borne out of Nintendo's philosophy; it does not cost much near as much money to implement.

[Brunellus]

Just because they CAN charge that much of it, doesn't mean they should.

The fact is that the Wii is not delivering on a technical level, however high the "fun" factor. Whether through optimizing the system or just plain charging less, or both, they could have made the Wii a MUCH better deal. I don't think graphics mean little at all. I can name a number of games where graphics really have heightened my enjoyment of a game; the Sonic Adventures, Shenmue, Metroid Prime,

Quite frankly, Shenmue would not have worked without the graphics.

If you're selling a system on IMMERSION, it only makes sense to have realistic graphics. Some Wii games are just plain ugly - blurry textures and jagged edges.

You're also forgetting that the Wii most likely underpeforms on a computing basis too; it won't be able to handle advanced AI, Crysis like destructible scenery, Elder Scrolls like worlds, etc.

I don't know about the "10 minutes" thing, the Xbox has Oblivion and a few other games that require a long haul, the PS3 is bound to have a few lengthy RPGs too. It looks to me that the Wii is the most guilty of shorter, "gimmicky" games
currently.

I like them emphasizing game play over graphics. However, gameplay is borne out of Nintendo's philosophy; it does not cost much near as much money to implement.
I really don't have the time to be immersed. I just want to tune in, turn on, and drop out. If "Immersion" means counting the hairs on Square's latest heroine, well, forget it. I'll put on my glasses and go out dancing instead.

The hardware arms race is all well and good, but I don't feel compelled to plonk down my hard-earned quatloos for "immersive experiences" that I have a hard time getting into. We'll have to agree to disagree.

each of the consoles has its good points. The PS3 is, among other things, probably the cheapest LinuxPPC platform out there.....

[Dual Cortex]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5401/272034604706261/400/testeee.png

Though I'm leaning on the PS3.

[Stew2]

I am going to get a Wii. I stood in line for one on launch day but unfortunately I was person number 25 in line and they only had 24 units... Bummer! Anyway, the reason I want a Wii is because I have a 5 going on 6 year old son and I would like him to be able to play "fun" games. He doesn't really care about immersive photorealistic graphics and frankly, neither do I. I think the original Xbox has more than adequete graphics for me. My main priorities for a console are,
1. Fun games, preferably non violent
2. Small form factor (don't want to have to buy a new entertainment unit to fit it)
3. Quiet... in my opinion the original Xbox is too loud.
4. Cool running. I don't want to have to buy additional cooling devices to keep it cool. ie. more noisy fans.
5. Economical... don't need it using more power than my PC, and our consoles tend to be left on a lot :D
Basically all points to the Wii :D. Plus the fact that it is half the price of the 360 is icing on the cake!
Sure hope I can get one before Christmas :D
Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Stew2

[manzuk]

Well, I'm thinking about getting a Wii too. Why? Simple, in my opinion is the only console that brings something new to the TVgames scene. The problem: u$d 250 is a lot of money in my country, but I hope after christmas the price goes down. Ah, one more thing, if you want to buy a next-gen console and you don't like Wii, buy a PS3. Dont even think about getting an XBox360, you are being adviced by someone who works as XBOX Customer Support Agent :D

[maniacmusician]

I am going to get a Wii. I stood in line for one on launch day but unfortunately I was person number 25 in line and they only had 24 units... Bummer! Anyway, the reason I want a Wii is because I have a 5 going on 6 year old son and I would like him to be able to play "fun" games. He doesn't really care about immersive photorealistic graphics and frankly, neither do I. I think the original Xbox has more than adequete graphics for me. My main priorities for a console are,
1. Fun games, preferably non violent
2. Small form factor (don't want to have to buy a new entertainment unit to fit it)
3. Quiet... in my opinion the original Xbox is too loud.
4. Cool running. I don't want to have to buy additional cooling devices to keep it cool. ie. more noisy fans.
5. Economical... don't need it using more power than my PC, and our consoles tend to be left on a lot :D
Basically all points to the Wii :D. Plus the fact that it is half the price of the 360 is icing on the cake!
Sure hope I can get one before Christmas :D
Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Stew2
you should be able to, just keep your eyes peeled for it. Some places to watch out for; Best Buy flyers. Just this last weekend, they slipped in a covert ad into their flyer about selling 15 units of the Wii on Sunday. I got there just as a person was walking out with the last one!. I would also watch some online sites like Amazon. (i'm using specto to monitor the page) They'll update whenever they get a shipment in, and I'll go in and snag an order as quickly as possible.

[Peepsalot]

I plan on getting a Wii whenever they stop being constantly sold out of retail stores. I know the underlying computing power is less than impressive, but I don't care. I still think it is not a bad deal.

In response to the statement about it costing more than the gamecube, I think it is safe to say that you are getting much more than the gamecube had to offer. First of all, of course the CPU is better than the Gamecube. Then again you can expect computing power to become cheaper as time goes on, and expect to pay the same price for better hardware than past generations. If this was the only difference, then I would agree the rise in price is no good.
However, I think it becomes worth it when you consider the extra features that come built-in: WiFi, bluetooth, 512mb flash storage, infrared sensors, usb ports, etc. I would also imagine the controllers cost a bit more to produce than a gamecube controller would.

And in comparison to the competition, the prices are very reasonable.

Most importantly to me, I think that this console will encourage innovation in game designs. The wii-mote is a fresh concept that I really believe will help expand the gaming world with many great new ideas.

[mrgnash]

I bought a Wii, and the enjoyment it's provided me has been worth every penny.

Wouldn't pop-up books be to literature what audio/visual sophistication is to video games? Isn't "robust hardware" like a pop-up book?

No. The audio/visual output capability of hardware is more akin to the lexical breadth of a language, in that it determines the descriptive potential available to the author. A developer or author might wish recreate some observed or imagined structure, but without a sufficiently descriptive medium, his capacity to do so will be constrained.

And when you really want to involve a player in a world you have crafted, one of the crucial things you have to aim for is a suspension of disbelief. Now that can either be achieved through realistic presentation, or at least presentation which doesn't betray the fact that it is computer generated in too-obvious a way. To that end, advanced hardware becomes quite crucial.


You're bored with video games. That doesn't necessarily mean the industry is in a sad state.

It's not in the sad state in the sense that it is generating a huge cash-flow, but I would contend that it is in a sad state for gamers who are seeking an experience which is intellectually stimulating as well as sufficiently entertaining, complex/deep and long-lasting. It might sound like I'm asking for a lot, and in a sense I am, but with a bit more imaginitive spice Oblivion would have come damn close.

[Kittie Rose]

I plan on getting a Wii whenever they stop being constantly sold out of retail stores. I know the underlying computing power is less than impressive, but I don't care. I still think it is not a bad deal.

But, see, objectively, not in your opinion, it really isn't. They're charging more than the console
is physically worth; Microsoft and Sony are charging less.

I have my money down on my Wii when it comes out in Europe, but I still detest having to pay
250 euros for it(315 dollars) and 60 euros for the games(75 dollars). There is no excuse for
this price-fixing.


However, I think it becomes worth it when you consider the extra features that come built-in: WiFi, bluetooth, 512mb flash storage, infrared sensors, usb ports, etc.

None of those things near add up to 512 euros. If the CPU is better it's because they managed
to make it more efficent, thus getting more performance from it for the same price. I'd say that's what
they did; and also added in some more RAM(as it was said that the Gamecube couldn't use it's full power due to lack of RAM).
I'd be fine with this if it was cheap as it's enough to create
some great visuals but I'm still not getting value for money the way it is.



And in comparison to the competition, the prices are very reasonable.

For $50 moreyou get an Xbox 360 which is at least twice as powerful and can play DVDs, as well
as having many of the features Wii is selling itself on (Such as Xbox arcade).

[Brunellus]

But, see, objectively, not in your opinion, it really isn't. They're charging more than the console
is physically worth; Microsoft and Sony are charging less.

I have my money down on my Wii when it comes out in Europe, but I still detest having to pay
250 euros for it(315 dollars) and 60 euros for the games(75 dollars). There is no excuse for
this price-fixing.



None of those things near add up to 512 euros. If the CPU is better it's because they managed
to make it more efficent, thus getting more performance from it for the same price. I'd say that's what
they did; and also added in some more RAM(as it was said that the Gamecube couldn't use it's full power due to lack of RAM).
I'd be fine with this if it was cheap as it's enough to create
some great visuals but I'm still not getting value for money the way it is.



For $50 moreyou get an Xbox 360 which is at least twice as powerful and can play DVDs, as well
as having many of the features Wii is selling itself on (Such as Xbox arcade).
there's no point in whining about pricing. You don't want the goods offered at the price offered--well, don't buy the goods. I'm the same way. The Wii is interesting, but not worth my money just yet, because there are other budgetary priorities.

That said, it comes out ahead of a PS3.

[Kittie Rose]

there's no point in whining about pricing. You don't want the goods offered at the price offered--well, don't buy the goods.

That's extremely flawed reasoning. I could easily have been offered the same goods at a more appropriate price, but they chose not to. I have every right to complain about that. I am a huge supporter of Nintendo, I bought the DS and was psyched for the Wii for months and defended it viciously. Now I feel like I have been let down as a fan.

[PatrickMay16]

But, see, objectively, not in your opinion, it really isn't. They're charging more than the console
is physically worth; Microsoft and Sony are charging less.

I have my money down on my Wii when it comes out in Europe, but I still detest having to pay
250 euros for it(315 dollars) and 60 euros for the games(75 dollars). There is no excuse for
this price-fixing.

Both Microsoft and Sony can afford to make a loss on the sale of the actual console; Microsoft has an iron grip on the operating system market from which it makes loads, and Sony also does a lot of stuff other than gaming. But nintendo seems to be a games businsess only. Perhaps for this reason they can't afford to make any losses.

And the system has only been out for a while. A year later, they'll probably have better development tools and developers will have more experience with the system, so they'll be able to take advantage of it more. And by then the price will have dropped, too.

So I think that the Wii is probably the best deal of all three. But I'm no gamer these days... Most of the games I play are old SNES games and other old system games (N64, older PC games, megadrive, etc) that I run in emulators or so on. I would only buy a Wii if THE MOST AMAZING GAME IN THE WORLD was made for it, or something. So I probably won't get any of these systems for several years, if at all.

[Peepsalot]

So you are upset because you think a company is making a profit on their product? Cry me a river. :rolleyes:

[steven8]

I cannot afford any new system right now, but when I can. . .it will be the Wii. With three young boys, I like the fact that Nintendo has a greater number of games well suited to younger players. My boys are in playing the Disney Cars game on the gamecube right now. PS3 and the X-Box are more for the hardcore teenage+ gamers. I like the more family friendly Nintendo products.

[joker]

I played the Wii at a local gameshop and I will be buying one when they are widely available. The motion control worked extremely well. I think the graphics are good enough, but I also love playing old arcade games in MAME, so graphics are just not very important to me. I commend Nintendo for creating something different.

[Kittie Rose]

Nintendo could afford to sell the Gamecube for $200, which I doubt was at much of a profit. While they may not be able to afford a loss, they could certainly sell it for the amount it's actually worth.

Also, Nintendo are in a better position than you think; they've made a lot of money off the DS and GBA and are the only company that truly profits from the industry. I'd say they could afford a minor loss.


I would only buy a Wii if THE MOST AMAZING GAME IN THE WORLD was made for it, or something.

Actually, Zelda: Twlight Princess probably is. It's gotten incredibly good reviews and ratings. If you liked OoT, this is even better, though I don't think it will be remembered quite as well.
It's the reason I'm not waiting for the price to come down, I can't wait to play it.

Not to mention that Sonic and the Secret Rings is the first good Sonic game in years... it could be worth checking it out for that. Smash Bros. Brawl too... there might not be "THE MOST AMAZING GAME EVER" but there are at least 4 or 5 games that look to come very, very close.

There's no doubt the games on Wii are incredible. It's just that the hardware really shouldn't cost as much as it does, especially in Europe.

On Sonic, I hear the new game is terrible. It seems to be going to the extreme of "written by a fangirl". Whereas Wildfire is very much a return to form. I wonder are they making the two so drastically different to decide what direction to go in? I hope Wildfire wins out. While I really love Epic Sonic games like Sonic Adventure, they really haven't been able to get that right as of late.

[Kittie Rose]

So you are upset because you think a company is making a profit on their product? Cry me a river. :rolleyes:

What a ridiculous post. I can't stand anyone who thinks WHINE WHINE WHINE YOU ARE WHINING CRY ME A RIVER WHINING IS BAD is anything resembling a good argument. You sound bloody pathetic, like some conservative old grandfather complaining about a child being able to afford their own chocolate.

I have every right to complain. Everyone should have a right to complain about just about anything, it's called freedom of opinion. I don't see how WHINING IS BAD is a very logically backed opinion, however; it is just an immature attempt to undermime someone else's. Stop it.
There is nothing wrong with complaining. There is something wrong with overcharging for a product when the competition is undercharging.

[prizrak]

Nintendo could afford to sell the Gamecube for $200, which I doubt was at much of a profit. While they may not be able to afford a loss, they could certainly sell it for the amount it's actually worth.

Also, Nintendo are in a better position than you think; they've made a lot of money off the DS and GBA and are the only company that truly profits from the industry. I'd say they could afford a minor loss.
Two points
1) MS is not incurring a loss on the 360. They make about $30 a console.
2) It's all about the market forces. The 360 is $400 (don't even mention the core, it lacks too much to be useful as a game console), PS3 is $600 (same issue with the cheaper version as 360 but even then it's $500) and the Wii is $250. Sure it may not cost as much to create but compared to other ones it is very cheap. Also consider that both 360 and PS3 require an HDTV to really see any kind of difference in graphics quality so add another $600 on the price of either of them.

Also you are concentrating on hardware costs, what about software? The OS on it has to be pretty sophisticated to deal with motion tracking, especially when there are 4 controllers involved. There is also the emulator part of the console that allows you to play all the older games from other generations. You are also forgetting the money that went into promotion and marketing. It's quite expensive to organize all of the events that they do for new launches. There are logistics costs involved in shipping the units, there are warranty costs that have already been incurred with the update bricking the systems. There are many costs involved beyond simple R&D and production and considering the prices of the competition the Wii is very well priced.

[civilian]

Nintendo never went for top notch graphics, they put more emphasis on the gameplay (the only that still does). It is one of the few companies that remains the same after all this time, they keep on bringing new things to the world of gaming, who didn't play mario when he was a kid. If they weren't so innovative then why would Sony copy their controller system (the axis system)? True they will probably never be the leaders in the market because the average joe will want to take advantage of his 300000' lcd flat mega home theater than he was sold. Now he will be taking really high mensualities and barely getting by but he will be able to impress his friends with all the cool graphics on his HUGE tv, its a way to see it. Nintendo brings to you the average, innovative gaming that will not blow your head off but make you enjoy gaming the way it was meant to be.

[Kittie Rose]

Actually, the $500 version of the PS3 is just fine from what I hear.


1) MS is not incurring a loss on the 360. They make about $30 a console.

Not at first they weren't - they were loosing about $50 at least. I'd like to see a source for that though. I know they were redesigning it to be cheaper but I don't know when that was/will be implemented.

[prizrak]

Actually, the $500 version of the PS3 is just fine from what I hear.

Except that it doesn't have an HDMI out (at the very least), which makes it at least useless for BD-DVD playback. One of the features that was highly tauted by Sony.



Not at first they weren't - they were loosing about $50 at least. I'd like to see a source for that though. I know they were redesigning it to be cheaper but I don't know when that was/will be implemented.
At first they didn't but now they do and the price is still the same. http://www.fcenter.ru/online.shtml?hardnews/2006/11/21#material_id=19648
The article itself is in Russian but the chart is from iSupply and is quite readable.

[raublekick]

Then they shouldn't be charging a price for the console that suggests it has the power to make it so.

I'm sorry, what? The console is capable of better graphics than the Gamecube, but not as much as the 360. The PS2 wasn't even nearly as capable as the GameCube or XBox, but Sony still sold it for just as much. The Wii is $150 less than the 360 and $350 less than the PS3. Their pricing is not based on graphics power and does not suggest anything.

[Ubunted]

I was going a little nuts not being able to get a Wii, so I bought myself a DS Lite, Brain Age, Mario Kart and Super Mario 64. $300 for the system and 3 games, where the Wii alone would run me $280. And I am quite happy with it. I didn't realize there actually aren't that many really great games until a few days after, but I'm sure as more game companies drop the GBA and move to DS there will be more.

Thinking of picking up Metroid Prime Hunters, MechAssault or Star Trek: Tactical Assault. Any opinions? I'm not a fan of RPGs, so Final Fantasy doesn't really appeal to me.

[zachtib]

I'm interested in it, but the graphics are really terrible. PS3 and 360 aren't anything too amazing for the most part, but a lot of Wii games really do look dreadful.

Someone may have said this already, but I have to point this out.

I almost prefer bad graphics to good graphics. When the graphics are bad, developers have to create a good game to make up for it. I still love loads of NES/SNES/N64 games even though their graphics are absolutely terrible compared to what is possible today.

It's important to remember that Nintendo is really doing some innovation with this console, while Sony and Microsoft are just pushing out a more powerful version of their old console.

Next, the Wii hardware is very similar to the Gamecube's hardware, which I believe is what allows for the backwards-compatibility of Gamecube games (I don't think the Wii could handle emulating the GC's hardware). Just look at the specs of the systems on Wikipedia, off the top of my head, here's a few numbers:

Xbox 360: Triple (3) Core 3.2GHz PowerPC CPU
Playstation 3: IBM's "Cell" processor: One master PPC core and eight 'slave' cores all running at 3.2GHz
Wii: Single core PowerPC @ ~800MHz

So, it's really not that hard to see why the Wii may not look as nice as the other two consoles.

Here's a few more numbers from Wikipedia on the Wii:

Nintendo Wii:
729MHz PowerPC CPU, 88MB RAM
243MHZ ATI GPU, 3MB GPU Mem

yep, those numbers are right. The Wii only has 3 megabytes of video RAM

[zachtib]

I was going a little nuts not being able to get a Wii, so I bought myself a DS Lite, Brain Age, Mario Kart and Super Mario 64. $300 for the system and 3 games, where the Wii alone would run me $280. And I am quite happy with it. I didn't realize there actually aren't that many really great games until a few days after, but I'm sure as more game companies drop the GBA and move to DS there will be more.

Thinking of picking up Metroid Prime Hunters, MechAssault or Star Trek: Tactical Assault. Any opinions? I'm not a fan of RPGs, so Final Fantasy doesn't really appeal to me.

I've got a DS lite as well, and love it.

Metroid Prime Hunters is a pretty neat game, and for anyone that plays and FPS on PC, the controls are fairly intuitive. As for other games, it depends on what genre's you like. Advance Wars on the DS is pretty cool (My brother has a DS and a ton of games that I borrow at my leisure). I'm also excited about the new Castlevania game, but that's really an RPG, so you may not be interested.

Here's hoping for a DS port of Ocarina of Time, though :D

[Peepsalot]

What a ridiculous post. I can't stand anyone who thinks WHINE WHINE WHINE YOU ARE WHINING CRY ME A RIVER WHINING IS BAD is anything resembling a good argument. You sound bloody pathetic, like some conservative old grandfather complaining about a child being able to afford their own chocolate.

I have every right to complain. Everyone should have a right to complain about just about anything, it's called freedom of opinion. I don't see how WHINING IS BAD is a very logically backed opinion, however; it is just an immature attempt to undermime someone else's. Stop it.
There is nothing wrong with complaining. There is something wrong with overcharging for a product when the competition is undercharging.
My point is I completely disagree with your last sentence there. Just because the competition is doing one thing, doesn't mean it's wrong to go another way. A company has a right to sell their products for a profit, and consumers have a right to choose not to buy from them. If their pricing is unfair, then the consumer will not buy it and the company loses. However, there are enough people that feel the Wii is worth it's price tag. To be angry at a company for not selling their product at a loss(presumably) is simply ridiculous.

By they way, you seem very sure that the console is not worth it's price, but do you have any facts on exactly what it costs Nintendo to produce the Wii? I'd be genuinely interested in seeing this.

[raublekick]

This thread has been captured by WHINERS. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue this thread?

[Peepsalot]

This thread has been captured by WHINERS. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue this thread?
lol, ;)

[Brunellus]

That's extremely flawed reasoning. I could easily have been offered the same goods at a more appropriate price, but they chose not to. I have every right to complain about that. I am a huge supporter of Nintendo, I bought the DS and was psyched for the Wii for months and defended it viciously. Now I feel like I have been let down as a fan.
Then hit them where it hurts--in the pocketbook.

Nobody owes you anything until you plonk down your money. The hardware is either acceptable to buy at the price or it isn't. If it isn't now, then that's too bad for both parties--no sale is concluded.

Again, the wii isn't worth my money *now*--but that doesn't mean that if the price should change, or if something should make me want it more than I do now, that I wouldn't consider buying it then.

When it's all said and done, it's really about how much you want something--how much you demand it. I don't want a PS3 so much as to want to pay what they're asking for. I want a wii almost as much as they want me to pay. Nintendo is a lot closer to selling something to me than is Sony.

Great gaming houses have collapsed because they didn't supply what the market wanted at the right moment. The Dreamcast was a nice platform--where is it now? Atari leapfrogged everybody, offering the Jaguar, which should have blown its 16-bit competitors out of the water. Nothing's left of Atari but the name, which was bought by the studio formerly known as Infogrames.

Nintendo have hung on in the console business--like apple in PCs--because they've managed to find their niche and survive there. Nintendo fanbois, for all their politeness relative to Sony or Microsoft partisans, tend to be fanatically loyal. Nintendo's GameCube, widely perceived as a total failure in the gaming press, was a financial success for the company. Their portable game unit continues to be dominant, even in the face of a challenge from the PSP.

The market, not the fanboi press, will determine the eventual success or failure of these consoles.

[lyceum]

Wii is the first game system my wife thinks is cool. That means I will own one. Can't wait to check out Zelda!!!

[Cyraxzz]

It appears the other consoles of this generation are focused on graphics, which is juts simply a bad field to be focused on if you intend to make decent games. Wii's graphics seem a bit better than the first Xbox, but it's games and controls is far superior to XBOX 360 and PS 3.

[jpeddicord]

I camped out for a Wii and I'm loving it, except for the fact that the WiFi stopped working after the first firmware update. Now all I get is Error 52230. I tried static IP, DMZ, no firewall, channel changes, and even a different router, but to no success.

Now it's either a problem with my connection or the Wii itself. I'm running some diagnostic tools to packet sniff the data to and from the Wii, and hopefully this will help my problem. :-p

You know what I find ironic about this graphics debate in how Sony is going for power and Nintendo isn't? The GameCube actually was better than the PS2 by a little in terms of processing power. Anyone ever seen Resident Evil on GameCube vs the PS2?

[Polygon]

bad graphics? geez louise the graphics are fine. so what if there are not as good as the ps3... in a year the computer will surpass the ps3 anyway. Id rather get a good game that is fun and has decent graphics then a horrible game but has top of the line graphics

example of cod3 on the wii. the graphics are SOOOO terrible :rolleyes:

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/746/746145/call-of-duty-3-20061115000006621-000.jpg

and by the way, speaking of fun...

CALL OF DUTY 3 SUCKS

there is this one part where a guy melees you and you have to get into a fight with him. Comibned with the fact that they expect you to read instructions and follow diagrams that are shown for .25 of a second is really retarded. I have tried that part 30 times now nad i have failed everytime. Jesus christ, that just ruined the game for me.

[Dual Cortex]

I'll laugh when Wii emus on Linux are available (and the RSX is fully supported). Well, maybe the cell isn't that powerful.

And what keeps Sony/etc. from developing something similar to the Wii's controller that doesn't infrige Nintendo's patents and being able to use it through USB and, for example, some tennis game!

[Johnsie]

This sounds good:


In addition to new titles, Nintendo is making the greatest video game archive in history available for download to its Virtual Console. NES games start at 500 Wii Points, Super NES games start at 800 Wii Points and Nintendo 64 games start at 1,000 Wii Points. Sega Genesis games start at 800 Wii Points and TurboGrafx16 games start at 600 Wii Points. Wii Points can be purchased online or at retail at an MSRP of $20 for 2,000 points. Additional hardware accessories, such as the Classic Controller, may be required to play Virtual Console games and are sold separately. The titles listed below will be available before the end of December.

Of course you can always get emulators for the PC for free but I'd enjoy playing old console games again on a console and TV too.

Here's a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It4HBCI67A4


And here's a good metaphorical comparation of the wii and the ps3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giiCPKQn6M0

[raublekick]

I camped out for a Wii and I'm loving it, except for the fact that the WiFi stopped working after the first firmware update. Now all I get is Error 52230. I tried static IP, DMZ, no firewall, channel changes, and even a different router, but to no success.

Now it's either a problem with my connection or the Wii itself. I'm running some diagnostic tools to packet sniff the data to and from the Wii, and hopefully this will help my problem. :-p

You know what I find ironic about this graphics debate in how Sony is going for power and Nintendo isn't? The GameCube actually was better than the PS2 by a little in terms of processing power. Anyone ever seen Resident Evil on GameCube vs the PS2?


you will probably have to send your Wii back to Nintendo, and they will send you a new one. i know people who have done this and it is a smooth process. they send you one and provide a box to send yours back in, and it's all free. you just lose your saves, but if you have an sd card you can back them up.

[mrgnash]

bad graphics? geez louise the graphics are fine. so what if there are not as good as the ps3... in a year the computer will surpass the ps3 anyway. Id rather get a good game that is fun and has decent graphics then a horrible game but has top of the line graphics

Why do people keep making the assumption that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive?

Ninja Gaiden had some of the best visuals AND the best gameplay on the 360... RE4 and Metroid Prime were beautiful and immensely playable, Elder Scrolls III (in its time) and IV both meshed jaw-dropping graphics with incredibly deep and unconstrained gameplay.

So... it's NOT unreasonable to expect modern games to have both.

[daynah]

Frankly, I'm tired of this race we have going on to get better graphics, faster speeds or... whatever. If I wanted a computer, I would buy a computer. And better graphics ect. give the video game makers something to work with, yeah... but not a lot. They have the same basic palette as they did last gen. Same controllers, great graphics...

Wii is going to force game makers to be more creative. And some awful games are going to come out of that while people figure out the best way to utilize that wimote (is that how you spell it?). But if we just stick with the same palette, we're just going to go stagnant.

We have 5 senses. I don't want smells or food coming from my gaming system at anytime, but why are we only concentrating on 1 or 2 (sight and sound) for our systems? What about touch? That's what it's for :)

[Polygon]

So... it's NOT unreasonable to expect modern games to have both.

but it is unreasonable to completly dismiss the wii and all of its games just because the hardware inside the wii is much much weaker then the ps3/360. Even with its hardware, twilight princess and call of duty 3 still look awesome.

[mips]

I've never owned a Nintendo but would take great/fun gameplay over specs any day.

Specifications don't always win the race either, lot has to do with hype/marketing. Just look at Betamax vs VHS...

[pmj]

Also consider that both 360 and PS3 require an HDTV to really see any kind of difference in graphics quality so add another $600 on the price of either of them.

This is ********. Here is an experiment that might help you understand why:

1: Start Quake 1 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
2: Start Quake 4 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
3: Examine the two pictures closely. You'll notice that Quake 4 looks better. A lot. Very much a lot. Lots lots.

More processing power doesn't just give us shinier graphics, either. It's what gives us larger and more interactive worlds, more objects, more characters, more interaction, more detail. We'll get some amazing advancements in the coming years, especially, I believe, in the areas of physics and character animation. PS3 and 360, as well as the PC of course, are going to see games that simply weren't possible before.

But the Wii just isn't up to the task. On the Wii, we will play today's games, controlled a bit differently. Not that it's anything wrong with that, of course. Old games can be fun too. I'd probably buy one if only I had a TV, but mostly just because I don't want to give any of my money to either Sony or Microsoft.

[prizrak]

This is ********. Here is an experiment that might help you understand why:

1: Start Quake 1 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
2: Start Quake 4 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
3: Examine the two pictures closely. You'll notice that Quake 4 looks better. A lot. Very much a lot. Lots lots.

More processing power doesn't just give us shinier graphics, either. It's what gives us larger and more interactive worlds, more objects, more characters, more interaction, more detail. We'll get some amazing advancements in the coming years, especially, I believe, in the areas of physics and character animation. PS3 and 360, as well as the PC of course, are going to see games that simply weren't possible before.

But the Wii just isn't up to the task. On the Wii, we will play today's games, controlled a bit differently. Not that it's anything wrong with that, of course. Old games can be fun too. I'd probably buy one if only I had a TV, but mostly just because I don't want to give any of my money to either Sony or Microsoft.
Do me [yourself] a favor, look up reviews for PS3 and 360. Notice what just about any review has to say about both the PS3 and the 360. I'll save you time, they all say that you need an HDTV to really see much difference. Don't confuse computers and TV's, even a D-SUB interface can handle alot more detail than your normal Composite/Coax for the TV. Even then I have seen what an LCD picture looks like over D-SUB and what it looks like over DVI with the same card and monitor the difference is obvious and well visible even while rendering nothing more than the desktop.

[holylucifer]

Well if the ps3 gets blown out of the water due to its high price, game price(by wii,and mostly xbox 360 i think), etc and if sony gets pissed of, i would say to sony, invest in Linux , INVEST IN LINUX :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Make it easyer and free,to get on Ms nerves, hey, sony,invest in that to make it a far better alternative then linux is now, and keep it free,just to hurt microsofts windows platform, yes SONY go for it sony,just to hurt microsofts profits. :twisted: .

[raublekick]

This is ********. Here is an experiment that might help you understand why:

1: Start Quake 1 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
2: Start Quake 4 in 640x480 and take a screenshot.
3: Examine the two pictures closely. You'll notice that Quake 4 looks better. A lot. Very much a lot. Lots lots.

More processing power doesn't just give us shinier graphics, either. It's what gives us larger and more interactive worlds, more objects, more characters, more interaction, more detail. We'll get some amazing advancements in the coming years, especially, I believe, in the areas of physics and character animation. PS3 and 360, as well as the PC of course, are going to see games that simply weren't possible before.

But the Wii just isn't up to the task. On the Wii, we will play today's games, controlled a bit differently. Not that it's anything wrong with that, of course. Old games can be fun too. I'd probably buy one if only I had a TV, but mostly just because I don't want to give any of my money to either Sony or Microsoft.

I agree that stuff like physics cards and even just raw processing power will make new things possible. But what new things? Really I just predict the same drive to make things more realistic. Truly realistic physics and graphics are not possible today, but maybe will be tomorrow. But what games will we be playing then? FPS's and GTA games with more realistic physics and graphics? No thanks. Graphics add subtlties to games. New control schemes add huge changes to games.

[prizrak]

To those of you who think that graphics make for more immersive game play, you are mistaken. Controls are the important part of the experience. Consider racing games, they are fun but fairly unrealistic when played on a game pad or a keyboard. It is actually quite a bit easier to play on those. Now hook up a steering wheel to something even as unrealistic as Need For Speed and see how much difference it makes. I have done things in real cars that I learned behind an electronic wheel. Playing tennis is alot more fun when you can swing your arm, shooting something is both easier and more satisfying when you can aim at them instead of moving your thumb, and swordfighting just goes without saying. The Wii is at least attempting to do something different. Sure they may fail miserably but they are trying. Sony and MS put out what is basically a high powered PC with a TV out and a pad instead of a keyboard and are just increasing visual appeal of the games. Basically they are doing the same thing that has been done since the original NES, just with more pixels.

[Kittie Rose]

bad graphics? geez louise the graphics are fine. so what if there are not as good as the ps3...

They're barely as good as the original Xbox in many cases.


in a year the computer will surpass the ps3 anyway.

... making the Wii look even worse. It's not as simply as not "relying" on the graphics. They will always be there to be judged.

Also consider that both 360 and PS3 require an HDTV to really see any kind of difference in graphics quality so add another $600 on the price of either of them.

This is rubbish, and I'll use an even better reason than PMJ as the differences between Quake 1 and 4 are always going to be significant.

Non-HDTV graphics will NEVER reach their peak until they pass for DVD quality. How on earth does resolution apply differently for games? Yet I still hear people saying that what Nintendo are doing with the Wii is squeezing as much graphical glamour out of a standard fuzzy little TV as they can. What rubbish.

I've seen a 360 running - the difference is VERY noticable. I've seen fullscreen high res screenshots, and in all honesty, I think something looks more "solid" about the low res one - you notice flaws less, and in high resolutions a lot of games start to look like they're made from paper.


http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/ar...006621-000.jpg

Err, that's sort of GC quality at best...


but it is unreasonable to completly dismiss the wii and all of its games just because the hardware inside the wii is much much weaker then the ps3/360. Even with its hardware, twilight princess and call of duty 3 still look awesome.

Nobody's doing that. I most certainly am eagerly awaiting my Wii next friday. However, I'm also aware that I'm being ripped off. I would have no problem with slightly-better-than-GC graphics if they were charging a price that suggested that.

Nobody is saying Graphics are what you judge a console by. You are not listening.

[daybreaker]

Top complaints I hear:

The controllers are a gimmick.
-Have you actually played a Wii yet? I own one. The controllers are not a gimmick. Games that utilize the controller effectively are incredibly immersive. Actually using the controller as a fishing rod, or a baseball bat, or a gun are only going to make the Wii's games much more fun. Because what you rather do to hit a tennis ball? Press x, or actually swing a racket and hit it? Would you rather move a clunky analog stick and press Z to shoot, or actually aim at something, and pull a trigger? Nuff said.

The graphics are bad.
-Some guy pulled out a reference to pop-up books and great authors, saying great authoers didnt need pop-up books to write compelling stories... Somehow that guy thought this was a slam on the Wii controllers, but the analogy is actually a lot more suited to slam games that only care about graphics. Because the key to a fun game isnt graphic quality. It's gameplay. So who cares if the Wii's graphics arent the best? Nintendo puts out qulaity games.

It's expensive for what you get.
-Uh, what? Last time I checked its the cheapest system, as well as the one with the best launch line-up.


That said, I own a Wii, and it rocks. Zelda is amazing. Wii Sports is shallow, but fun. I cant wait for games like Tiger Woods, MVP 08, and Madden 08, because of the possibilities with the controller. The controller is not a gimmick, and it feels completely natural once you use it. I hope Lucas Arts releases a Lightsaber dueling game, because that would be amazing. Smash Bros will be awesome.

I think people who are dissing the Wii are either sony or MS fanboys who cant admit that there might actually be more than one system thats fun. It is possible, you know.

[raublekick]

Kittie Rose, I still fail to see how a price tag that is less then half the price of a competitors product is a rip off and suggests that it will be as good as that competitor. If it costs $600 to play games with PS3 graphics, then $250 should get you graphics that half of that quality, which I believe the Wii provides. Just because the PS3 and 360 hardware are so robust doesn't mean that developers are utilizing them. The PS3 especially is difficult to develop for, so squeezing every bit of power from it is going to be hard. However, the Wii (and GameCube) are relatively easy to develop for, thus games like Zelda and RE4 that even at the end of the GameCube's life still step it up a notch. Notice how with the PS2 there wasn't really much that pulled out any surprises near the end? Nintendo consoles generally continue to advance graphically throughout their lifecylce while the Playstation line generally tends to reach a limit somewhere midway and then stagnate. Sony also wants the PS3 to last a decade. So if they don't find ways to make games look better and better on it, they are gonna be SOL when Microsoft and Nintendo come out with their next generation.

[peak_performance]

I was going a little nuts not being able to get a Wii, so I bought myself a DS Lite, Brain Age, Mario Kart and Super Mario 64. $300 for the system and 3 games, where the Wii alone would run me $280. And I am quite happy with it. I didn't realize there actually aren't that many really great games until a few days after, but I'm sure as more game companies drop the GBA and move to DS there will be more.

Thinking of picking up Metroid Prime Hunters, MechAssault or Star Trek: Tactical Assault. Any opinions? I'm not a fan of RPGs, so Final Fantasy doesn't really appeal to me.

Advance Wars is a must-have if you like strategy games. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attourney is probably one of the best games I've played, so make sure you try to pick it up if you can find it. Though that will be difficult since they're sold out :P Of course, you can import the japanese version from Play-Asia for about 30$ if I remember correctly, and it has english language as selectabe as well :)

I haven't played Elite Beat Agents yet, but I have played the original: Ouendan. It's one hell of a fun game and if the US port is as good as I hear that's also a game you have to pick up. Don't be scared by the cartoon looks, it's just pure fun playing it. Oh yeah, it's a music game, just so you know ;)

[mips]

The more i look at the Wii the more I like it. I've only ever brought one console in my life and it was a secondhand ps1.

Maybe i should buy a Wii, seems like it will make for good/fun gameplay.

[PatrickMay16]

Alright, that settles it. The Wii is definitely very well priced, and it is worth every penny.
No doubt, it is the best deal of all the consoles.

[prizrak]

The only other console I would get would be a slim PS2, just so I can play Grand Turismo 4 with the GT wheel (turns 900 degrees like a normal car wheel).

Kittie Rose,
If you feel like you are being ripped with the Wii, don't get one. Also consider this, the absolute flagship game for the PS3 - Grand Turismo will be releases in two versions. One will be a game disc that contains no more than the graphics engine and an online interface. You will have to buy cars and tracks online to play, the other version (more expensive of course) will have a certain number of tracks/cars included (nowhere near what GT4 has) and you will have to buy additional tracks/cars online. According to what Sony stated a full Grand Turismo game can go anywhere between $600 and $900. Xbox 360 is doing the same kind of thing from what I hear.

Guess who is not doing it...

[Johnsie]

I think we should wait until we can play all three until we decide which one is the most fun to play. Rushing into new consoles that have hardly any games released is not a good way of judging consoles.

[mips]

Kittie Rose,
If you feel like you are being ripped with the Wii, don't get one.

Amen.

[Jiraiya_sama]

I've got the wii, and I have to warn you, it is one of the most addictive things ever, even at launch. most launch consoles quickly wear themselves out after a couple of days to a week, but I've been playing the wii almost non-stop (my wii logs an average of 16 hours of play a day) and I still haven't got bored of it. this is a week and a half after its launch too mind you.

[Zweih]

The Wii is tailored for gamers who wish to do that with their console - it's strictly a gaming device first and foremost. Graphics are a non-issue, or should be at least. As long as you're having fun, who gives a flying **** about the visuals? I sure don't. The games look pretty spectacular already, with roughly twice the power of a Gamecube in a sleek, sexy design. Gamecube's visuals are very good in their own right; Metroid Prime and Resident Evil 4 are great testimonies to that claim. So I doubt that the Wii's graphics are at all bad.

[weatherman]

I've got the wii, and I have to warn you, it is one of the most addictive things ever, even at launch. most launch consoles quickly wear themselves out after a couple of days to a week, but I've been playing the wii almost non-stop (my wii logs an average of 16 hours of play a day) and I still haven't got bored of it. this is a week and a half after its launch too mind you.
man that not very healthy :)

[mrgnash]

but it is unreasonable to completly dismiss the wii and all of its games just because the hardware inside the wii is much much weaker then the ps3/360. Even with its hardware, twilight princess and call of duty 3 still look awesome.

That's not the only reason. The games don't interest me either, if they did I MIGHT be prepared to look past the god-awful graphics (which after seeing a store demo of Twilight Princess I still contend that it has). I've dismissed the 360 and PS3 for the same reason, despite their graphical muscle; and if it wasn't for games like Oblivion and NWN2, and the fact that I already have a high-performance PC, then I'd 'dismiss' PC gaming as well.

My point was simply this: the Wii does not cut the mustard hardware-wise, and that hardware (translating into graphical performance) is a crucial part of delivering an immersive experience -- which is something I prioritise over flailing my arms about at the screen.

[Brunellus]

That's not the only reason. The games don't interest me either, if they did I MIGHT be prepared to look past the god-awful graphics (which after seeing a store demo of Twilight Princess I still contend that it has). I've dismissed the 360 and PS3 for the same reason, despite their graphical muscle; and if it wasn't for games like Oblivion and NWN2, and the fact that I already have a high-performance PC, then I'd 'dismiss' PC gaming as well.

My point was simply this: the Wii does not cut the mustard hardware-wise, and that hardware (translating into graphical performance) is a crucial part of delivering an immersive experience -- which is something I prioritise over flailing my arms about at the screen.
Then there is no pleasing you.

This will go nowhere. Hardware junkies will continue to blame Nintendo for not giving them the graphics power they deserve. Nintendo partisans will continue to contend that the graphics don't mean as much to them as the novelty.

It's a big marketplace; let the buyers buy what they want.

If Ubuntu weren't installable (theoretically) on the Xbox360 and the PS3, then I'd even say this thread were tiresomely far from our usual cluster of topics.

[super breadfish]

I look forward to getting my hands on a Wii. I no longer go for graphics, I don't really care to be honest. I want something fun, and for immersion nothing beats a good book. Game designers too often put polygons in front of good old storytelling. That's what made games like FFVII so amazing, not the graphics, even if they were shiny in their day.

Though music and Linux (:D ) is occupying me just fine for now so it will be a while before I open my wallet.

[joker]

I've got the wii, and I have to warn you, it is one of the most addictive things ever, even at launch. most launch consoles quickly wear themselves out after a couple of days to a week, but I've been playing the wii almost non-stop (my wii logs an average of 16 hours of play a day) and I still haven't got bored of it. this is a week and a half after its launch too mind you.


man that not very healthy :)

Actually, it probibly is. 16 hours of active arm flailing sounds like great excercise.

[raublekick]

Graphics only affect immersion IFF realistic graphics are the only way to be immersive. Wind Waker doesn't really have amazing graphics, but it hides that in its style and is really immersive as a result. Thus, high end hardware is not a requirement for immersive games. New control schemes are a possible immersion factor, and a good one at that. Give us a new way to get into the game. So far it's worked reall well for the Wii, at least for me.

[prizrak]

That's not the only reason. The games don't interest me either, if they did I MIGHT be prepared to look past the god-awful graphics (which after seeing a store demo of Twilight Princess I still contend that it has). I've dismissed the 360 and PS3 for the same reason, despite their graphical muscle; and if it wasn't for games like Oblivion and NWN2, and the fact that I already have a high-performance PC, then I'd 'dismiss' PC gaming as well.

My point was simply this: the Wii does not cut the mustard hardware-wise, and that hardware (translating into graphical performance) is a crucial part of delivering an immersive experience -- which is something I prioritise over flailing my arms about at the screen.

Not sure if you are into something like that, but the Wing Commander games were among the most immersive and hard to put down games I ever played. The last one came out in 2000 or so, as you can imagine the graphics weren't all that great yet it was hugely immersive. The key to that particular game series were the awesome cut scenes. In the older ones they were done with the game engine and in the later ones they used movies. Plain, old movies. When PS3/360 can do cut scenes that are as realistic as those 6 year old movies (that the Wii won't have a problem doing btw) then you can claim an immersive experience.

Also what is more realistic?
Pressing buttons to swing a sword or actually swinging something around to do the same?

[Kittie Rose]

Amen.

How will not buying one solve anything?

I think a lot of things are overpriced. I think Transformers are ******* overpriced but I still love collecting them. Should I not do that either because I think they're overpriced?

No, I would have to give up a much favoured hobby. Though I believe it is overpriced, there is no real alternative that fulfills that need. The Wii is much the same. All you're doing is trying to brush away a valid gripe for no good reason. I am a Nintendo fan but do not hesitate to criticise them. For instance, I think DS games are still overpriced and that it was silly not including texture filtering. The "NES CLASSICS" were nothing short of a rip off.


Hardware junkies will continue to blame Nintendo for not giving them the graphics power they deserve.

Not giving them the HARDWARE they deserve. Gameplay comes from the games. When I pay for a console, I pay for hardware. The Wii does not have very strong hardware if the best it can do is "slightly above gamecube level".


Kittie Rose, I still fail to see how a price tag that is less then half the price of a competitors product is a rip off and suggests that it will be as good as that competitor. If it costs $600 to play games with PS3 graphics, then $250 should get you graphics that half of that quality, which I believe the Wii provides.

But the Gamecube was released for $200 and it offered, relatively, the best graphical experience of it's generation, tied with the X-box. Nintendo are charging more for less. The Xbox and PS3 cost so much because they're bloated pieces of crap that throw in all kinds of unoptimised hardware. Nintendo can make hardware for very cheap in comparison.

Why do you not understand this? The Gamecube costed less when it came out, and relative to it's competition, offered better graphics. Being $200 it way outperformed the $300 PS2. Why have Nintendo gone from "Best bang for buck" to worst?

See, the problem is you THINK you're getting the best deal because that's how Nintendo's clever marketing has spun it. But if you think for one second about how much cheaper the Gamecube was when it came out, then you might see where I'm coming from.

[Brunellus]

Watch your asterisks.

[Polygon]

lo and behold: god awful graphics.

http://media.insidegamer.nl/screenshots/public/2172/49469.jpg

http://www.hyrule.net/gallery/13._Twilight_Princess/Screenshots/june_1.jpg

http://www.journaldugamer.com/images/2006_07/cod3_03.jpg

i love people who count squares to compare graphics... if you want to compare polycounts go stare at a wireframe model of something, the rest of us will enjoy the game for what it is.

[raublekick]

Kittie Rose, I AM getting the best deal. I am not looking for graphics horsepower, I am looking for hardware that offers a fun new way to play games and a platform that developers will have fun developing for. Neither the PS3 or the XBOX360 can provide that for me. I am a gamer, I have been a gamer for 18 years. As a gamer, I get a new console every generation. Not only does the Wii offer something super fun, but it offers it at almost half the price of its biggest competetor. If all the consoles were sold at $600, or $250 for that matter, it might be different. But since the PS3 only offers better graphics for sequels to games that I am sick of playing and only a handful of exclusives that are worth playing, it is no deal no matter what the price. Remember though, graphics power is only one subset of the total hardware you are paying for. The Wii has hardware that allows for some nice new gameplay ideas. No other console is going to have games like the Wii, good or bad, and thus it is a unique experience. A unique experience for less than half the price of its competetors.


Polygon, OMG those ugly graphx make me barf!

[prizrak]

How will not buying one solve anything?

I think a lot of things are overpriced. I think Transformers are ******* overpriced but I still love collecting them. Should I not do that either because I think they're overpriced?

No, I would have to give up a much favoured hobby. Though I believe it is overpriced, there is no real alternative that fulfills that need. The Wii is much the same. All you're doing is trying to brush away a valid gripe for no good reason. I am a Nintendo fan but do not hesitate to criticise them. For instance, I think DS games are still overpriced and that it was silly not including texture filtering. The "NES CLASSICS" were nothing short of a rip off.



Not giving them the HARDWARE they deserve. Gameplay comes from the games. When I pay for a console, I pay for hardware. The Wii does not have very strong hardware if the best it can do is "slightly above gamecube level".



But the Gamecube was released for $200 and it offered, relatively, the best graphical experience of it's generation, tied with the X-box. Nintendo are charging more for less. The Xbox and PS3 cost so much because they're bloated pieces of crap that throw in all kinds of unoptimised hardware. Nintendo can make hardware for very cheap in comparison.

Why do you not understand this? The Gamecube costed less when it came out, and relative to it's competition, offered better graphics. Being $200 it way outperformed the $300 PS2. Why have Nintendo gone from "Best bang for buck" to worst?

See, the problem is you THINK you're getting the best deal because that's how Nintendo's clever marketing has spun it. But if you think for one second about how much cheaper the Gamecube was when it came out, then you might see where I'm coming from.
Why are you so centered on the graphics? Do you actually know how much the Wii cost to produce? Factor in the fact that it has Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Virtual console, IR sensors, motion/accelerometers, Opera (which is not free for them btw), the OS that can handle the wiimote motion detection accurately. Also factor in all the promo/marketing stuff that had to be done, logistics, deals for stores. Also think about the fact that stores need to make money so the Wii doesn't actually cost $250 when it comes out of Nintendo. Why are you so sure that Nintendo is making profit on the Wii? How do you know they are not selling it at cost or below? Until you can back your claim up you are doing nothing more than whining and have no valid point.

[Dual Cortex]

Why are you so centered on the graphics? Do you actually know how much the Wii cost to produce? Factor in the fact that it has Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Virtual console, IR sensors, motion/accelerometers, Opera (which is not free for them btw), the OS that can handle the wiimote motion detection accurately. Also factor in all the promo/marketing stuff that had to be done, logistics, deals for stores. Also think about the fact that stores need to make money so the Wii doesn't actually cost $250 when it comes out of Nintendo. Why are you so sure that Nintendo is making profit on the Wii? How do you know they are not selling it at cost or below? Until you can back your claim up you are doing nothing more than whining and have no valid point.

(not going against or with your thiking about Graphics vs. fun, just pointing out where he may have gotten his claims)
From valid sources (actually the company itself), here's one that came up on a google search:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6157690.html
Best source would be from iSupply (if Nintendo lied ](*,) ), but they still haven't dissected the Wii to(/or) make any estimates.

[calx]

No. The audio/visual output capability of hardware is more akin to the lexical breadth of a language, in that it determines the descriptive potential available to the author. A developer or author might wish recreate some observed or imagined structure, but without a sufficiently descriptive medium, his capacity to do so will be constrained.

And when you really want to involve a player in a world you have crafted, one of the crucial things you have to aim for is a suspension of disbelief. Now that can either be achieved through realistic presentation, or at least presentation which doesn't betray the fact that it is computer generated in too-obvious a way. To that end, advanced hardware becomes quite crucial.



Hrmm no, ever heard of a Haiku, the game Rogue? It's not what you've got, but what you do with it. Imagination is the key when it comes to playing make believe.

[mrgnash]

lo and behold: god awful graphics.

http://media.insidegamer.nl/screenshots/public/2172/49469.jpg

http://www.hyrule.net/gallery/13._Twilight_Princess/Screenshots/june_1.jpg

http://www.journaldugamer.com/images/2006_07/cod3_03.jpg

i love people who count squares to compare graphics... if you want to compare polycounts go stare at a wireframe model of something, the rest of us will enjoy the game for what it is.

For a guy who calls himself 'Polygon,' I'm surprised that you don't seem to be aware that people generally count polygons not 'squares,' when talking about the geometric capabilities of a certain piece of hardware or game engine.

Since no-one was doing that anyway, your invective is both juvennile and misdirected. Personally I don't pay much mind to all the technical nitty gritty, except when evaluating a new graphics card purchase -- and even then, I look more at the shader model, HDR and anti-aliasing capabilties. So for me, it really boils down to a screen comparison. You've already presented some, which would have looked great last-generation, but now that they're up against graphics like this:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8994/92491920060912screen002bl0.jpg

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8600/x06shots4jg5.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4436/obps305boc5.jpg

They don't really cut it as far as I'm concerned, and that's from a purely aesthetic perspective, regardless of how much of whatever is being pushed around. In fact, considering that they're using normal mapping and other shading techniques to create the appearance of curved surfaces on the models in these games, it's possible they have less polygons (or 'squares' in your terminology), than does Twilight Princess. Dunno, don't care, they just look better.


Graphics only affect immersion IFF realistic graphics are the only way to be immersive.

Untrue. I described the importance of a 'suspension of disbelief' in an earlier post, and graphics are one way of achieving that. They don't have to be 'realistic'; you could be making a Simpsons games, and not necessarily aiming for realism, but the better your graphics are, the more they will resemble what you are trying to (re)create. If on the other hand, your representation of the cast consists of amorphous yellow pixelated blobs which beep out poorly sampled bits of dialogue, then you're not going to achieve nearly the same level of a suspension of disbelief and therefore immersiveness.


Not sure if you are into something like that, but the Wing Commander games were among the most immersive and hard to put down games I ever played. The last one came out in 2000 or so, as you can imagine the graphics weren't all that great yet it was hugely immersive. The key to that particular game series were the awesome cut scenes. In the older ones they were done with the game engine and in the later ones they used movies. Plain, old movies. When PS3/360 can do cut scenes that are as realistic as those 6 year old movies (that the Wii won't have a problem doing btw) then you can claim an immersive experience.

I was into those sorts of games, yes -- and still am, but I'd make a distinction between 'immersiveness' and 'depth,' although there is some contiguity between those two factors. Regardless, that was six years ago, and things have moved on since then, just as I expect them to. A nice little update of this genre was X3: Reunion, an incredibly deep and gorgeous space/resource sim; proving that you can have both.

As for the cut-scene thing, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Any system with sufficient memory/storage devices and video playback capabilities can display pre-rendered cut-scenes, so the quality thereof depends on the pre-rendering. What the X360 and the PS3 are a lot closer to is reproducing that level of graphics in-game, whereas the Wii is still a long way off in my book.


Hrmm no, ever heard of a Haiku, the game Rogue? It's not what you've got, but what you do with it. Imagination is the key when it comes to playing make believe.

Not once have I denied the importance of imagination; in fact, I have mentioned numerous times in other posts and threads that the main reason I'm disenfranchised with gaming at the moment is a lack of imagination the part of developers. However, I do believe that imagination is best served by having the best tools at its disposal. -- Now as someone mentioned with regard to the Wii controller, it could definitely play a part in the sense of providing those tools, but I don't think it begins to compensate for the Wii's lacklustre capabilities in other areas.

[Polygon]

that was a mistake on my part, i did mean triangles

and you said that the wii had god awful graphics. you did not say anything about in comparison to any other system. Of course the graphics are much less detailed and all that compared to other systems, they cost a lot more. but the wii's graphics are not TERRIBLE. They have basically what ever other game has, a 3d engine, lighting effects, particle and physics effects and all that jazz, just not as detailed as other systems

and Nintendo knew that they weren't going to beat m$ and Sony in the hardware battle, so they went a different direction. Maybe more people will be drawn to a system with a cooler controller system then a system that costs twice as more but has pretty blood spatter. Which was a very good move i think, because a LOT of people are not willing to pay 400 /500 / 600 dollars for a console. Being the cheapest and arguably having the coolest features is a very good advantage for Nintendo

and the wii IS outselling the ps3 so far, and from this site by a good 300,000 consoles. (http://nexgenwars.com/)

[pmj]

and the wii IS outselling the ps3 so far, and from this site by a good 300,000 consoles. (http://nexgenwars.com/)

Of course it is. There are way more Wii units out there than PS3 units, and right now and for a while yet, every unit of each kind that is made will be sold quickly.

We won't know for a couple of months who the winner is, and my bet is still on the PS3.

[mips]

How will not buying one solve anything?

I think a lot of things are overpriced. I think Transformers are ******* overpriced but I still love collecting them. Should I not do that either because I think they're overpriced?


I think you are being unrealistic. If you cannot afford it then don't buy it, live within your means. With your reasoning everything should be cheap/affordable in order for you to buy it.

Fact of the matter the Wii is cheap & very affordable from the perspective of some others. They will not bat an eyelid on the price. Some parents will probably buy each of their 3 kids one this xmas.

It's all relative.

I would love to buy myself a sports car for xmas. I can afford it but just barely. But why should i have to pay 3times the price of a normal car for it. After all it only has 2 seats, has 4 wheels & a engine like any other car. I think they are trying to rip me off, they must reduce the price in order for it to be much cheaper for me. This is despite th fact that they will sells thousands of them this xmas at the current price. Why should they drop the price and lower their profit margins if people are willing to pay $xxxx for it ?

[Kittie Rose]

I think you are being unrealistic. If you cannot afford it then don't buy it, live within your means. With your reasoning everything should be cheap/affordable in order for you to buy it.I think you are being unrealistic. If you cannot afford it then don't buy it, live within your means. With your reasoning everything should be cheap/affordable in order for you to buy it.

I an afford it, it's just expensive for me. There's a difference. So as long as I can afford something companies can charge as much as they like!? What horrible logic. I can barely afford the Wii as it is.


Fact of the matter the Wii is cheap & very affordable from the perspective of some others.

Who are uneducated consumers.


It's all relative.

Err.. what? That's not an excuse for overcharging...

[daynah]

It's a business. They're -supposed- to charge more to make money. I don't think in anyway that they added too much to the name. Compared to Sony and Microsoft, the fluff is a lot, yes. That's because Sony and Microsoft aren't making any money off of the unit, they're making their money off of the games. But that's -when compared- the fluff is a lot. Looking at the wii on it's own, it's a "correct" amount to add on and profit from. Of course, so says my accountant boyfriend, he could be quite wrong. I have no idea personally.

If I had a good product, I'd make money off of it. I wouldn't go under like Sony and Microsoft and hope I'd come out on top. Also, Sony and Microsoft have other businesses than the gaming, what else does Nintendo have... they best make money off of this.

[prizrak]

(not going against or with your thiking about Graphics vs. fun, just pointing out where he may have gotten his claims)
From valid sources (actually the company itself), here's one that came up on a google search:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6157690.html
Best source would be from iSupply (if Nintendo lied ), but they still haven't dissected the Wii to(/or) make any estimates.
Thanks, at least there is some backup to his claim. I wish we could see iSupply quotes though, at least it tells us how much profit they are making.

As for the cut-scene thing, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Any system with sufficient memory/storage devices and video playback capabilities can display pre-rendered cut-scenes, so the quality thereof depends on the pre-rendering. What the X360 and the PS3 are a lot closer to is reproducing that level of graphics in-game, whereas the Wii is still a long way off in my book.
The point was that there is much more to immersion than simple graphics. In WC for one the story told with cut scenes made the game interesting, flying around in a space fighter while fun ain't exactly deep. The more recent example would be Max Payne, it didn't push graphics boundaries, they were nice but hardly HL2/Doom3 it was the overall feel of the game.

The point I was trying to make is not that you can't have both good gameplay and awesome graphics. You absolutely can, it's rare but then again truly good things usually are. The point I was making is that graphics aren't the most important part of the game, they help but they are not critical. Basically a game with great graphics will not make you overlook the fact that it's boring. However great gameplay in most cases will excuse poor graphics because you are having too much fun.

PS3/360 have huge reliance on extremely powerful hardware that will produce top notch graphics. The Wii tries to rely more on fun gameplay with it's controller than sheer power. Think of it as a high powered muscle car that can go extremely fast in a straight line (Charger) vs a slower but highly agile small car (MX-5). The MX-5 won't have a snowball's chance in hell in a drag but put them on a circuit and rules will change.


Err.. what? That's not an excuse for overcharging...
Is MS overcharging you for the 360? Consider that MS makes $30 on each $500 360 sold. Sure we are not at launch but the price is still the same. So they are making a profit on the 360 instead of lowering the price. Wii is $250 right now and Nintendo says they are making a profit, they didn't say how much but I seriously doubt it is over $50. You are paying $150 less for something that is actually innovative and saying that they overcharge.

Yes a company can charge w/e they want for their product. If you don't like the price you don't buy it. For example a 1000ft Spool of Cat5+Cramping tool and jacks is $110 (or $100 don't remember what the exact price was) a friend of mine who used to work for them and got employee discount (5% more than BestBuy pays + 8.25% tax). It came out to $5 for him, now THIS is overcharging.

Yes the GC was $200 when it came out but compare the specs and see what GC is missing. PS2 was like $250 at launch if I remember correctly, now it's $600 and you have no problem with it.....

[Sushi]

Then they shouldn't be charging a price for the console that suggests it has the power to make it so.

Huh? Wii is the cheapest of the three main consoles. It's cheaper than that crappy 360 "Core" system, which is basically un-usable out of the box (unlike the Wii). And the Wii is backwards-compatible with GameCube, so there's no shortage of games either.

Yes, I am planning to get the Wii. Xbox360 and PS3? Exact same crap as their predecessors were, just with more polygons and pixels. I knew that Sony had lost it when Kutaragi was telling the press how "PS3 has xx% more gigaflops than Xbox 360 has!". And Microsoft suffers from the same disease. I'm sorry, but I don't care one bit about gigaflops, I care about how fun the games are. And Nintendo is actually doing something different here. And for that, I commend them.

Hell, I could play Golden Axe on the Wii! There's a good enough reason to buy one!

[Sushi]

It's just a piece of junk as far as I'm concerned. The graphics are old-hat, and so are the mascots they trot out for virtually every game. Controller gimmicks, like they other slew of device gimmicks they released for the GC, don't mean a thing to me... only good games and robust hardware to provide the greatest immersion factor, really impresses me.

"who cares how fun the games are, what matters is how good the graphics looks!". Think about the controller for a second. Take your average FPS for example. How would you play that on 360 or PS3? You twiddle your thumb. How about the Wii? You would actually hold the controller like you would hold a gun. Hell, you might even mimic the reloading with the controller, as opposed to just pushing a button. Things like that can change the gameplay immensly. What Nintendo is doing is treading a new path here. What Micrsooft and sony is doing, is to offer us the exact same stuff as they offered us years ago.

I think that the people who just stare at hardware-specs and graphics are the plague of gaming these days. They are like the people who are willing to sacrifice good acting and storylines for great SFX. Who cares about gameplay, innovation and having a good time. No, those things suck. What we need is ultra-hi resolution with antialiasing, metric assload of gigaflops, loads of polygons, high dynamic range lighting... Because THAT'S how you get good games, right?

If you care about graphics, go give your money to Microsoft or Sony. But if you want something different for a change, give your money to Nintendo. And while you are staring at those specular highlights and hi-def graphics, I'm having a great time playing games on the Wii. I don't need to have ultra-realistic graphics. What I want is pure fun and good gameplay. And looking at the reviews of the Wii, it seems to deliver those two in spades.

EDIT: Think about it, really. Sony PSP vs. Nintendo DS. Looking at the specs, the PSP absolutely massacres the DS. Yet, for some reason, the DS is killing the PSP in the market. Why is that? Could it be that despite it's technological superiority, PSP simply is not as fun as DS is? Maybe, just maybe, hardware-specs are not the thing that matters in the end?

As one person in Ars Technica's forum said: "I had much more fun this past weekend trying out Wii Sports than Gears of War.". Maybe 360 and PS3 have better specs. But maybe Wii simply has games that are much more fun? Maybe the Wiimote allows us to approach games and gaming in a whole different way, something PS3 and 360 do not allow us to do. I could see my wife playing games on the Wii. I simply cannot see her having one bit fun on a PS3 or 360. I simply can't. Entertainment on the Wii is more active. on the PS3 and 360, it's more passive. You just sit and twiddle your thumbs. And many people don't see the fun in that.

[mips]

I an afford it, it's just expensive for me. There's a difference. So as long as I can afford something companies can charge as much as they like!? What horrible logic. I can barely afford the Wii as it is.



Who are uneducated consumers.



Err.. what? That's not an excuse for overcharging...

The short answer is 'YES'. They will charge as much as the market is willing to pay. Get over it and move on.

[mrgnash]

"who cares how fun the games are, what matters is how good the graphics looks!". Think about the controller for a second. Take your average FPS for example. How would you play that on 360 or PS3? You twiddle your thumb. How about the Wii? You would actually hold the controller like you would hold a gun. Hell, you might even mimic the reloading with the controller, as opposed to just pushing a button. Things like that can change the gameplay immensly. What Nintendo is doing is treading a new path here. What Micrsooft and sony is doing, is to offer us the exact same stuff as they offered us years ago.


Treading a new path?? :lol: Ever seen one of these?

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5297/powerglovesz0.jpg

I seem to recall the guy that everyone is making a fuss about on the Wii from awhile back too:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/6938/533by9.png

So, you know, 'originality' and 'innovation,' I think is a reputation that everyone attributes to Nintendo, but is largely undeserved. Why undeserved? Because I don't see any real evidence to back it up.

And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but while I think that the Wii controller is an 'ok' idea, I don't really consider the peripheral used to play games as a source of innovation where it counts. Rather, games that were mature, thoughtful, and could rival the level of writing in a series like the Wire or BSG (new series) would be what I would consider revolutionary... because at the moment, the majority are still juvennile candy-floss. And when they try to be sophisticated, a-la MGS2-3, it's even worse; as the ineptitude of the writers is thrown into even sharper relief.



I think that the people who just stare at hardware-specs and graphics are the plague of gaming these days. They are like the people who are willing to sacrifice good acting and storylines for great SFX. Who cares about gameplay, innovation and having a good time. No, those things suck. What we need is ultra-hi resolution with antialiasing, metric assload of gigaflops, loads of polygons, high dynamic range lighting... Because THAT'S how you get good games, right?

Once again, why do I have to keep reiterating the same point over and over? It's not the specs themselves, but what they're capable of producing in terms of realizing an artistic vision and/or increasing immsersiveness that counts. And what is so wrong with enjoying a game on an aesthetic level anyway? For me it was a lot of fun to wander around Tamriel in Oblivion and gaze out at the various sites, during different weather conditions and sunset/rise, etc. etc. And I think that's a perfectly legitimate level of apprecation.

Besides, it actually goes the other way for me, sometimes I'm willing to forego good graphics for a game which sets itself apart from the crowd. Take Pathologic for instance, it has terrible graphics and is plagued (pun intended) by a host of other issues as well.. but (translation notwithstanding), it has some of the best writing around, and the approach to the adventure genre it initiates is very novel. Therefore, I put up with the less than stunning visuals... and I have done that on many occasions.

What I'm not willing to do, is shell out money for games like SSMB, Rapala Fishing, Monkey Ball, and Edebits, or even Zelda. Not only do they not have great graphics, but they're centered around twitch gameplay (slightly different case with Zelda, but they lost me with that series after I played Ocarina -- the story and depth just weren't substantial enough for me), which is fine for some people, but doesn't interest me at all.


If you care about graphics, go give your money to Microsoft or Sony. But if you want something different for a change, give your money to Nintendo. And while you are staring at those specular highlights and hi-def graphics, I'm having a great time playing games on the Wii. I don't need to have ultra-realistic graphics. What I want is pure fun and good gameplay. And looking at the reviews of the Wii, it seems to deliver those two in spades.

I'm not giving my money to any of them thanks. The PS3 and X360 don't have any exclusive titles (apart from Mass Effect on the 360) which interest me.. but at least their graphical capabilities are decent. The difference between me and all these Wii fans is that I don't find its titles compelling either, for the reasons outlined above.

Got it now? Finally? sheesh.

[prizrak]

Mr. Gnash,
You sound like an RPG person. In this care I really don't see why you would care much about graphics ;) I do understand your point now though, you basically like thought games as opposed to action games. That's cool too :)

[pmj]

"who cares how fun the games are, what matters is how good the graphics looks!". Think about the controller for a second. Take your average FPS for example. How would you play that on 360 or PS3? You twiddle your thumb. How about the Wii? You would actually hold the controller like you would hold a gun. Hell, you might even mimic the reloading with the controller, as opposed to just pushing a button. Things like that can change the gameplay immensly. What Nintendo is doing is treading a new path here. What Micrsooft and sony is doing, is to offer us the exact same stuff as they offered us years ago.
Sorry, as popular as this argument is, it doesn't hold up. Innovation doesn't come only from how you control a game; it's only one part of it. Has the PC, for example, not seen any innovation the past 10 years, despite the controls remaining the same? Also, the Wiimote is far from perfect for FPS games. They actually control more like RTS games for the PC does; inside the screen you can point and click/shoot, but if you move the pointer to the side of the screen it will pan in this direction. You can learn it, it may even become natural (though Red Steel didn't seem to quite make it work), but it sure wouldn't be just like holding a gun.


I think that the people who just stare at hardware-specs and graphics are the plague of gaming these days. They are like the people who are willing to sacrifice good acting and storylines for great SFX. Who cares about gameplay, innovation and having a good time. No, those things suck. What we need is ultra-hi resolution with antialiasing, metric assload of gigaflops, loads of polygons, high dynamic range lighting... Because THAT'S how you get good games, right?
Good graphics does not mean that the story has to suffer. In fact, graphics has improved immensely over the years, but so has the quality of stories and storytelling. And not just storytelling through in-game text and cutscenes, but by, for example, acting by the characters in the game. Take the facial animation in HL2 as a good example of this, and it's only going to get better.

And like I said before, faster hardware doesn't just give us shinier graphics, it will eventually give us more characters on screen, larger worlds, better AI, better physics, more believable simulation in every way, and yes, even better storytelling. We are nowhere near the point where processing power will cease to matter.

[maniacmusician]

Like various people have said, there's two sides to it...The controller IS revolutionary and it DOES make a huge difference, and so do graphics. I personally consider the controller a little more important than the graphics in this case, but it can certainly be argued that they are both equally important.

Having played the wii, I can say that it's loads of fun, and the graphics are good enough for me. On the same token, I'd love to have better graphics on top of it all, that'd be great, it'd just make it more fun.

[mrgnash]

Mr. Gnash,
You sound like an RPG person. In this care I really don't see why you would care much about graphics ;) I do understand your point now though, you basically like thought games as opposed to action games. That's cool too :)

True :) The only FPSes I've ever played all the way through to the end are Halo, its sequel and Metroid Prime -- all of which I enjoyed thoroughly, but I am mostly an RPG/adventure gamer.

Now as for why graphics matter to me.. I refer you to my last post where I talked about the scenery in Oblivion. And I'd like to add to that, what a wonderful thing it was to have such a hudge draw-distance for the first time, and being able to look at a distant landmark and then trek my way there in real time :) Since an RPG usually necessitates spending a lot of your time in an alternate world, then it only makes sense (to me) that it should be as pretty as possible. That's always been my attitude, right back to the gorgeous Secret of Mana games on the SNES. More than that though, as I've said a number of times in this thread, I consider that good graphics can make a game more immsersive -- something that is very important in almost any RPG.


Take the facial animation in HL2 as a good example of this, and it's only going to get better.

One of the things that made Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines such a blast, is how much the usage of the Source engine made the delivery of dialogue more believable/effective.


And like I said before, faster hardware doesn't just give us shinier graphics, it will eventually give us more characters on screen, larger worlds, better AI, better physics, more believable simulation in every way, and yes, even better storytelling. We are nowhere near the point where processing power will cease to matter.

Bravo. The sort of AI featured in Oblivion and the upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R, where NPCs act in a more or less autonomous fashion, pursuing their own objectives through the performance of various tasks and behaviours, is just in its infancy but holds a lot of potential -- both in terms of gameplay and storytelling. Now one of the things that will facilitate the development of this technology are multi-core CPUs, so right there it's obvious that hardware does play a big part.

[Sushi]

Treading a new path?? :lol: Ever seen one of these?

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5297/powerglovesz0.jpg

Those were one-off schemes that didn't work out. The Wii has motion-sensing controllers by default, so all Wii-games will take advantage of it.


So, you know, 'originality' and 'innovation,' I think is a reputation that everyone attributes to Nintendo, but is largely undeserved. Why undeserved? Because I don't see any real evidence to back it up.

Well, disregarding the fact that Nintendo has been instrumental at bringing gaming to homes...

- Controllers with analog sticks: Nintendo 64. Later copied by everyone else

- Proper 3D-acceleration: Nintendo 64

Those are things that we take for granted these days, and Nintendo did them first.


And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but while I think that the Wii controller is an 'ok' idea, I don't really consider the peripheral used to play games as a source of innovation where it counts.

Have you played with the Wii? No? Then how can you make a comment like that? People who HAVE played with the Wii all seem to think that the controller quite simply kicks butt and is a biggest change in the whole paradigm of gaming we have had in years.


Once again, why do I have to keep reiterating the same point over and over? It's not the specs themselves, but what they're capable of producing in terms of realizing an artistic vision and/or increasing immsersiveness that counts.

In other words: Special effects. People who have played Zelda on the Wii all agree that it's simply stunning. It might not have loads of textures or polygons, but does that in any shape or form reduce the "immersiveness"? No it does not. Hell, many people consider "Clerks" to be an awesome movie, and it's shot in black and white!


And what is so wrong with enjoying a game on an aesthetic level anyway?

Nothing. But when those aesthetics become the dominant factor, we will head downhill and fast. I played "Phantasmagoria" back in the nineties. And it had STUNNING graphics. The whole game was basically full-motion video. And guess what? The game absolutely, positively sucked. It sucked so hard that it was not even funny.


For me it was a lot of fun to wander around Tamriel in Oblivion and gaze out at the various sites, during different weather conditions and sunset/rise, etc. etc. And I think that's a perfectly legitimate level of apprecation.

Sure it is. If your goal is to make photorealistic games. And what about weather effects and the like? Those CAN be done on the Wii just fine, so I fail to see the problem here. Is the problem that PS3 and 360 will have specular highlights and more polygons in those effects?


Got it now? Finally? sheesh.

So basically your problem is that you don't like the games that Wii has (or will have). So why are you whining about the specs so much?

[mrgnash]

For the question above that the you posed, and then were so kind as to answer on my behalf, yes I have played the Wii. Granted, only at a store demo, so not for that long... but in no way did it blow my socks off. The game in question was Zelda: the Twilight Princess. It seemed pretty good, but reminded me too much of Ocarina, which as I said, I hated.

[Sushi]

Sorry, as popular as this argument is, it doesn't hold up. Innovation doesn't come only from how you control a game

So where does it come from? More gigaflops? I'm sorry, but the way you control the characters can be an innovation. I'm not saying that it is the only innovation, though.


Has the PC, for example, not seen any innovation the past 10 years, despite the controls remaining the same?

So you are saying that I think that if the controls do not change, then there is no innovation? Huh? Where exactly have I said that? What I HAVE said that there is no innovation in 360 and PS3 when compared to their predecessors. None. They are exactly the same, they just have more horsepower. Incremental improvements to existing design is not "innovative", it's expected. What Microsoft and Sony basically did was to make a new console, and the new console would have faster 3D, faster CPU and more RAM than their previous console. Where is the innovation?

And when you think about it, there has been quite little innovation in the PC-arena in the last 10 years. The biggest innovation was 3D-graphics, and it was basically started in 1996, so it might fit in to your 10-year timespan, depending on how you look at it. But apart from that, there hasn't been much going on. Sure, processors and 3D-accelerators are few orders of magnitude faster than they were 10 years ago, and we have a lot bigger hard-drives and more memory. But there's not much innovation going on. Progress and evolution, yes, but no innovations. Can you name any?


Also, the Wiimote is far from perfect for FPS games. They actually control more like RTS games for the PC does; inside the screen you can point and click/shoot, but if you move the pointer to the side of the screen it will pan in this direction.

Um, you are talking about controls in just one game. And still, it's a lot better than any controller where you are supposed to twiddle your thumbs. And now matter how you slice it, it's still A LOT more natural and realistic than twiddling your thumbs.


You can learn it, it may even become natural (though Red Steel didn't seem to quite make it work), but it sure wouldn't be just like holding a gun.

Actually, it is. In real-life, if you try to aim at something outside your field of vision, you need to turn. In Red Steel (haven't played it though), if you try to aim outside your field of vision (that is, you move the aim to the side of the screen), it turns.


Good graphics does not mean that the story has to suffer. In fact, graphics has improved immensely over the years, but so has the quality of stories and storytelling.

I don't think that games have yet reached the level of storytelling we had in Infocom-games or games like Ultima IV and V.


And not just storytelling through in-game text and cutscenes, but by, for example, acting by the characters in the game. Take the facial animation in HL2 as a good example of this, and it's only going to get better.

Do those facial animations make the game more fun?

[pmj]

So where does it come from? More gigaflops? I'm sorry, but the way you control the characters can be an innovation. I never said otherwise.


What Microsoft and Sony basically did was to make a new console, and the new console would have faster 3D, faster CPU and more RAM than their previous console. Where is the innovation? The innovation will come in the new games that are possible on this hardware.


Progress and evolution, yes, but no innovations. Can you name any? Everything new and good is innovation on some level, but I sense that you would probably set the bar very high. So I'm not going to give any examples, because I'm not interested in a debate about whether something is "innovative" or not. The word is pointless, what matters are the games.


Do those facial animations make the game more fun? Do you question the value of realistic facial expressions in movies as well? Would movies be just as good if the actors wore paper bags over their heads? Because that's pretty much where we are in games, today. Paper bag wearing actors.

[Sushi]

The innovation will come in the new games that are possible on this hardware.

Such as? Better AI (for example) is not an "innovation", it's an incremental improvent to what we had before. "Better" is not innovation, "new" is.


Everything new and good is innovation on some level, but I sense that you would probably set the bar very high.

To me "innovation" means something new that has not really been done before. So simply having a faster CPU is not an "innovation". Having more RAM is not "innovation". Those are things that are "more of the same stuff". The controller on the Wii is not like that. It's not like Nintendo thought that "lets have the controller we have now, just more of it". No, the Wiimote is completely different than it's predecessors were.

What Sony and Microsoft basically did was to have a similar console they had before, just more of it. So they now have faster CPU's, faster GPU's, more RAM... And none of those things are innovations. Anyone could design a console along those lines. Just look what you had before, improve the specs, and you are all set. Yes, very innovative indeed. Improving the specs of their new console when compared to the old console is so innovative that I bet no-one saw that one coming.

I wasn't interested in consoles before. Why should I be interested in 360 or PS3, since they are basically identical to their predecessors? What has changed? Seriously, what new and compelling features do I get with 360 and PS3 that their predecessors did not offer? Only difference is that they have better specs. But the fact remains that for all intents and purposes, they are the same as they were before. What has changed? They have better specs? Well, I could get even better specs from a computer, so why should I get a console?

As to the Wii... It's something DIFFERENT. Console-gaming simply did not appeal to me. And upping the specs of the consoles does not change the fact that the entire paradigm of gaming is unchanged, the games just look better. To me, that's like adding a layer of sprinkles on a turd. The actual experience of gaming would still be the same. Wii does something different. It does something that I can see my wife enjoying as well. She simply would not enjoy sitting on a couch twiddling her thumbs. It would not matter how good the games would look, gaming would still be bland and boring.

And in addition: I simply do not have room for PS3 or 360 in my living-room, whereas I do have room for the Wii. If I buy a console, I expect to add it to my existing setup. I do not think that I should design my setup around a console.


Do you question the value of realistic facial expressions in movies as well?

No. And still, there are movies where the actors basically have just one expression and the entire movie is very low-key, yet the movies are highly regarded by critics (any movie by Aki Kaurismäki for example). And the fact that you are raving about "realistic facial expressions" in games seems to me that you are completely missing the point of gaming.


Would movies be just as good if the actors wore paper bags over their heads?

You are comparing apples and oranges here, and you know it. Would "Bladerunner" be one bit better movie if it had Matrix-esque bullet-time and advanced computer-graphics? Nope.

[pmj]

Such as? Better AI (for example) is not an "innovation", it's an incremental improvent to what we had before. "Better" is not innovation, "new" is. Physics. Animation and physics combined (mostly ragdolls today, but this will be expanded greatly in the future), and hell, even things like the shield health system in Halo is an innovation, because it completely changes how the fights play out. Even even when something does look like it's only improved, there are numerous completely new concepts in the background that make it all possible.


So simply having a faster CPU is not an "innovation". Having more RAM is not "innovation". This proves that you don't really read, and understand, my posts before you reply, and it doesn't exactly make me eager to participate in this conversation. To spare you the trouble of going back and reading my posts again: I never said that the hardware of the 360 or PS3 were innovative. What I'm saying is that we will get games on these platforms that would be impossible make for Wii. I did not bring up innovation, I only questioned that Wii is the only console where you will get to experience "innovation".


And upping the specs of the consoles does not change the fact that the entire paradigm of gaming is unchanged, the games just look better. I've already said why this is wrong, and you either didn't read it, didn't understand it or chose to ignore it. Which is it?



No. And still, there are movies where the actors basically have just one expression and the entire movie is very low-key, yet the movies are highly regarded by critics (any movie by Aki Kaurismäki for example). And the fact that you are raving about "realistic facial expressions" in games seems to me that you are completely missing the point of gaming. You miss the point. I never said that you can't make great games for less powerful hardware, and I never said that you can't make a great movie where the actors can't express any emotion with their faces. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a powerful tool, for conveying emotion and telling stories. It helps if the bad guy looks bad, you can see the fear in the eyes of your friend when something has gone horribly wrong, and when your love interest gives you a smile and a wink.


You are comparing apples and oranges here, and you know it. Would "Bladerunner" be one bit better movie if it had Matrix-esque bullet-time and advanced computer-graphics? Nope. Where did this come from? I haven't said ANYTHING in this thread about the importance of good graphics.

[Sushi]

Physics.

We have had physics for a long time already. "better physics" is not an innovation.


Animation and physics combined

Not new or innovative either.


even things like the shield health system in Halo is an innovation

Haven't played Halo, so I can't comment. But you are talking about one single game here. And is that a feature we couldn't have before?


This proves that you don't really read, and understand, my posts before you reply, and it doesn't exactly make me eager to participate in this conversation.

This proves that you simply do not understand what "innovation" is.


To spare you the trouble of going back and reading my posts again: I never said that the hardware of the 360 or PS3 were innovative. What I'm saying is that we will get games on these platforms that would be impossible make for Wii.

That is yet to be seen. We do know that you can make games for Wii that would not be possible on 360 or PS3, but I have yet to see anything revolutionary in 360 or PS3.


I've already said why this is wrong, and you either didn't read it, didn't understand it or chose to ignore it. Which is it?

So what are you saying? That thanks to those specs we can have better AI, more objects, better physics etc.? And I'm saying that none of those are "innovative". They are just improvements upon older designs. It's like claiming that having a faster GPU is an "innovation" because it lets you run your games at 1600x1200 instead of 1024x768. Sure it gives us something we did not have before (higher resolution in this case), but it's not "innovation". Do you think that it's "innovative" if someone at NVIDIA thinks that "you know, what if we gave our GPU more pixel-pipelines, higher clock-speed and more memory-bandwidth?" other engineers would say "whoa, that is a GREAT idea! I never could have imagined that myself"?


You miss the point. I never said that you can't make great games for less powerful hardware, and I never said that you can't make a great movie where the actors can't express any emotion with their faces. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a powerful tool, for conveying emotion and tell stories. It helps if the bad guy looks bad, you can see the fear in the eyes of your friend when something has gone horribly wrong, and when your love interest gives you a smile and a wink.

Do you need 360 or PS3-level hardware for that? Anything less will simply not cut it? I have witnessed good storytelling 15 years ago in games.


Where did this come from? I haven't said ANYTHING in this thread about the importance of good graphics.

It comes from the argument that you beed better hardware so you could do "more". But "more" does not equal "better".

[pmj]

We have had physics for a long time already. "better physics" is not an innovation. Physics engines took us from "a box will fall to the ground and can be pushed in a mostly useless way that doesn't look or feel realistic at all" to "every object behaves pretty realistically, and can now be used much more freely in actual gameplay". I don't give a damn if this counts as innovation to you, it's a major improvement in games that we've gotten the past few years. And it's something we'll get a lot more and better of on the PS3, the 360 and the PC, and where Wii games will pretty much stand still.


(about physics and animation combined) Not new or innovative either. You yet again don't understand what I'm saying. Physics and animation in combination might be something as simple as a cloth physics on a head band, or a character turning into a ragdoll when he dies so the physics engine can take over and make him crumple realistically, or fall down stairs or whatever. This will be one of the areas where we will see great progress in the future, with characters that are partially ragdolls and partially animated, such as a living character that tumbles down stairs, meanwhile trying to protect his head with his arms, and then standing up again when he's all down. This is one of the things that will really make characters in games seem more believable, and has obvious and major impact on how games play.


That is yet to be seen. We do know that you can make games for Wii that would not be possible on 360 or PS3, but I have yet to see anything revolutionary in 360 or PS3. Developers will need time to improve their skills, their tools and game engines. To clearly see a change in most games, you need to wait a few years.


So what are you saying? That thanks to those specs we can have better AI, more objects, better physics etc.? And I'm saying that none of those are "innovative". For the last time, I don't care if you think that's innovative or not. These things CAN give you a gameplay experience that wasn't possible in the past. Things that will not be possible on the Wii.


Do you need 360 or PS3-level hardware for that? Anything less will simply not cut it? I have witnessed good storytelling 15 years ago in games. I'm sure you've witnessed good storytelling in silent movies too, and I'm not questioning that, but that does in no way refute the point that these things do matter, that they do let us do new things. Animation is actually a huge time waster in development, and a big consumer of CPU cycles in games. While Wii is certainly powerful enough to run HL2, down the line there will be games that push animation in ways the Wii just can't handle. Just like HL2 wouldn't work on a Nintendo 64.

[Sushi]

Physics engines took us from "a box will fall to the ground and can be pushed in a mostly useless way that doesn't look or feel realistic at all" to "every object behaves pretty realistically, and can now be used much more freely in actual gameplay". I don't give a damn if this counts as innovation to you, it's a major improvement in games that we've gotten the past few years. And it's something we'll get a lot more and better of on the PS3, the 360 and the PC, and where Wii games will pretty much stand still.

What makes you think that Wii is not capable of better physics? And I do not dispute that physics has advanced. What I am saying is that better physics is not an "innovation". It's simply same thing we had before, just a bit better.


You yet again don't understand what I'm saying. Physics and animation in combination might be something as simple as a cloth physics on a head band, or a character turning into a ragdoll when he dies so the physics engine can take over and make him crumple realistically, or fall down stairs or whatever. This will be one of the areas where we will see great progress in the future, with characters that are partially ragdolls and partially animated, such as a living character that tumbles down stairs, meanwhile trying to protect his head with his arms, and then standing up again when he's all down. This is one of the things that will really make characters in games seem more believable, and has obvious and major impact on how games play.

Again: an improvement to something we have had for years. And I have had ragdoll-physics since 2002, when I first played Porrasturvat (Stair Dismount), where you push a guy down a flight of stairs. So where is the innovation? "The innovation is that in 360 and PS3.... the ragdoll-physics will be a bit better than they were before!". Making an existing feature a bit better than it was before? Whoa, talk about innovation! Some might call that "gradual improvement", but no, it's a clear "innovation" for sure!

I do understand what you are saying. I'm just disagreeing with you. You are talking about "progress", I'm talking about "innovation". Yes, 360 and PS3 have progressed quite a bit when compared to their predecessors. But fact remains that they are not innovative in any way. Where is the line between "improvement" and "innovation"? Yes, PS3 and 360 have faster hardware and that allows things like improved physics. But is that innovation? What if they had 20% faster CPU's? That would also allow for better physics. Would that be an innovation? If that is not an innovation, why is the current situation "innovative"? Where do you draw the line?


For the last time, I don't care if you think that's innovative or not. These things CAN give you a gameplay experience that wasn't possible in the past. Things that will not be possible on the Wii.

So Wii might have slightly worse graphics and slightly worse physics. And the question remains: so what? Does that mean that it will have games that are less enjoyable?


I'm sure you've witnessed good storytelling in silent movies too, and I'm not questioning that, but that does in no way refute the point that these things do matter, that they do let us do new things. Animation is actually a huge time waster in development, and a big consumer of CPU cycles in games. While Wii is certainly powerful enough to run HL2, down the line there will be games that push animation in ways the Wii just can't handle. Just like HL2 wouldn't work on a Nintendo 64.

So what? I don't play games to marvel at the animation. I play games to have great time. Having a great time is not dependant on gigaflops, ragdoll-physics or animation.

In short: PS3 and Xbox 360 are for all intents and purposes same as their predecessors were. And that makes them boring.

[pmj]

So what? I don't play games to marvel at the animation. I play games to have great time. Having a great time is not dependant on gigaflops, ragdoll-physics or animation.

In short: PS3 and Xbox 360 are for all intents and purposes same as their predecessors were. And that makes them boring.

This will be my last reply, as I'm going to bed after this. I just want to comment on this, and how you completely missed my point on animation. Animation isn't just cosmetic anymore, it's increasingly having an impact on the game.

An example: in an alternate reality, Ion Storm is still alive and kicking and has just released Deus Ex 3, which takes the emergent gameplay that Deus Ex 2 pioneered to the next level. At one point in the game you are hiding in a vent shaft at ground level, looking out through the grating at a patrolling guard. When he walks past you, you kick out the grating, pushing the guard on the lower part of his legs, making him fall over. He manages to get his hands out to save his head from hitting the floor, but he has the air knocked out of him. You then use your baton to knock him out while he's on the ground. While this may sound far-fetched, it was exactly the kind of gameplay that Deus Ex 2 was going for.

And, like I've said several times already, I'm fully aware that you can have fun without these things. But that does not mean that any improvements are worthless. Far from it.

But do have fun with the "silent movie" Wii, with Smell-O-Vision. I'm sure you'll be happy with the real innovation there, instead of the mere improvements that are color, sound, fancy camera work, cgi and stories that don't have to be told through text screens that the competition offers.

[Sushi]

This will be my last reply, as I'm going to bed after this. I just want to comment on this, and how you completely missed my point on animation. Animation isn't just cosmetic anymore, it's increasingly having an impact on the game.

And the fact remains, that we have had animation for as long as I can remember. And yes, they have affected gameplay as well, for a long long time. 360 and PS3 might do this area better than other consoles before them did, but that still does not make it "innovation". It's still not a compelling reason to buy either 360 or PS3. If I asked a salesperson "what does PS3/360 offer me that I couldn't get with other consoles", what would be the answer? "Well, it has better graphics". So it's the exact same stuff we had years ago, just a bit prettier. In other words: Boring. The experience of gaming would be EXACTLY the same as it was years ago, only the images on the screen would be a bit better. If I wanted something new and different, PS3 and 360 would be the last place to look for it.


And, like I've said several times already, I'm fully aware that you can have fun without these things. But that does not mean that any improvements are worthless. Far from it.

I have not said that such improvements are useless. What I have said is that they are not compelling. I mean, I didn't care for consoles. I didn't care for Xbox, GameCube or PS2. And looking at 360 and PS3, I see nothing compelling in them. They are still practically identical to their predecessors, the gameplay is identical, the experience is identical. They just have more horsepower. And my beef with consoles was never about horsepower, so increasing the amount of horsepower by 5000% does nothing to make those systems more appealing to me. But the Wii is actually interesting. It's different, the gaming-paradigm is different.


But do have fun with the "silent movie" Wii, with Smell-O-Vision.

Cute. Immature and pointless, but cute.


I'm sure you'll be happy with the real innovation there, instead of the mere improvements that are color, sound, fancy camera work, cgi and stories that don't have to be told through text screens that the competition offers.

Yes, they are just mere improvements. We have had all those things for as long as I can remember. And now we have the "innovative" and "revolutionary" PS3 and 360 that offer us the exact same stuff their predecessors and competitors offered, just with more pixels and polygons! Where DO I sign up??

Clearly, the amount of pixels and polygons is the reason why I have steered clear of consoles so far! but now that we have these two "innovative" consoles to choose from, that is no longer an issue!

Seriously: If I want kick-*** graphics, I can get those from a PC. If I want controls like the Wii has, I... have to buy a Wii.

[pmj]

You are impossible. You aren't really arguing anything I say, but rather what you imagine that I say. Well, no more. You can have this thread all to yourself.

[Sushi]

You are impossible. You aren't really arguing anything I say, but rather what you imagine that I say. Well, no more. You can have this thread all to yourself.

I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that the extra horsepower in PS3 and 360 allow developers to do new stuff like improved physics and AI, and those are "Good Things". That is the core of your argument, right? I understand that just fine.

But fact remains, that the experience of gaming, the paradigm of gaming would still be exactly the same as it has been for the last several years (hell, since the beginning of console-gaming when you think about it!)! Many things would be a bit better (graphics, AI and physics for example). But my reason to steer clear of consoles was not due to graphics. It was not due to lack of animation and physics. It was not due to lack of horsepower. It was simply because it was boring. I just didn't find the idea of sitting on a couch twiddling my thumbs to be appealing. And what has Sony and Microsoft done to woo me over? They released new consoles, which are basically identical to their predecessors. Yes, they have more power that in return allows for better AI and the like. But power and things that come with it were never the reason why I steered clear of consoles. So it doesn't matter how much Sony and Microsoft improve in that area, if they keep the gameplay identical. And they did. They are not offering anything genuinely new or groundbreaking with their new consoles. Nothing. No, incremental improvements on things that we have had for like forever does not count here.

Nintendo did something different, and I find their offering interesting. Yes, it offers improved specs as well, but it also offers something that is genuinely new. PS3 and 360 offer nothing new. They do offer lots of horsepower. But I could get even more horsepower from a PC, so why should I bother with PS3 or 360?

NOW do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

[mrgnash]

By your measure, the Wii isn't really offering anything innovative either -- the controller system is just the Power Glove, 'but a bit better.'

[raublekick]

This has turned into the most redonkulous thread I have ever seen on here. No point in arguing over why you or I should or shouldn't buy something. If I think the Wii is fun, I shouldn't have to justify my purchase to anyone else. Same goes for the PS3, XBOX360, and the option of not purchasing any of these.

But if you don't think any of these are what you want but you are buying them anyways... that's another story!

Go play some games guys, they are fun, it doesn't matter what system they are on.

[Sushi]

By your measure, the Wii isn't really offering anything innovative either -- the controller system is just the Power Glove, 'but a bit better.'

Pover Glove was an one-off thing that simply did not work. There were whopping two games that actually used it (whereas every single Wii-game will use the Wiimote) and it was not the default-controller. So the situation is in fact quite different when comparing Power Glove to Wiimote. Fact remains that no console offers control-scheme like the one in Wii. And fact remains that 360 and PS3 are quite identical to their predecessors, they just have a bit more horsepower. There are no real differences. No changes.

[Ben Sprinkle]

This topic needs to be moved to the Backyard.

[dca]

Not for nothing:

Okay troops, you can take this with a grain of salt, I don't care to argue but this is what I've heard from reliable sources...

Wii = The only offering is the motion-sensing dealies which of course will be the first thing prone to failing on new systems. Do not know what the ratio will be on failures maybe one out of ten or so... I didn't get enough out of if Nintendo is still working the kinks out or what. Then again, it's the cheapest out of the new consoles!

XBOX 360 = If you pick up the unit while the CD is spinning to say move it because you spilled your beer there is a definite possibility of not only destroying the disc completely, but also damaging the components close to the platter rendering the entire system useless. Need separate add-on for HD-DVD... Which at $199 extra ain't too shabby.

PS3 = No PS2 backwards compatibility as of a couple months ago... Need second mortgage to afford complete unit. Hey! It can run Yellow Dog, woo hoo! Still trying to get more info on that one...

Now, I have no support or links to prove these points, it's just hearsay. Because of money, I'll probably wait till next x-mas season to get my son one of those. As for now, I'll just get him a bunch of regular xbox games in hopes of the new game consoles causing a drastic reduction in pricing on older games!

[Peepsalot]

What makes you think a solid state accelerometer chip is prone to failure?

[happy-and-lost]

I'll just get Zelda on my GameCube. I like having a nicely shaped controller with rumble than some awkward stick to wave around.

[Ben Sprinkle]

That stupid looking controller WILL DEFINATLY FAIL!
After a few months when everyone realises they look like flipping idiots swinging a damn controller about they will return it.
I mean, when you get home from a hard days work do you want to stand up playing swing-around-the-controller-golf?

[prizrak]

That stupid looking controller WILL DEFINATLY FAIL!
After a few months when everyone realises they look like flipping idiots swinging a damn controller about they will return it.
I mean, when you get home from a hard days work do you want to stand up playing swing-around-the-controller-golf?

Actually yes, hell when I come from a hard days work I wanna go to the gym so why not include some excercize in my gaming? Who the hell cares what you look like playing a game? Not many people look normal with a gamepad either, especially cheering on little electronic football players....

This is how gaming works, if you have fun while playing a game then it is a good game. The more fun games are released for a console the more people will buy it. Doesn't matter if it has a holographic projector or an 8MB video card and a motion sensitive remote. As long as it's fun it will be bought. For now we can't really tell which of the 3 will be most successful but I wouldn't discount the Wii as a viable competitor just because it's not a Kray cluster.

P.S. Xbox 360 uses 180 Watts, PS3 uses 380. Both can be used as space heaters. Source: http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/sony_playstation_3_further_details.php

[mrgnash]

Pover Glove was an one-off thing that simply did not work. There were whopping two games that actually used it (whereas every single Wii-game will use the Wiimote) and it was not the default-controller. So the situation is in fact quite different when comparing Power Glove to Wiimote. Fact remains that no console offers control-scheme like the one in Wii. And fact remains that 360 and PS3 are quite identical to their predecessors, they just have a bit more horsepower. There are no real differences. No changes.

But we're talking innovation (by your repeatedly elucidated standards) here... whether the Power Glove actually worked or not is largely irrelevant, as is how primitive the first implementation of physics before engines like Havok and CryEngine came along was. Conceptually, it's still basically the same, it's just improved to the point where it's not a usable/useful feature.

And there's nothing wrong with that, when you look at most technologies or even ideas, no matter how revolutionary they may seem at the time, they are usually an accretion of what has gone before, rather than an epiphany in a vacuum.

It's not surprising then that the definition of '(to) innovate', includes:

'To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.'

And also 'to remodel.' So while someone may initiate a major leap forward in a particular area, the fact remains that technology, science, and knowledge in general, are cummulative. The conception that innovation must comprise creation ex nihilo, is simply an unrealistic one.

Upcoming physics engines are set to include the realistic modelling of internal structures as well (bones, internal organs, musculature, etc.), which yes, is building upon past advances, but so what? It holds the promise of replacing old health-bar or crude locational damage models, with ones that involve the sustainment of realistic internal and external injuries in real time, proportional to the damage dealt. Thus, if your character falls from a height, they might twist their ankle, dislocate their knee/hip, or even break a bone, rather than the commonplace 'grunt and lose a chunk of health.'

Apply that to a game which, while unfortunately on hiatus at the moment, held a lot of promise and originality, namely B.C; and the possibilities start to become really exciting. With your hunter-gatherer society sustaining realistic bodily damage in their quest to provision food for the tribe, effective remedial and curative treatments would have to be developed, etc. etc. Now to me, we're already dealing with a far more original game than Zelda: the Twilight Princess, for instance, which all things considered, is pretty similar in nature to the Ocarina of Time, despite the way that you interface with it on the Wii.

This is not to diss the game, which is probably great for fans of the series, but my point is that peripherals are not the only source of innovation. And returning to my original gripe about the hardware, I simple do not think that it has the grunt to perform the kind of calculations necessary for the kind of scenario I outlined above. Does that mean that fun can't be had on the system? No, of course not, but for me personally, it just doesn't have the power where it counts to drive the technologies which are more interesting to me. I am not convinced it could do a game like Alan Wake for instance, which seeks to recreate 'a 10x10 kilometer slice of the Pacific Northwest,' and then to faciliate free-roaming exploration at the same time as developing a psychological thriller narrative rivalling that of a show like Twin Peaks.

And that's where it's all about priorities... I'm all about setting, locale, storyline in games... I'm basically looking for games which equal the quality of movie/tv presentation and writing, but with a degree of interactivity and influence on the proceedings (open-ended games are where it's all at for me) that the latter mediums cannot provide. And for that, the more sophisitcated the graphics (although this does not necessarily entail photorealism, which I'm not entirely fond of) and physics, etc. are the better. How I control the game, whether it's through a mouse + keyboard, a gamepad, or some kind of remote device is a very tertiary considerion for me.

Now if you can't understand this point, and think that every game has to be primarily about twitch gameplay, and therefore the design of the controller is ALL-IMPORTANT, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion with you; since it's obvious you're one of those Nintenzealots who knows exactly what gaming is meant to be to everyone, for all time.

[Brunellus]

But we're talking innovation (by your repeatedly elucidated standards) here... whether the Power Glove actually worked or not is largely irrelevant, as is how primitive the first implementation of physics before engines like Havok and CryEngine came along was. Conceptually, it's still basically the same, it's just improved to the point where it's not a usable/useful feature.

And there's nothing wrong with that, when you look at most technologies or even ideas, no matter how revolutionary they may seem at the time, they are usually an accretion of what has gone before, rather than an epiphany in a vacuum.

It's not surprising then that the definition of '(to) innovate', includes:

'To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.'

And also 'to remodel.' So while someone may initiate a major leap forward in a particular area, the fact remains that technology, science, and knowledge in general, are cummulative. The conception that innovation must comprise creation ex nihilo, is simply an unrealistic one.

Upcoming physics engines are set to include the realistic modelling of internal structures as well (bones, internal organs, musculature, etc.), which yes, is building upon past advances, but so what? It holds the promise of replacing old health-bar or crude locational damage models, with ones that involve the sustainment of realistic internal and external injuries in real time, proportional to the damage dealt. Thus, if your character falls from a height, they might twist their ankle, dislocate their knee/hip, or even break a bone, rather than the commonplace 'grunt and lose a chunk of health.'

Apply that to a game which, while unfortunately on hiatus at the moment, held a lot of promise and originality, namely B.C; and the possibilities start to become really exciting. With your hunter-gatherer society sustaining realistic bodily damage in their quest to provision food for the tribe, effective remedial and curative treatments would have to be developed, etc. etc. Now to me, we're already dealing with a far more original game than Zelda: the Twilight Princess, for instance, which all things considered, is pretty similar in nature to the Ocarina of Time, despite the way that you interface with it on the Wii.

This is not to diss the game, which is probably great for fans of the series, but my point is that peripherals are not the only source of innovation. And returning to my original gripe about the hardware, I simple do not think that it has the grunt to perform the kind of calculations necessary for the kind of scenario I outlined above. Does that mean that fun can't be had on the system? No, of course not, but for me personally, it just doesn't have the power where it counts to drive the technologies which are more interesting to me. I am not convinced it could do a game like Alan Wake for instance, which seeks to recreate 'a 10x10 kilometer slice of the Pacific Northwest,' and then to faciliate free-roaming exploration at the same time as developing a psychological thriller narrative rivalling that of a show like Twin Peaks.

And that's where it's all about priorities... I'm all about setting, locale, storyline in games... I'm basically looking for games which equal the quality of movie/tv presentation and writing, but with a degree of interactivity and influence on the proceedings (open-ended games are where it's all at for me) that the latter mediums cannot provide. And for that, the more sophisitcated the graphics (although this does not necessarily entail photorealism, which I'm not entirely fond of) and physics, etc. are the better. How I control the game, whether it's through a mouse + keyboard, a gamepad, or some kind of remote device is a very tertiary considerion for me.

Now if you can't understand this point, and think that every game has to be primarily about twitch gameplay, and therefore the design of the controller is ALL-IMPORTANT, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion with you; since it's obvious you're one of those Nintenzealots who knows exactly what gaming is meant to be to everyone, for all time.
non-twitch gameplay is dead on almost all platforms. Consoles haven't offered decent strategy games since Romance of the Three Kingdoms was offered for the NES.

I daresay that most posters on this thread are operating from positions of factual ignorance--that is, few have actually had any experience on the consoles being praised or bashed.

On the basis of appeal alone, the Wii has it for me, simply because it would be "something else," and won't be a budget-shattering investment iffenwhen I decide to go for one. The PS3 is an almost unbelievably powerful platform, yes, but nothing so far grabs me. The XBox360 has been around for a year, has some interesting games, but I haven't felt all that compelled to get one anyway.

It's only a game console. I stopped caring about these back when I was 14 or so, in the twilight of the SNES. Maybe it's just not that important to me.

Heresy, right? I'm handing in my geek card and leaving the club.

[zariuq]

technically it wouldn't be hard to get controllers like the wiimote to work on the ps3 or xbox360 (it is just a controller and a horizontal pad to detect and center it...)...

this opens up some new games to be made that couldn't really be done efficiently without the wiimote. (many of the games seem to be becoming more like the worioware series...)

there are also games where it seems like it'd get in the way (driving games...).

the problem is that the wiimote seems like it was not designed well for anything but using it to point with (are they going to program some games that are preferably used with a gamecube controller??)

the modern graphics of the gamecube and ps2's generation was good enough for most of the games we have (maybe not for 'spot the dimple').

the real factor, in my opinion, is what the games are like. the kind of game that the wii encourages seems like it may be simple reflex based systems (however it could also add thrill to a swordfighting game, although it seems a tad bit crude for that)

the ps3 opens up simulating large maps (great for strategy games... it can simulate a decent AI throughout a large battlefield, or maybe more than one.... I thought it would be good for MMORPG's... it'll let us manage complex worlds...) the problem is that it is a pan in the butt to program games that would make good use of all the ps3's capacity...

in the end it is all in the games... (wiimote will probably cause people to make many lame games by trying to come up with a use for the wiimote... as happened with the DS, despite the fact that a decent number of appealing games, to me, came out...)

[jpeddicord]

Talk about bumping a dead topic. ;)

Anyway, I have a Wii, and I like it. Does it matter how many sales it has compared to the other brands? No, unless you work at one of the companies and it affects your pay.

[shavenlunatic]

Anyway, I have a Wii, and I like it. Does it matter how many sales it has compared to the other brands? No, unless you work at one of the companies and it affects your pay.

incidentally (not that it matters) Wii is outselling the PS3 5:1

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/07/wii_beats_ps3_in_japan/

Nothing against the PS3, I will likely get one when the price is more sensible (still about £430 in the UK versus £179 for the Wii) but I am enjoying the Wii, never been a Nintendo fan in my life (gaming path went Spectrum>Amiga>PC>PS1>PC>PS2>PC>Wii) but the Wii has me hooked

:D