The double- edged Wii – Economic Success and Game Quality

[blissfulnoise]

So... either people who like the wii are dumber than you or I, or maybe they're just evaluating the wii by different criteria than whether or not it can produce graphics they won't appreciate or have games more complicated than they're willing to learn or a library larger than they have time to play? I'm sure the 360 and PS3 have non-gamer games as well, but why pay the extra money when they can not only get the wii for less, but have something they can talk about all their non-gamer buddies about? I doubt your average 40 year old non-gaming yuppie would impress any of his wine-and-cheese eating buddies by saying he got a 360 or PS3.

Not necessarily dumber, but less informed by choice. The problem is that they're not evaulating the Wii by any criteria other than its popularity. They're simply following the herd or curious about the heralded motion controls. Fine and good but, judging by sales numbers, most people appear to be unimpressed after playing. Or perhaps the Wii is the Pong of our era and people are content to simply break out Wii Sports every once in awhile.

All this talk about complicated games and casual games needs to be put to bed. All systems have games that cater to both sides of the fence. If the Wii is perceived to be a more casual, family-friendly console, and the X360 and PS3 are much more "hardcore" (What does that even mean? I thought they all just played games. Is it because of HD support?) than it’s not a problem with the systems, it’s a problem with the perception. Statistically speaking, the only thing the Wii is excelling at is making crappy games based on ponies, Nickelodeon shows, and popular lines of dolls. And if that makes the Wii "casual", then is that even a good thing?

Talking about complexity, I'd argue that the Wii controls are more complex than that of other consoles on most games. I couldn't play Metroid to save my life. The outline is simple; move with the analog stick, point at what you want to shoot at. But shifting out of visor displays with the d-pad, holding B and Z to do different locks and jumps, using 1 and 2 to change weapons, and wiggling the controller to execute actions... that's intuitive? It would take me 20 seconds just to get my ship moving because I couldn’t get the Wiimote to mimic turning the damn ignition key. The only thing that Metroid excelled over more traditionally controlled FPS games was in giving me a hand cramp and sending accuracy to hell because of "Wiimote jitters". As much as I loved No More Heroes, I could only play it for 2-3 hours at a time because it was causing my hands to hurt when using the lock-on system.

And yes, I bet your non-gaming yuppie buddies would be impressed talking about the 360 or the PS3. They're fixtures in any high end home theater; not only for their comparative graphical prowess, but because they can play high-definition DVDs.

The Wii stands as a curiosity to non-gamers, something perceptively unique to casual-gamers, and as the home to Nintendo exclusives to the more "hardcore" among us. All three are fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the hardware can be faulty and that most games released on the platform are pretty crummy. That was my original point.

But I've gotten so derailed trying to defend the other platforms against bias and misplaced opinions that I don't even know what I'm arguing for anymore. Actually, I've been so hardlined that I've made lendelin a Wii apologist.

My main beef now is with all the "Wii is casual", "Wii has games I can play for a short time", "This would be perfect on the Wii", "Wii is innovative" nonsense. You can apply those thoughts to any given game on any given platform. Casual gaming is not exclusive to Nintendo; perceptions be damned.

So I guess my new goal is to defend the other game platforms that bask in the light of video games' proverbial second coming; the Wii.

[Rob2600]

Blissfulnoise, I understand that all types of games exist on every game console, but as Wirestone wrote:

"most folks, for better or worse, buy a system (at most, two) ... it's just economic reality."

As a responsible adult, I can't spend hundreds of dollars on a Wii, an Xbox 360, and a PlayStation 3, plus games for each. I decided on one console. For me, it's the Wii. For you, maybe it's the Xbox 360.


judging by sales numbers, most people appear to be unimpressed after playing. Or perhaps the Wii is the Pong of our era and people are content to simply break out Wii Sports every once in awhile.

I don't think it's because people are unimpressed. We're dealing with an entirely different audience now. Yes, some people on DP are used to buying a new $50 game every week, but this new audience probably thinks that's geeky and excessive. Buying one new game every three of four months seems more appropriate to them. Playing video games has now become a small part of their lives, but hasn't consumed their entire lives like some gamers.

Like I wrote in my previous post:

"Maybe they'll only buy four or five games each, but...guess what...that's four or five games that otherwise would've sat in the back room at GameStop unsold."

Why is that a bad thing?

[Wirestone]

Bliss: You write "judging by sales numbers, most people appear to be unimpressed after playing. Or perhaps the Wii is the Pong of our era and people are content to simply break out Wii Sports every once in awhile."

That is simply false. According to lifetime attach numbers for the three current consoles (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/01/25/wii-attach-rate-soared-to-81-for-december)

Wii -- 4.64 games per console
PS3 -- 4.26
360 -- 7.0.

(As for the review score graph, no arguing there. The Wii has some terrible games. But that doesn't mean it lacks good ones.)

[blue lander]

Not necessarily dumber, but less informed by choice. The problem is that they're not evaulating the Wii by any criteria other than its popularity.

So you're saying that nobody in their right mind who is evaluating the wii by anything other than trendiness would ever buy one? Isn't that sort of arrogant?



All this talk about complicated games and casual games needs to be put to bed. All systems have games that cater to both sides of the fence.

... and it's flat out impossible that anybody could prefer the casual games on the wii to the casual games on the 360 or PS3, even if it's just because of the novelty of the wiimote?


If the Wii is perceived to be a more casual, family-friendly console, and the X360 and PS3 are much more "hardcore" (What does that even mean? I thought they all just played games. Is it because of HD support?) than it’s not a problem with the systems, it’s a problem with the perception.

I'd say that the perception of the wii being for casual gamers and the 360 being for "hardcore" (More complicated, I guess?) gamers would directly result in developers tending to release games on the console that caters to the audience they're trying to reach. Thus more casual games on the wii, more hardcore games on the 360.



All three are fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the hardware can be faulty and that most games released on the platform are pretty crummy. That was my original point.

That could easily be argued for every system ever released.


My main beef now is with all the "Wii is casual","Wii has games I can play for a short time", "This would be perfect on the Wii", "Wii is innovative" nonsense. You can apply those thoughts to any given game on any given platform. Casual gaming is not exclusive to Nintendo; perceptions be damned.

So it's impossible that the wii does anything better than the 360, other than be trendy and gimmicky? The 360 is superior to the wii in every way for every type of game that any sane person could possibly evaulate the systems by?

[blissfulnoise]

Bliss: You write "judging by sales numbers, most people appear to be unimpressed after playing. Or perhaps the Wii is the Pong of our era and people are content to simply break out Wii Sports every once in awhile."

That is simply false. According to lifetime attach numbers for the three current consoles (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/01/25/wii-attach-rate-soared-to-81-for-december)

Wii -- 4.64 games per console
PS3 -- 4.26
360 -- 7.0.

(As for the review score graph, no arguing there. The Wii has some terrible games. But that doesn't mean it lacks good ones.)

My 3.6 attach rate was based off of global numbers as of December. I can't tell if these numbers are global or not, but it doesn't look to be.

Here's a more recent one detailing global attach rates. And, to contridict some of my original sentiment, it looks like the North American attach rate is pretty healthy but Japan is very poor:

http://www.videogamer.com/news/24-01-2008-7333.html

[Rob2600]

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=166014#post166014


I nver paid a lot of attention to the Dreamcast ... and then...I bought one a year ago, and now I have around 25 games. Damn are they good. :) Virtua tennis...a gem, like a sophisticated Pong, simple two button controls...

I don't know, there is something unique about the games ... they just give you those old shool gaming feel. Crisp, clean graphics, fantastic 2D shooters, some great arcade style games, plus at least two first RPGs, and many great action-adventures games. I fell in love with the DC. :)

Apply this same sentiment to the Wii and then you'll understand where a lot of people are coming from.

[blissfulnoise]

So you're saying that nobody in their right mind who is evaluating the wii by anything other than trendiness would ever buy one? Isn't that sort of arrogant?

Of course not, but we were talking in broad terms about these mythical casual gamers. And from my experience, trendiness (followed closely by curiosity) is a major factor leading to purchase by said set of people.

I bought my Wii because I knew there would be games I wanted to play on it; I'd be very remiss if I didn't concede that point for most purchasers. Especially among the crowd who would be reading this.


... and it's flat out impossible that anybody could prefer the casual games on the wii to the casual games on the 360 or PS3, even if it's just because of the novelty of the wiimote?

No, but in that same breath you'd have to agree that people could just as easily enjoy the games that the PS3 and 360 have to offer. My point was that previous posts were pigeonholing how people enjoy each of their system; my goal was to rebuke that sentiment.


I'd say that the perception of the wii being for casual gamers and the 360 being for "hardcore" (More complicated, I guess?) gamers would directly result in developers tending to release games on the console that caters to the audience they're trying to reach. Thus more casual games on the wii, more hardcore games on the 360.

Again, unless you're counting all that Shovelware as "casual", I don't think you're making a point. The 360 has Halo 3, Beautiful Katamari, Viva Pinata Party Animals, and Geometry Wars. The Wii has Metroid Prime 3, Elebits, Mario Party 9, and Geometry Wars. You could make a case for the Wii Sports/Wii Play/Wii Fit, but those are unique among to the hardware. You could just as easily hold up Warhawk or flOw with the same breath (discounting popularity).


That could easily be argued for every system ever released.

Yes, it could. But we're talking about the Wii here and how control issues are intrinsic in discussion about the system.



So it's impossible that the wii does anything better than the 360, other than be trendy and gimmicky? The 360 is superior to the wii in every way for every type of game that any sane person could possibly evaulate the systems by?

No, it's not. Reread the quote, I don't think that's what I was getting at. Though, to answer your question, in terms of a general, quality gaming experience, I do think that the 360 and the PS3 have more to offer than the Wii does right now. And I encourage all who ask me what system they should purchase to buy the Xbox 360. This is primarily due to the faults in the Wii hardware and the lackluster implementation of "Wii controls". That said, I do extol the virtues of the Wii and, to play my own devil’s advocate, if they want to use it strictly "off" gaming.

And Rob, I was referring to your games list as all Nintendo platform games. Not necessarily made by Nintendo. Do you currently own any non-Nintendo systems? My point being is you seem to have an inherent bias (though certainly not a mean spirited one) against other platforms. And to me, thats the antithesis of truly enjoying gaming. Maybe that’s what makes me "hardcore"...

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

This thread is fucking epic.

[blue lander]

No, but in that same breath you'd have to agree that people could just as easily enjoy the games that the PS3 and 360 have to offer.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe some people really do enjoy the wiimote and how games play with it. Maybe they'd enjoy the 360 just as much as the wii, but they see no reason to spend at least $50 on the system when the wii would suffice. Maybe they genuinely find the gameplay experience on the wii... gasp... better than the 360?!?


Again, unless you're counting all that Shovelware as "casual", I don't think you're making a point.

I guess my point is that if both consumers and developers/publishers see the wii as a system for casual games and the 360 as a system for serious ones (who knows if this is true or not), then you'll probably see more casual style games on the wii and more serious ones on 360. That includes shovelware and and grade A titles. So the perception of a system catering to a specific audience is indeed important.



Yes, it could. But we're talking about the Wii here and how control issues are intrinsic in discussion about the system.

So the wii has hardware problems and most of the games for it suck. So what? Would you only take the wii seriously if the hardware was perfect and the majority of the library was awesome? Why are you holding the wii to a higher standard than other consoles?

I'm not even considering buying a nextgen system right now, but if I was, I'd probably go with the 360 before the wii (assuming the hardware reliability issues were resolved). It just has a larger library of games I want to play, it has nothing to do with trendiness or hardware power or control schemes.

If I did buy the wii, I'd expect that 90% of the library was junk (like every system), 90% of the games had awkward control (like every system), and I'd find maybe 10 or so games that I'd like enough to pay full price for (like every system). I'd expect to play it only every so often, especially when non-gamers were over. I think most casual gamers would be fine with that amount of usage too. They have other equally pointless things to do than sit around and play video games all day like the rest of us.

I wouldn't expect it to be a perfect virtual reality machine (especially for just $250), I wouldn't expect it to have great games in every single genre (which is status quo for every post-SNES Nintendo system), and I wouldn't expect many of the third party games to be that great (also par for the course for Nintendo).

[Rob2600]

Again, unless you're counting all that Shovelware as "casual", I don't think you're making a point. The 360 has Halo 3, Beautiful Katamari, Viva Pinata Party Animals, and Geometry Wars. The Wii has Metroid Prime 3, Elebits, Mario Party 9, and Geometry Wars. You could make a case for the Wii Sports/Wii Play/Wii Fit, but those are unique among to the hardware. You could just as easily hold up Warhawk or flOw with the same breath (discounting popularity).

You're right, but overall, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are targeted to a different audience than the Wii...and vice versa. To quote myself:

Yes, every game console has user-friendly, "casual" games, but the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 aren't targeting the user-friendly, "casual" audience the way the Wii is. On the other hand, the Wii has some great complex, "hard core" games, but it isn't targeting the complex, "hard core" audience the way the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are.

When I hear "Xbox 360," the first thing I think of is Halo 3, a complex game targeted to "hard core" gamers, not Viva Pinata. When I hear "PlayStaion 3," the first thing I think of is "Resistence," a complex game targeted to "hard core" gamers, not Flow. When I hear "Wii," the first thing I think of is Wii Sports, a user-friendly game targeted to everyone, not Metroid Prime 3.

See what I mean?

Of course the Wii has great "hard core" games like Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, etc., but so far, that's not what the Wii is known for overall. And of course the Xbox 360 has great "casual" games like Viva Pinata, but that's not what the Xbox 360 is known for overall.


I encourage all who ask me what system they should purchase to buy the Xbox 360. This is primarily due to the faults in the Wii hardware and the lackluster implementation of "Wii controls".

What are the faults with the Wii hardware? If Wii games looked like old PlayStation or 3DO games, then I'd say there's a problem. That isn't the case though. So far, high-quality first-generation Wii games look just as good, if not better, than GameCube and Xbox games, so I'm happy. Compare the graphics in the upcoming Super Smash Bros. Brawl to the graphics in Super Smash Bros. Melee. Super Smash Bros. Melee looked great, but Brawl looks quite a bit better. Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, and Zack & Wiki look great too, and Factor 5 promises its upcoming Wii game will, at the very least, blow everyone away visually.

To me, the Wii hardware is fine. Keep in mind though, I'm not interested in HD at this time.


That said, I do extol the virtues of the Wii and, to play my own devil’s advocate, if they want to use it strictly "off" gaming.

How does the Wii provide an "off" gaming experience? What about the Wii is "off?" You keep insisting the Wii remote is flawed, but I don't experience flaws when I play. Yes, the Wii remote has limitations, but that doesn't mean it's flawed. That's like saying a car is flawed because it has a speed limit of 60 mph. That's not a flaw, it's a limitation. Now, if the car overheated and stopped working, then that's a flaw.


And Rob... Do you currently own any non-Nintendo systems?

The Atari 2600. :)

Throughout the years, I've owned a Sega Master System, Game Gear, Saturn, and Dreamcast. I've also owned an Atari Lynx and an NEC Turbo Express. Out of those, I thought the Dreamcast and Lynx were pretty good, but the others weren't worth keeping. I eventually got rid of the Dreamcast and Lynx too, as well as some Nintendo consoles (Game Boy, Virtual Boy, GameCube, and DS).

My collection had gotten too ridiculous. I'm also much more responsible with my money now and avoid buying stuff I'll hardly ever use. What once took up multiple bedrooms and closets now fits into one or two cardboard boxes.

My former video game collection: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1296087#post1296087

I kept the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, N64, and Game Boy Advance. These are the machines that have given me the best memories and the most fun. Now, I also have a Wii.


My point being is you seem to have an inherent bias (though certainly not a mean spirited one) against other platforms. And to me, thats the antithesis of truly enjoying gaming.

I'm not against the other platforms, I just don't care about them. Is that wrong? I didn't hate the Sega Genesis. There were a few fun games that I liked playing on it, but for my money, the SNES was a better value. Nowadays, I don't hate the Xbox 360. I'm sure there are a few fun games that I'd like playing on it, but for my money, the Wii is a better value.


This thread is fucking epic.

I agree and I'm glad it's remained civil and intelligent. I'm enjoying it.

[blissfulnoise]

How does the Wii provide an "off" gaming experience? What about the Wii is "off?" You keep insisting the Wii remote is flawed, but I don't experience flaws when I play. Yes, the Wii remote has limitations, but that doesn't mean it's flawed. That's like saying a car is flawed because it has a speed limit of 60 mph. That's not a flaw, it's a limitation. Now, if the car overheated and stopped working, then that's a flaw.

"Off" gaming meaning "casual" (I'm starting to hate that word) gaming. For people who just occassionally want to roll a virtual bowling ball and aren't interested in doing much more. For anyone who is interested in trying video gaming as a hobby - they get sent right to the 360.

I call the Wiimote flawed because it does not always do what I want it to when playing a game. Go back to my Endless Ocean comments in its respective thread. With my experience, pointing the Wiimote on the edges of the screen to navigate can occasionally result in your diver going in random directions if the sensor fails to pick up the Wiimote’s location. This may have not been your experience, but this was also noted in IGN's and the AVClub's review of the title.

Additionally, I'll go back and site WarioWare. Granted I haven't played it for some time, but as I recall, the dog paw minigame required such a high level of precision on the Wiimote that it was virtually impossible to finish. Also, I found the Samurai Sword mini-game to be unfinishable because the sensor would lose track of the Wiimote when you mimicked the "sheathing" motion. These sentiments were also noted in various reviews of the game.

Wagging the Wiimote or Nunchuck around typically works fine since the sensor isn't really concerned with the position of the cursor. On the other hand, when you have to make precise spatial movements, the sensor may not pick up the exact location of the controller for a moment or two (creating the "Wiimote jitters" I previously mentioned).

Now on a traditional console, if you move right and your character doesn't move immediately, two things are at play: either your controller is broken or the game has god awful controls. On the Wii, other issues come up. Is your sensor bar working? Do you have external factors influencing the precision of the Wiimote? Are you holding the Wiimote wrong?

The fact that it's RF leaves way too many possible issues to come up during play. To expand on a previous example: if I hit "X" and Dante doesn't swing his sword, as he's supposed to, then I might die. Likewise, if I waggle the remote too and fro, and Dante doesn't swing his sword, then I might die. The problem lies in the fact that, in a lot of people's experience, you can't always expect that waggle to work with the way the Wii is designed (Alliteration fans: I couldn't think of another "W" word that fit).

Will your bowling ball always go as you rolled it? Can you click on that object in the 1 second time limit? Do you need the camera to be position just such to make that jump? The fickle nature of the Wiimote flies in the face of established game "rules" and can impact enjoyment of playing the game. This is the very definition of a hardware design flaw (as are combusting consoles). I know not everyone has a similar experience but mine is far from unique.

On the flip side, with the Sixaxis, there are no sensors or interference to worry about. When playing Warhawk, tilting my controller works every time. While it may not have spatial awareness, it ultimately works better when using motion controls for navigation. People knock Lair due to the motion controls. The controls themselves work as designed, but they were implemented in such a poor fashion that it was tedious to use them. When control is a game is compromised, we typically look at the game itself for its poor design or implementation. The Wiimote, on the other hand, may cause significant control problems in a game but be "working as intended".

That is my core issue with the Wii. I really don't even care about all of the crappy games released on it as I don't intend to buy or play them. The Gamecube had heaps of crappy games, but I still very much enjoy the best parts of its library. The PS2 had tons of "me-too" and crummy games, but no sensible person would knock its successes. In the same vein, I very much enjoy several Wii games now and expect to continue to do so; but at the possible consequence of the motion controls.

I don't really care who is or isn't buying a Wii and what they think about the various games for the Wii and otherwise. Its irritating when people badmouth games they've never played, but that's their ignorance, and outside of some of the cool people around here, it isn't my prerogative to correct their mistaken opinions and/or chastise them for it.

But never before (ok, rarely) has a controller put the reliability of operation of a specific console into so much doubt. This is a severe hindrance for the platform and could possibly make an otherwise excellent game into a broken one. This is the Wii problem and why I'm bothering to post all of this in the first place.

@blue lander: So you don't have a next gen console; have you had a chance to play the Wii yet? I'm curious if you've had any first hand experience with controller issues.

[Wirestone]

Bliss -- the Wii remote doesn't always do what you want it to in a game. I'll take your word on that.

But if you sit down and play a game that uses nearly all of the xBox 360's buttons, you're not going to be able to make your character do everything you want either.

Why? Because you have to learn the button layout. You have to learn that one button makes the character jump. One makes him run. Pushing X and Y with a trigger releases some sort of special attack.

It's precisely the same with the Wii. Each game uses the controller differently. You have to learn how to use it for each game. In Endless Ocean, for example, the IGN review you cite notes that: "After a while, this functionality, while forced, becomes second nature."

Now, are there games that use the controls poorly? Sure. Is the Wii remote perfect? No. But some games just require learning how to play them. And that's precisely how all current game consoles are and how they have always been.

And that's me for this thread. Sorry for the cheap shot at the beginning, and otherwise it's been fun.

[esquire]

Bliss writes: "Why wouldn't gamers want to try high quality games, regardless of platform?"

Well, in the case of the PS3, the entry-level price is too high, and the number of games I'm interested in is too low. That was the case for the xBox 360 until last year, at which point (probably around the BioShock and Orange Box releases), it tipped over into the "purchase" catagory.

Unlike movies or music, gaming requires a lot of upfront investment if you want to play everything that's out there. Let's see --

PSP (170), DS (130), Wii (250), 360 (350), PS3 (399), gaming-competent PC (800) -- that's over $2000 bucks right there to experience everything that comes out (1300 without PC). And full games, bought new, run from 40 to 60 bucks.

So most folks, for better or worse, buy a system (at most, two), and become familar with it and its software library. They're not being neglectful -- it's just economic reality. And of course people are going to defend their system(s), because they've made a pretty big cash investment.


Wii -- 4.64 games per console
PS3 -- 4.26
360 -- 7.0.

Looking at just the difference between the Wii and the 360, while the entry point may be less for the Wii, if the avergage consumer is only purchasing 4 games (I took the .64 to equal the Wii Sports), than the cost per game must also consider the cost of the hardware as to whether they are getting a return investment on that hardware.

Assuming most consumers are going to buy at least two fo the high end Wii games at $50 and say one at $40 and one at $30, that's $420, or $105 per game.

With the 360 at $350 (or less for the Arcade version), and seven games with 5 at $60 and 2 at $40, that's $730, or $104.28 per game.

If you are going to use the cost of the hardware as a reason not to buy one system, you have to also consider other factors, including average time spent playing each console.

Frankly, I'd rather spend $400 for a system that I going to get more use out of than spend $250 for one that is going to collect dust.

[blissfulnoise]

Bliss -- the Wii remote doesn't always do what you want it to in a game. I'll take your word on that.

I know you said "you're out" but based off of the above I'm guessing you don't own a Wii either?

What I'm talking about isn't learning the controls, or even necessarily the forced implementation of them. I'm talking about it working period.

Once you learn that X + Y = special attack, that's it. You're in.

I'm talking about the remote cursor shooting across the screen because of random interference with the sensor bar causing your special attack to fizzle out sending you back to the load game screen. This is what is unacceptable.

[mezrabad]

Granted, but the question is if three or four games which are fun for the family justify the price of an outdated console which gets really expensive with the costs of controllers for multiplayer fun.

If that is the question, then the answer, for my family at least, has been "Yes".

$250 isn't really that much for the basic system, is it? I mean, the wireless network adaptor alone is worth $100 according to what the Xbox sells theirs for. It also came with a pack-in, Sports, so that's another $50 I didn't have to spend for my family to start having fun together right out of the box. So, for the price of $250 and one trip to Toys R Us, waaaay too early on a Sunday, I get the first gaming system in my home in 30 years that my entire immediate family (plus my parents) can play for three solid hours, three nights in a row and have a great time doing so.

Is that worth it? Worth 250 bucks? YES! YES! Was the extra controller, along with another 9 games (on Play) worth $50? YES!

My parents haven't been interested in a videogame since Space Invaders on the Atari VCS. My wife actually owned an original Odyssey back in 1972 and couldn't give a rat's ass about videogames. To have all of them enjoying the hell out of the Wii with the kids and myself was a complete blast.

Can you show me a current gen-system that can entertain people aged 6 to 64 (literally, the ages of my daughter and my dad) with the same game that doesn't offend, frustrate or insult anyone in that age range of participants and cost less than $250?

EDIT: Lendolin, I read beyond your response to my post and saw that you agreed that buying the Wii for family purposes is reasonable decision. For "family time w/ videogames" the Wii is a great package.

I should admit, however, that I am impatient to get a 360 (or a new computer) because the games that appeal to me and either don't appeal or are inappropriate for the rest of my family(BioShock, Oblivion, GTAIV, Dead Rising, Orange Box and Final Fantasy XI to name a few) are only on the 360 (or a new computer). To get one game (BioShock will be first) plus wireless network adaptor and the pro/premium system will cost me at least $505. I'd rather get the Elite, but I either put the $100 extra bucks to the Elite or to the Wireless adaptor, I'm choosing the adaptor.

Anyway, I see your point. Crappy, disappointing third party titles are bad for the industry as a whole. Gimmicks that don't keep the market's attention for too long are merely fads. Fads with heavily invested infrastructures that crash can cause a lot of collateral damage. Look at what it did in 1983!

[CartCollector]

Statistically speaking, the only thing the Wii is excelling at is making crappy games based on ponies, Nickelodeon shows, and popular lines of dolls.

Statistically speaking, the only things the 360/PS3 excel at are making crappy games based on medieval legends, science fiction, and killing.

Oh yeah, and check this (http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_6/Audience_Engineering.html) out. Pretty close to what the Lost Gardens guy said (page I linked to on the first page) but 7 years earlier. And by Chris Crawford, no less.

[blissfulnoise]

Statistically speaking, the only things the 360/PS3 excel at are making crappy games based on medieval legends, science fiction, and killing.

Be fair. Based off of composite reviews, they would be mediocre games about medieval legends, science fiction, and killing.

And I've spent most of my evening playing LocoRoco Cocoreccho. No one is doing anything like that. Yet another unique, fun, and creative title on the Playstation Network.

[lendelin]

Actually, I've been so hardlined that I've made lendelin a Wii apologist.


LOL, nope. I wouldn’t change one sentence in my original post because I didn’t hear one convincing reason against it. I double underline almost everything you said in your posts. I think your reasonings are one class better than the ones of the Wii supporters (what a surprise, we are at the same wave length).

In my last post, however, I tried to explain the appeal of the Wii and the good aspects of its success. We as critics of the system who point to its negative aspects have to ask why it is after all so successful.

The “cool marketing,” the undeserved win of the image wars, the gamers who jump on the bandwagon, and the price tag certainly play a role. But that's not enough. In particular the price tags of the Wii and of its competitors are a necessary but not sufficient condition of its tremendous success.

The success is based upon the appeal of the Wii remote with its instant accessibility for all gamers, and it is based upon the niche Nintendo found of existent but clearly neglected game genres. The answer that casual gamers are just ill informed and not critical enough is a non-answer.

I still think that the motion sensing doesn’t deliver beyond party games, and I still believe that it was a marketing gimmick. This is why it will be very interesting to see how the ratio hardware sales to software sales will develop, as you correctly pointed out. However, the appeal of motion sensing cannot be denied.

I just think that we all deserve much better what the Wii remote delivers. MUCH better.

[lendelin]

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=166014#post166014



Apply this same sentiment to the Wii and then you'll understand where a lot of people are coming from.

Dang, you just made the worst mistake in a debate. You introduced a comparison without thinking if it strengthen or weakens your case.

You didn’t just weaken your case. You handed me a gun and scream “PLEASE, guy, please, shoot me, and shoot me NOW!”

I could take this comparison and turn it against your case of the Wii and smash it on concrete like cheap plastic because the DC is in every possible aspect the extreme opposite of the Wii.

Let’s leave it at that, otherwise we get off track. Although I could exploit terrible weaknesses of the Wii in such a comparison, we would only end up with that – a comparison.

...but I really laughed because you dug out such an old quote. I couldn’t remember it. Am I really under so much scrutiny? LOL Terrible mistake, but good stuff.

[Daria]

I just think that we all deserve much better what the Wii remote delivers. MUCH better.

If Nintendo could just ditch the whole "waggle the remote" technique, flip the controls and implement this into their games the Wii would be awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

(note: I've wanted to post that since I first saw it like two months ago, but figured everyone had seen it by now. :P )

[lendelin]

The reasonings in this thread against critical estimations of motion sensing are not valid arguments because they distract from GAME QUALITY and are therefore besides the point.

Rob2600, blue Lander, and Wirestone, what did poor guys like blissfulnoise and me hear from you so far when we stressed the imprecision of motion sensing with specific examples and the lack of power with bad results of the Wii?

1)’ ...well, graphics maybe very important to you, but not very important for very casual gamers and non-gamers.’ I agree somewhat, but does this change the last generation Wii graphics compared to the present systems? Nope. It just gives us one reason among others why the system sells so well. Sales figures and the appeal of the Wii for specific demographics say very little about its quality, therefore they are besides our criticism.

2) ‘Wii graphics still look good enough for me, after all they are at least on par with the GamCube.’ See 1), plus graphics are not just icing on the cake, they are part of GAMEPLAY in lots of ways. Besides, would PS1 graphics or N64 graphics still be satisfying today? How far should we go back to justify the price of a current console with power processing of the past?

Then we are immediately on the question if the Wii compensates for the lack of power with its new controls. This is hardly to answer with yes considering 1) the quality of the new controls, 2) the best games (= standard, longer, time demanding games) make no use or trivial use of the controls.

3)’...well, overall the game library of the Wii might have more shovel ware than other systems, but it has good games and I play only the good ones.’ This is completely besides the point and therefore no reasoning at all because it doesn’t say a thing about the entire game library, about the criticized motion controls, and nothing if the good games incorporate or ignore motion sensing.

4)’...well, overall the game library of the Wii might have more shovel ware than other systems, but most casual gamers buy only ten games anyway.’ See 3)

5) ‘Some people enjoy the games that are available for it, the most important thing is if the games are short and easy to access.’ No one debated that, but it doesn’t say a thing about criticism of the game quality overall and in particular about the quality of the motion controls.

6) The motion sensing has flaws and sometimes is even awful, but “I wouldn't expect it to be a perfect virtual reality machine...” (blueLander) Talking about justification of lower standards by introducing unrealistic expectations.

I didn’t expect the Wii to be a perfect machine either, the question is if the motion sensing is precise enough to add something to game play beyond short party games. The answer is a clear NO, even admitted in various posts by supporters of the system. In most cases they are frustrating and decrease the quality of games.

7) Finally Wirestone picked up blissfulnoises criticism about motion sensing in specific games and actually responded to it. The response is as weak as it gets:


But if you sit down and play a game that uses nearly all of the xBox 360's buttons, you're not going to be able to make your character do everything you want either.

Why? Because you have to learn the button layout. You have to learn that one button makes the character jump. One makes him run. Pushing X and Y with a trigger releases some sort of special attack.

This is a statement about the complexity of the standard controls, not about their precision.

Learning and mastering controls are a given since we have games. The question is if they are easy to learn, reliable or unreliable, if they are precise or imprecise once learned. The answer about the motion sensing controls are a clear ‘bad’ compared to the standard buttons. Jaded gamers like us know it, and reviewers know it.

I think professional reviewers and experienced gamers are smart enough to learn the controls and then tell us how accessible they are and how good they are once learned.

There are a couple of reviews who evaluate the motion sensing in the same way like in Endless Ocean, that means a mediocre not very enthusiastic grade, and myriads of reviews who stress their insufficiency to get the task done based upon imprecision. The best evaluation they received so far is in Metroid Prime 3. I quoted the terrible reviews for the Tiger Woods games because Rob2600 claimed they are not disappointing, and many many other examples were given by bissfulnoise and me.

I still have to read reviews about a non-party multi platform game in which the motion controls are superior to the standard controls.

IMPORTANT: Just let me say that I really appreciate the civil tone of this thread. It shows that a thread can be informative and intelligent even when enthusiastic gamers pick a controversial topic. There are no blind followers here who produce below the beltline reasonings or cheaply misinterpret posts, only well-informed guys who have clashing opinions but at the same time strive for fairness.

[lendelin]

If Nintendo could just ditch the whole "waggle the remote" technique, flip the controls and implement this into their games the Wii would be awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

(note: I've wanted to post that since I first saw it like two months ago, but figured everyone had seen it by now. :P )

I didn't know it. Very interesting, thanks for posting the link.

This shows what we can look forward to and enjoy. I think that the motion sensing of the Wii was marketed way too early, and additionally dumbed down in order to deliver a cheap alternative to its competitors. That makes it a disappointing marketing gimmick with instant but not long lasting appeal.

It will be intersting to see if motion sensing will be further developed, and which videogame company will incorporate it in its system. If so, Nintendo has a window of opportunity since their image is associated with it, but others may pick it up too.

I'm all for innovative game controls. I even bought the Real World Golf Bundle when it was on sale, and its motion sensing works pretty well, but I'm not enthusiastic about it either. But it is certainly interesting and different.

One thing really irks me about the Wii. With the lackluster controls the reason to buy an underpowered system vanishes. What's left are great games on an underpowered console which have no or trivial motion sensing, and I really regret that Zelda or Super Mario Galaxy or Metroid Prime are not on a better system. In particular Zelda and Metroid Prime could have been more.

Nevertheless, since I love underwater games, I'm really looking forward to Endless Ocean.

[Wirestone]

And I'm drawn back in.

Lendelin writes: "This is a statement about the complexity of the standard controls, not about their precision. Learning and mastering controls are a given since we have games. The question is if they are good or bad, reliable, if they are precise or imprecise once learned."

I think you're wrong. If you don't know the controls, if you can't master the controls, they are imprecise. Because you can't make the game work.

I have watched many of my friends be turned off video games because they cannot make a relatively simple console game work. The buttons are not "precise" to them. They are mysterious.

I have watched these same folks fall head over heels for the Wii. Why? They understand it. They comprehend what they're doing. They feel like they have accuracy and control.

Frankly, I suspect that gamers griping about Wii controls are jealous that grandma might beat them in a game someday.

[Wirestone]

In a nutshell, this entire thread proves something pretty clearly.

Many gamers don't see a reason to change things. They like complicated controllers. They like their "precision." They like high-resolution graphics and high tech specs. They like things the way they are, the familiar way.

They say they want innovation, but they don't, not really. Not if it means shovelware games might be produced or non-gamers actually become excited about a console or people escape the groupthink of the gaming enthusiast press (Ah yes. Halos 1, 2 and 3. A trilogy of masterworks never to be duplicated). Not if it means that gaming risks looking like something silly and fun, rather than the challenging sport we know it is.

Essentially, these arguments boil down to this: the Wii would be better if it were more like the 360 (best games EVA) or PS3 (Sony ROX) or [insert console here, preferably the Dreamcast].

The other basic argument? Nintendo is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by creating a gimmick -- their own Cabbage Patch kid. They're counting on customers' stupidity to rake in the bucks. As they count their money in Japan, preparing the next "Bratz very own Ponyz" game, they laugh at us.

Stupid crafty businessmen. We must resist them. Let's go download a multiplayer map and shout through our headsets all night long. No friends codes for us. No sir.

[Neil Koch]

OK, I have to throw my 2 cents in here, since this thread is seemingly -- at least to my eyes -- turning into a GameFAQS-style "my system is better than yours" argument, albeit with much better grammar and far fewer jokes against people's sexuality (ie, no "OMG yur ghey" comments).

And for full disclosure, I do own a Wii, but am planning on getting a PS3 when GTA4 comes out. I still have a PS2 and Xbox1, and have owned pretty much every system before that. I'm not on the side of any company.

I do think the Wii's controls have added to gaming. Metroid Prime 3 (as has been a bit bashed in this thread) becomes very inuitive once you get used to the controls, much the same as Halo's dual-analogs was before that, Goldeneye's single-analog was before that, etc...

Tiger Woods has been brought up a few times in this thread. I don't know about you, but the controls in 08 (07 was a POS, yeah) feel a hell of a lot closer to real golf rather than smacking a little nub forward and back.

Let's still keep in mind that we're still (relatively) early in the Wii's lifecycle and developers are still getting used to creating games using the controls. I remember that after the Dual Shock controller came out, there were a lot of shitty games that emphasized the analog vs "true" gameplay.

Anyway, at every point in a hobby when there are "hardcore" people who form the base, there is a watershed event which seems to send them into a tizzy.

As a metalhead, it was Metallica's "Black Album" (specifically "Enter Sandman"). When that came out in high school, all of the sudden, the jocks who previous mocked my metal t-shirts were asking what album to check out. I was able to turn on a lot of people to "classic" stuff like Iron Maiden, Slayer, Judas Priest, etc.

As a martial arts movie fan, it was Jackie Chan's US releases (specifically "Rush Hour"). Again, through people talking about them -- even with annoying and somewhat ignorant statements like "I like how those Chinese people do karate" -- that I was able to turn people on to the classic directors like Chang Cheh.

My point is, that yeah, the Wii is bringing in "casual" (like blissfulnoise, I detest that term) gamers, but with a (very) little effort, they can be made into "serious" gamers. Lord knows that when faced with what kind of garbage is on TV or in theatres, I'd rather play a game, and more people are feeling the same way.

And it's always a good thing when I bring a lady back to my apartment and she sees my collection, and doesn't automatically think I'm some kind of anti-social hairy-palmed freak. Sure, it might be because of "overrated" games like Guitar Hero and Wii Sports, but I'm cool with that.

I really think that we, as the "hardcore" and/or "oldschool" gamers, should actually enjoy the fact that more people find our hobby acceptable, instead of pissing all over it.

*plink plink*

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Wirestone, if you really believe that the simplicity of the Wii's control scheme is universally hardware-based - why don't you sit Grandma down with a copy of Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition, or Zelda TP and see if she can get through the tutorial levels - or how about you ask her to replicate the great golf score she got on Wii Sports in a game of Tiger Woods 07 and see how long it takes for her to get frustrated enough to pop a blood vessel.

The Wiimote is not simple by default or by design, in fact, it can be NEEDLESSLY complex at times.

I personally feel that STILL the single best bit of software for "enjoying" the Wiimote in contextual motion usage is Wii Sports.

Nintendo absolutely nailed that game with a nuanced "simplicity" that I haven't seen from them since the NES era...and I don't think that they (or 3rd party devs.) have come close to it since launch.

...and as far as what level of "innovation" gamers are willing to embrace ... it's not that a majority of hardcore gamers aren't WILLING to accept the Wiimote as a standard control feature for the Wii ... it's that hardcore gamers are savvy enough to understand the technical limitations of the hardware MUCH FASTER than a non-gamer ... and after a few months of experiencing what the Wii could do / could offer via Wiimote controls they realized that it had literally hit a glass-ceiling in terms of how it could be used in the future (without some type of additional hardware).

It's not "we don't like innovation" ... it's more "okay, this is innovative, but to a harsh end ... and we're not REALLY looking forward to a future of 'How will waggling be cleverly incorporated into future titles?' "

[Icarus Moonsight]

Let's go download a multiplayer map and shout through our headsets all night long. No friends codes for us. No sir.

Yeah, I agree with the sarcastic tone there. :D I for one, have no desire to be verbally assaulted by some potty mouth brat or have some random d-bag's junk on public display via the LiveCam. Friend codes win over that BS any day.

The Wiimote does work the way it was intended. The perceived failures source is three-fold;

- Nintendo's secrecy about the tech utilized prior to E306 which led to (in that 8-9 month span of time)...

- lofty (some could say -- unrealistic) expectations of gamers (non-gamers wouldn't know about TGS or E3 and thereby wouldn't know anything about the Wii prior to launch... only the "core" demographic observes these things). This is most personified by the huge demand/expectation for a Star Wars Lightsaber=Wiimote game. Not very likely to work the way that the hopefuls envision.

- Finally, developers outright screwing up the control implementation or making bad decisions where control is concerned (This issue is hardly exclusive to the Wii).

If anyone wishes to go into specific games and pick apart where the controls failed and/or could have been implemented better, I'm game. I'm sure the devs are doing this also, Well, at least the ones that are after more than a quick cash-in.


Wirestone, if you really believe that the simplicity of the Wii's control scheme is universally hardware-based - why don't you sit Grandma down with a copy of Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition, or Zelda TP and see if she can get through the tutorial levels -

That's a bit unfair and extreme now don't ya think? Considering how many "core" gamers were frustrated, sometimes to crying fits and other times pure rage, by Ninja Gaiden xbox or even (to a lesser extent) DMC3. I'd go so far as to say when the controls don't work well in Wii games it's solely the devs fault. Therefor a software issue, not hardware.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I don't think it's unfair at all considering the statement I was responding to.

If Wirestone believes that "hardcore" gamers are honestly jealous that octogenarians are beating them at games of Wii Bowling ... then I'd like to see those same seniors play games that have been critically praised for their great use of the Wiimote ... all three of the action/adventure games I listed were NOT cited as having "poor controls" in any reviews I can recall. I'm not talking about some shovelware crap ... I'm citing games that implement the Wiimote controls well...see how "intuitive" the games are to non-gamers who are having a blast with games like Wii Sports and Wii Play.

And, as far as the online issues...

You can take simple steps to prevent yourself from being shouted at or camera-flashed on XBL or PSN, nothing more than a few basic menu options being set to "mute" or "off".

You can also exercise the benefits of being part of an "online community" on XBL or PSN through "gamertags", "avatars", "quotations" and so on and so forth ... being able to express the bare minimum of an "identity" online through these things that I at one time personally chuckled at when Moby ... I mean um, J Allard initially "explained" them at E3 / MTV's XBOX 360 "coming out" party ... have actually enhanced the online gaming experience for me moreso than PS2 and XBOX's bare-bones online interfaces.

While I've scrutinized "friend codes" since their inception on the DS, it appears that Nintendo has no desire to move away from them and allow for users to interact online in any way other than as nameless, faceless numbers ... and I'm fairly certain that it has more to do with the fact that they strongly fear their online community (if they ever allowed one to flourish) would become a very attractive marketplace for pedophiles to peruse ...

... it just seems downright xenophobic to me ... NOTHING about the Wii allows for any type of real online social interaction ... even from a creative standpoint ... look at the "Check Mii Out" channel ... you can upload your Mii's but you can't even give them anything more than two initials. It just REEKS of FEAR. Fear of offending people ... fear of "exposing the children" to a Mii that LOOKS like a celebrity that actually has a name that matches ... HEAVEN FORBID the children see a cartoon representation of Ron Jeremy named "Ron J." .... they'll be SCARRED FOR LIFE!

Nothing can EVER convince me that an online community with basic identity choices, audio, video and email options, simple send-a-friend-request communication, and of course the ever important CHOICE to turn these things on and off is inferior to NOT having a name, not being able to send a freind request without some type of exterior communication alerting the user to the "stealth" request and a twelve-digit-number that is neither memorizable nor customizable. NOTHING.

Oh...and if you don't think trash-talking goes on on Nintendo games ... try playing an online game of Metroid Prime Hunters on the DS with the headset. Amazing what comes out of some kids' mouths! On a NINTENDO system no less!

[Icarus Moonsight]

(snip)"all three of the action/adventure games I listed were NOT cited as having "poor controls""(snip)

Ninja Gaiden and DMC3's controls weren't poor either. The game is just HARD. To a grandmother the games cited are also hard. More than likely even more so to her than the games I mentioned are to us.

[Jimid2]

BHvrd: At the end there, you remind me of what's-his-name... the one person who was a really successful troll around here until he got banned. What was his name again?

Anyways, I just found this great article (http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html) on not just the Wii, but the gaming industry as a whole. Be prepared to think "Why didn't I think of that?" at some of the things in there. Unfortunately, the guy is a bit biased (read: major Nintendo whore) (actually, like quite a few people on this board) and the article was released before the Wii was, so there's no commentary on how good the controls are outside of speculation.
That was an excellent article. Danc articulates many of my "thoughts" on the subject very nicely - I found myself constantly nodding my head and thinking "exactly!" while reading it. It's an excellent essay...

As for the Wii, I agree that a lot of what's being said about it now in the gaming press and on the 'Net appears to echo reactions to the DS in it's first 12-18 months of life. I reserve judgment on how well the controls work until I actually own one and can devote time to the more "hardcore" games, but my experience with them in a social/casual context playing Wii Sports with friends has been nothing but positive. The machine's a lot of fun at a party! ;)

[swlovinist]

(ducking the bullets, swlovinist crawls out of his hybernation shell)...

The Wii has good games and bad, just like any other system. Here are my two cents. The last time Nintendo tried to be like the other systems(gamecube system), it got its ass handed to them. I think that the Nintendo haters will always find ways to scoff at what the Wii has done. Haters can bash the control, graphics, games, budget titles, etc. etc.

Cant we just accept that the Wii is a different type of game system that is just as important as the other two systems? It offers a unique game experience, and by far is the best game system that caters to the family gaming experience.

Diversity in the gaming industry is a good thing. The truth is that the gaming industry is far beyond Final Fantasy Players, WOW players, and Halo players. For some, there might be a reaction to that.

I love shooters, RPGs, and games that are complex. But to say that good games are limited to that stuff is just plain hogwash. Wii sports is just as much as a great game as Halo is. It just is a different type of game that some may hate.

I guess my point is that the Wii is STILL SELLING OUT and kicking ass in sales. There are some stinkers out for the system, but there are also some great titles as well. It is still selling well for many things:

1. Marketing that is top notch
2. Family game system(as gamers get older, they want to share games with their families)
3. Wii Sports

When Nintendo NES came out, What one game did everyone play? Super Mario Bros! Wii Sports is the game for the Wii that is the new game that everyone wants to get a Wii for.

I own every major console except the PS3 currently. I plan to get one of those within a year. If all the consoles were trying for the same market, then that would be dumb. I welcome the Wii and its approach to gaming. It does not make those games any less fun than mature rated games. It just means that some harcore gamers wont be the only ones in the neighborhood talking and playing games. I am perfectly ok with this.

[Rob2600]

I really think that we, as the "hardcore" and/or "oldschool" gamers, should actually enjoy the fact that more people find our hobby acceptable, instead of pissing all over it.

Exactly. Excellent post overall Neil Koch.


this thread is seemingly -- at least to my eyes -- turning into a GameFAQS-style "my system is better than yours" argument, albeit with much better grammar and far fewer jokes against people's sexuality (ie, no "OMG yur ghey" comments).

I disagree. It's much more than a "my console is better than your console" debate. We're actually discussing two completely different gaming philosophies. I appreciate the fact that the Wii is bringing gaming back into the living room and getting people of all ages involved in the fun. To me, that's great. I love it. However, some others feel like the Wii is watering down or dumbing down gaming. They like complex, specialized games.

Again, at this point in my life, I actually prefer shorter, simpler games. However, if people want to play long, complex games, that's fine...but that doesn't mean the shorter, simpler games on the Wii are inferior. It's just two different philosophies.


graphics are not just icing on the cake, they are part of GAMEPLAY in lots of ways. Besides, would PS1 graphics or N64 graphics still be satisfying today? How far should we go back to justify the price of a current console with power processing of the past?

To me, graphics that are equal to Dreamcast quality are acceptable in today's market and graphics that are equal to GameCube or Xbox quality are completely fine in today's market. If graphics are even better than that, then great, but it's not absolutely necessary right now.

To quote blue lander:

I think anybody who says "The wii is obsolete technology" has completely missed the bus. That matters to us, "hardcore" gamers for lack of a better term, but does it matter to somebody whose favorite game is Windows Solitaire or Bejeweled or something?


the best games (standard, longer, time demanding games) make no use or trivial use of the controls.

Maybe to you, the best games are long, complex, time demanding games. At one point in time, those were the best games to me, too. However, as I wrote in a previous post, my life and needs have changed since I was a teenager. Back then, I had time to play Super Mario RPG and EarthBound. Now, I don't have the time or patience for long games like that. I'd rather play Kororinpa Marble Mania or Zack & Wiki for an hour once every few nights. To me, those are actually the best games now.

Regarding the controls, I quote blue lander again:

Do you think a mom and dad playing Wii Sports with their kids are thinking "Gee, this is fun for the whole family, but I'm afraid we're just enjoying it because it's a gimmick rather than for the in-depth gameplay?" Maybe they're okay with enjoying a game because it's fun to jump around and swing the Wiimote at the screen and laugh at their friends doing the same thing, even if the technology isn't perfect or they could get more precise control from a traditional pad. They evaluate a game on whether they have fun playing it or not (sort of like we classic gamers claim to). And these are the exact same people who Nintendo has gone after.


Learning and mastering controls are a given ... I think professional reviewers and experienced gamers are smart enough to learn the controls and then tell us how accessible they are and how good they are once learned.

Maybe, but remember, professional video game reviewers and experienced gamers have been playing video games for many, many years. They've grown up with controls getting more and more complex and specialized. It's been a natural progression for them. They can't relate to a newcomer or someone who hasn't played video games since the Atari 2600 or the NES. The controls in a game like Call of Duty 4 might seem perfectly simple to a veteran gamer, but would probably seem confusing to a newcomer. (I admit they seem confusing to me and I've been playing video games pretty consistently since 1982.) I feel like professional video game journalists forget sometimes that everyone hasn't been gaming every day for the last 20 years.


In a nutshell, this entire thread proves something pretty clearly.

Many gamers don't see a reason to change things. They like complicated controllers. They like their "precision." They like high-resolution graphics and high tech specs. They like things the way they are, the familiar way.

Essentially, these arguments boil down to this: the Wii would be better if it were more like the 360 (best games EVA) or PS3 (Sony ROX) or [insert console here, preferably the Dreamcast].

The other basic argument? Nintendo is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by creating a gimmick -- their own Cabbage Patch kid. They're counting on customers' stupidity to rake in the bucks. As they count their money in Japan, preparing the next "Bratz very own Ponyz" game, they laugh at us.

Stupid crafty businessmen. We must resist them. Let's go download a multiplayer map and shout through our headsets all night long. No friends codes for us. No sir.

I agree. Great post. To quote myself again:

I'm excited about Wii Fit. Again, it goes back to video gaming being dragged out of the teenager's bedroom and back into the living room so the whole family can play and have fun.

Some gamers want video games to keep getting more complex and specialized, but that results in gaming becoming a special club where only the veterans can play. I, on the other hand, want video games to get simpler so that everyone - my friends, my family, and I - can have fun together, like back in the Atari 2600/NES days.

It's two different video game philosophies.


The last time Nintendo tried to be like the other systems (gamecube system), it got its ass handed to them.

I know what you mean, but technically, Nintendo made a fortune with the GameCube. Unlike the Xbox and PlayStation 2, each GameCube was sold at a profit from day one.

[Rob2600]

By the way, I just read this:

Dragon Speech (http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_6/Dragon_Speech.html)

"aficionados have played an increasingly powerful role in our industry. ... the marketplace has matured, the aficionado has come to the fore, and the industry has narrowed its offerings to cater to his tastes.

The most important element that the aficionado wants is greater depth in his games. After all, he has spent hundreds, even thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of his time developing his expertise in a game genre. He wants games that allow him to build on his existing skills. He doesn't want to abandon his investment and start all over with a new genre. He wants to keep climbing the ladder, not start over with a new ladder. The aficionados have made this plain over the last few years. The games that they most appreciate (and buy) are extensions of previous designs, games that hew close to the genre while adding greater depth.

Herein lies the doom of my dream. I dreamed of a broad range of games encompassing the huge range of human emotional experience. To put it most succinctly: I dreamed of breadth, but aficionados crave depth. Breadth and depth are orthogonal. My dream lies at cross-purposes to the desires of the aficionados."


It goes back to what I wrote:

Some gamers want video games to keep getting more complex and specialized, but that results in gaming becoming a special club where only the veterans can play. I, on the other hand, want video games to get simpler so that everyone - my friends, my family, and I - can have fun together, like back in the Atari 2600/NES days.

It's two different video game philosophies.

[blue lander]

1)’ ...well, graphics maybe very important to you, but not very important for very casual gamers and non-gamers.’ I agree somewhat, but does this change the last generation Wii graphics compared to the present systems? Nope.

And does it change the fact that many people out there don't care how the wii's graphics compare to the 360 or PS3, specifically the kind of people the wii is marketed to? Nope.



2) ‘Wii graphics still look good enough for me, after all they are at least on par with the GamCube.’ See 1), plus graphics are not just icing on the cake, they are part of GAMEPLAY in lots of ways. Besides, would PS1 graphics or N64 graphics still be satisfying today?

To the Popcap audience? Sure. I doubt they're playing bejewled and thinking "Man, these graphics are so PS1. Screw this, I'm firing up Halo 3"



6) The motion sensing has flaws and sometimes is even awful, but “I wouldn't expect it to be a perfect virtual reality machine...” (blueLander) Talking about justification of lower standards by introducing unrealistic expectations.

So basically, your argument boils down to "The wii's controls don't perform up to my expectations or requirements, and I decree that all wii owners have the same expectations and requirements as myself, therefore the wii is a failure?" Okay, whatever you say! I'm sure Nintendo is really disappointed they let you down. They're crying all the way to the bank.

[lendelin]

After I wrote this...

IMPORTANT: Just let me say that I really appreciate the civil tone of this thread. It shows that a thread can be informative and intelligent even when enthusiastic gamers pick a controversial topic. There are no blind followers here who produce below the beltline reasonings or cheaply misinterpret posts, only well-informed guys who have clashing opinions but at the same time strive for fairness.

...this thread went down the drain big time. Reasoning and specific criticism is ignored, and some fall consistently back on old statements which have nothing to do with the topic.

Worse even, now we are on a campaign rally level shouting "We want change, the establishment doesn't,' which makes sense for Obama to mobilize supporters but is absolute nonsense in this thread.

I want to read something specifically about the quality of the motion controls, and all we get are distracting answers which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Repeatedly others and me said the motion controls are suited for short party games, suited for family friendly games, there are lots of explanation why this system is so successful, and still we hear arguments pretending there is even a debate about it.

Criticism about the motion controls gets the response 'do you really think a a family cares, they have just fun with it.' This is ignoring what we already agreed upun (see above), but furthermore it is a completely nonsensical NON-RESPONSE.

If a film critic points out weaknesses of a movie and gives it a bad grade, how can anyone in his right mind answer "Well, people watch it, it is good enough for them and they had fun watching it." (The next step might be 'if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for you.') OR "the movie didn't meet your standards, but it was good enough for me."

This is disregarding specific reasoning in order to save pre-existing believes. In other words: just plain bad and nonsense.

The main topic is the quality of the motion controls after more than one year after the release of the Wii. "Good enough for quick 20-minute game fixes for the whole family," all agreed. Critics pointed out that the new controls just don't deliver beyond this level,, they are overall incredibly disappointing for games which require more precise controls. The best we can say is that in rare instances for some gamers they offer an alternative (Metroid Prime), in a myriad of cases they are from mediocre to terrible or just plainly ignored which doesn't meet modest standards.

...and really it just plain nonsense if someone responds to this criticism by pointing to other systems how bad they are, or build up scapegoats of elitist dumb FPS-fanatics obsessed with graphics who refuse change, or repeat again that it is good enough for the family, or that YOUR standards are not mine, or the other systems have bad games too, or Nintendo gets rich....the list is just too long.

[lendelin]

And does it change the fact that many people out there don't care how the wii's graphics compare to the 360 or PS3, specifically the kind of people the wii is marketed to? Nope.



To the Popcap audience? Sure. I doubt they're playing bejewled and thinking "Man, these graphics are so PS1. Screw this, I'm firing up Halo 3"



So basically, your argument boils down to "The wii's controls don't perform up to my expectations or requirements, and I decree that all wii owners have the same expectations and requirements as myself, therefore the wii is a failure?" Okay, whatever you say! I'm sure Nintendo is really disappointed they let you down. They're crying all the way to the bank.

I rest the case of my last post. Geez. Is the profit of a console or a game your standard of its quality?

[blissfulnoise]

Because this thread is derailing fast, I'm going to change the tone up (but not the length) to see if we can't figure out what the hell we're fighting (?) about.

But first, a friendly moderator alert:

WARNING! A HUGE BATTLESHIP “INFLAMITORY POST” IS APPROACHING FAST.


I agree. Great post.

No, it's not a great post. It's reverting back to juvenile arguments that are better left to lesser minds on lesser message boards. But as a someone who is happy, indeed comfortable, playing in the kiddie pool, I shall respond (ego much?).

Based off of his responses and his ducking of my question I'm convinced that Wirestone does not own a Wii, or indeed any of the three systems in question. He's welcome to his opinions but I'm also welcome to call him a twit who doesn't know what he's talking about (evident on if he owns a Wii or not).

And I will…


Many gamers don't see a reason to change things. They like complicated controllers. They like their "precision." They like high-resolution graphics and high tech specs. They like things the way they are, the familiar way.

First of all, and this goes for your whole post, I think your sarcasm detectors are set to "stupid". You may want to recalibrate.

On point, contrary, change is the one element that makes me most excited about gaming. You can find me echoing this sentiment all over this board. I gushed about how wonderful games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Katamari Damacy are; pushing the medium of video gaming into new directions. I get excited about so-called "Serious Games" and their impact in mainstream gaming. Games as Art are showing what can be possible when style and creativity are weighted more than function. flOw and Portal were some of the most exciting games for me in 2007 just because of how big a sea change it represented for how we look at gaming.

Perhaps your definition of change only extends to what Nintendo's coming up with? Because, if you're paying attention, they don't have a monolopy on the effort.

But clearly the Wii represents a great potential change in how we interact with our consoles, the gripe has to do with how poorly said change has been implemented.

And I'll bold this out so people stop reading into it some sort of bias against the games, or the company, or some other random idea that pops into their head...

The Wii Remote does not function with 100% accuracy under non-optimal conditions.

That's the main issue. That's it. I'm happy to bitch about shitty Bratz games or defend the Xbox 360 or compain about unncessary or uncomfortable waggling or whatever the hell this thread has devolved into, but the above is the single, signficiantly important issue.

And if you don't sugar coat it, it's a hardware defect. To top it off, this is uncorrectable unless Nintendo does a revision to their hardware, similar to the DS Lite, and improves the technology in the Wii Remote.

If the fucking "X" button doesn't work on the Xbox 360's controller 3% of the time, and it is supposedly working as designed, wouldn't you say that's a damn critical design flaw?

Thus, "precision", a core and fundamental element in playing video games, is pretty damn important. So, yeah, you can say it's something I care about when gaming. Or would you prefer to play video games that control randomly? (Actually, that's a good project right there...)

Regarding complicated control schemes; go back and read my post on Metroid Prime 3 and talk to me about “complicated controllers”. Go play WarioWare and tell me how complicated a simple party game’s controls can be. Give a fighting game like Mortal Kombat or Dragon Ball Z a try, see how often you can do your special move out of ten tries.

Wii games practically lambaste you in the first 15 minutes or so explaining how to use your Wiimote to play the game. But Rob has a point about new gamers not able to immediately adapt to now standard control schemes like with first person shooters. People that haven’t played a video game since Pac-Man are going to be extremely intimidated trying to play something like Call of Duty 4. But does that mean that they’re NOT going to be intimidated playing Super Mario Galaxy? I bet the initial reactions are identical.

Now, taking the above into account, is it enough to keep me from playing and enjoying my Wii? No, it's not. Does that make me a hypocrite? You can be the judge but 9 out of 10 internet assholes agree.

Wii Sports is special and unique (notice it’s pretty much the ONLY Wii game we’re talking about here? Does someone want to make their case for a game that doesn’t have “Wii” in the title?) in that its control schemes are generally simple once learned. They still require a good bit of explanation (how many times did your non-gamer family and friends have to thunk a bowling ball before they managed to get it down the lane?) but the learning curve stays shallow. You don't have to master rocket jumping or using your HyperSword to cut down the Tree of Embers. You don't have to master triangle jumping or Hadoken throwing either (see: the majority of the Wii's library).

Finally, high-resolution (do you mean high definition?) graphics are change. Universal HD support is exclusive to this generation and is greatly appreciated by those of us who are own, or are planning to purchase, high definition televisions. If you meant high-resolution, yes, graphics improve every generation of hardware. Arguably less significantly as we've moved forward; regardless, it stands as progress (read: change) Or would you perfer that graphical progress simply halted because you don't see a difference between a DreamCast game and a Playstation 3 game?


Essentially, these arguments boil down to this: the Wii would be better if it were more like the 360 (best games EVA) or PS3 (Sony ROX) or [insert console here, preferably the Dreamcast].

No, they don’t. You're missing the point. The argument (so much as it is one) is that Nintendo has created a console with faulty hardware that is very poorly implemented outside of a few gimmick games (and regardless of what your mom thinks about it, Wii Sports is the goddamn definition of a gimmick game).

The Wii wouldn’t necessarily be “better” if it were like more traditional systems. But you might want to check in with Sakurai as he’s stated that Smash Brothers wouldn’t be improved with motion controls. And give Goichi Suda a call because he regrets developing No More Heroes on the Wii.

And I'm not cheerleading for any fucking console. My loyality is to the damn games. I don't care what platform its on. But, yes, it pisses me off when people slam the PS3 after never having played some of the standout titles on the system. As someone who has played said titles, I will stand to defend them from internet idiocy if I'm so inclined (and I am).


The other basic argument? Nintendo is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by creating a gimmick -- their own Cabbage Patch kid. They're counting on customers' stupidity to rake in the bucks. As they count their money in Japan, preparing the next "Bratz very own Ponyz" game, they laugh at us.

They did create a gimmick. That's not always a bad thing; it can be a very good thing in fact (and before you flame me for my Wii Sports comment, take that into account). Nintendo has no part in all the Shovelware coming out for the system beyond simply allowing it. I've said multiple times that Nintendo's offerings on the platform are the standout experiences. Again, I see them as must play for gamers of all stripes.

I'm sure they're not counting on customer ignorance to propel the system forward. They're obviously extremely savvy otherwise they wouldn't be in the position they're in now. My stance is that non-gamers buy the Wii out of market hype and curiosity. Do you disagree with that? Are non-gamers buying the Wii so they can play Miyamoto's next great game? Are they buying it to play Sega's follow up to NiGHTS? Or are they buying it because they hear how fun it is to play tennis in Wii Sports?


Stupid crafty businessmen. We must resist them. Let's go download a multiplayer map and shout through our headsets all night long. No friends codes for us. No sir.

You don’t even need a headset for that: twit.

Side Note: If some kind, unbiased soul would like to actually sumize the points being made int his thread and set it up as some kind of a primer for newcomers, you'd be welcome to all of my invisible Meseta.

[blue lander]

Heh, at least this thread produced a good benchmark for judging if the wii is the right console for you: Do you take video games so seriously that you post voluminously about them? Do you become enraged when a company makes a console/game that isn't directly targeted at the type of gamer you are? Do you think it's patently impossible for anybody to evaluate a console on different criteria than you do? Is a videogame console an unqualified failure if it doesn't appeal to you, personally?

If you answered yes to any/all of those questions, maybe you take videogames waaaaaay too seriously to enjoy the wii.

I guess I can't blame any of you, I was just as upset when the Playstation originally came out and the marketed shifted away from the type of games I liked and companies started making games for "normal" people. I was probably just as upset at the thought of some dumb jock playing some 3D Madden on his Playstation while I was playing Dragon Force on my Saturn, as you are at the thought of some clueless "normal" person playing some depthless gimmicky minigame on the wii while you're playing Bioshock on the 360. Of course, I was like 15 at the time...

[j_factor]

1)’ ...well, graphics maybe very important to you, but not very important for very casual gamers and non-gamers.’ I agree somewhat, but does this change the last generation Wii graphics compared to the present systems? Nope. It just gives us one reason among others why the system sells so well. Sales figures and the appeal of the Wii for specific demographics say very little about its quality, therefore they are besides our criticism.

2) ‘Wii graphics still look good enough for me, after all they are at least on par with the GamCube.’ See 1), plus graphics are not just icing on the cake, they are part of GAMEPLAY in lots of ways. Besides, would PS1 graphics or N64 graphics still be satisfying today? How far should we go back to justify the price of a current console with power processing of the past?

I think that comment a couple pages ago about diminishing returns is spot-on. To me, the difference in graphics between 360/PS3 and Wii/Xbox/GC/PS2/DC isn't that vast. The main difference is that 360 and PS3 offer HD support. HD support is kind of their main selling point. And seeing as the majority of people still don't have an HD set, it's kind of a limited draw. To a lot of people, the difference isn't a big deal. For example, I played the new Ratchet & Clank on a really nice HD setup. It's a gorgeous game, really great graphics. But the whole time I was playing it, I was thinking, "it really wouldn't make much of a difference to this game if it were on a lesser system". To people who aren't "hardcore" gamers (I hate using that term), the graphics of PS3 and 360 are of little value.

I'm tangenting a little already. Diminishing returns: let's do a little comparison, shall we? Let's look at the US Dreamcast launch in 1999. Compare the Dreamcast (in your head) to the 3DO, which launched six years earlier. Now compare it to the 360, which launched six years later. Is Dreamcast squarely in the middle between the two systems in terms of graphics? I would say no. I would say the difference between Dreamcast and 3DO is much, much greater than the difference between Dreamcast and 360. Why is that? The Dreamcast launched with a price point of $200. The 360 launched with a price point of $300/$400 and couldn't provide the same leap in graphics. What's up with that?


6) The motion sensing has flaws and sometimes is even awful, but “I wouldn't expect it to be a perfect virtual reality machine...” (blueLander) Talking about justification of lower standards by introducing unrealistic expectations.

I didn’t expect the Wii to be a perfect machine either, the question is if the motion sensing is precise enough to add something to game play beyond short party games. The answer is a clear NO, even admitted in various posts by supporters of the system.

What about Zack & Wiki, Tomb Raider Anniversary, Ghost Squad, Kororinpa, and Medal of Honor Heroes 2? To me, those five games are perfect examples of how to use the Wii controller right, and in all five cases the controller does make a difference to gameplay (and they aren't party games). Incidentally, they're all fairly established/traditional types of games.

Look at Time Crisis 4 for PS3. It has to be sold as a bundle with a light gun, and the light gun is the same freakin' technology as the Wiimote. With Ghost Squad they didn't have to worry about it, and it retails at one-third the price. I think that makes a pretty big difference.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

@ Blue_Lander you forgot:

Do you support a company strongly enough based on their historical significance in the game industry to ignore a significant amount of legitimate techincal shortcomnings in a console to buy it and continue to enjoy it on it's own merits with no genuine realization of said shortcomings (or in the case of realization - admission of any diminishing returns in the quality of enjoyment) for more than, say 3-4 months post purchase?

Then the Wii is perfect for you!

[Rob2600]

The main topic is the quality of the motion controls after more than one year after the release of the Wii. "Good enough for quick 20-minute game fixes for the whole family," all agreed. Critics pointed out that the new controls just don't deliver beyond this level,, they are overall incredibly disappointing for games which require more precise controls. The best we can say is that in rare instances for some gamers they offer an alternative (Metroid Prime), in a myriad of cases they are from mediocre to terrible or just plainly ignored which doesn't meet modest standards.

The controls in - just to name a few games - Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, and Super Paper Mario are fine and those aren't 20 minute party games. I didn't read any reviews stating the controls in those games are incredibly disappointing, terrible, or imprecise.


Do you support a company strongly enough based on their historical significance in the game industry to ignore a significant amount of legitimate techincal shortcomnings in a console to buy it and continue to enjoy it on it's own merits with no genuine realization of said shortcomings

What shortcomings? Again, Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, Super Paper Mario, etc. have fine controls and those aren't 20 minute party games. I'm not sure what level of motion controls you're expecting, but I'm fine with some gestures and pointing. Are you expecting every movement to be motion-based? As I've written before, if I had to wave my arms back and forth for an hour to swim from one location to another in Endless Ocean, that would be stupid. If I had to jog in place to make Mario walk in Super Mario Galaxy, that would be stupid.

[blue lander]

To be honest, if considerations like "historical significance" and "technological shortcomings" even come into your console buying decision making process, you probably won't enjoy the wii anyways. I'm guessing wii buyers just want to play some fun quick games that get them up off their asses and don't involve pressing buttons repeatedly all day. Most people do enough of both every day at work.

And does anybody else think that expecting the wii's motion sensing to be implemented perfectly the first time around is a little like expecting the Atari 2600 to have had a perfect, fully evolved joystick? Comparing the wiimote to what it ought to ideally be is a little like comparing a 2600 controller to a saturn digital pad, or a 5200 analog joystick to a Dual Shock.

[lendelin]

Heh, at least this thread produced a good benchmark for judging if the wii is the right console for you: Do you take video games so seriously that you post voluminously about them? Do you become enraged when a company makes a console/game that isn't directly targeted at the type of gamer you are? Do you think it's patently impossible for anybody to evaluate a console on different criteria than you do? Is a videogame console an unqualified failure if it doesn't appeal to you, personally?

If you answered yes to any/all of those questions, maybe you take videogames waaaaaay too seriously to enjoy the wii.

I guess I can't blame any of you, I was just as upset when the Playstation originally came out and the marketed shifted away from the type of games I liked and companies started making games for "normal" people. I was probably just as upset at the thought of some dumb jock playing some 3D Madden on his Playstation while I was playing Dragon Force on my Saturn, as you are at the thought of some clueless "normal" person playing some depthless gimmicky minigame on the wii while you're playing Bioshock on the 360. Of course, I was like 15 at the time...

You just hit the ignorant and worst fanboy level. Completely besides the point, ignoring what was said, creating opinions which didn't appear remotely in this thread in order to avoid the reasoning of others.

This level is the capitulation of reasoning because others have better arguments. This post screams 'I just wanna believe, I don't want to think.'

[lendelin]

The controls in - just to name a few games - Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, and Super Paper Mario are fine and those aren't 20 minute party games. I didn't read any reviews stating the controls in those games are incredibly disappointing, terrible, or imprecise.

We went over this again already. I responded and didn't hear reasoning against my opinion. This becomes more than redundant, it becomes a waste of time.

Why do you have to fall back to the same level over and over again without picking up the response?

[blue lander]

Madam, I may be an ignorant fanboy, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be a person who gets seriously upset when somebody disagrees with your opinion of an electronic toy for children.

[lendelin]

Madam, I may be an ignorant fanboy, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be a person who gets seriously upset when somebody disagrees with your opinion of an electronic toy for children.

Now you hit also the childish level and below-the beltline-reasoning level.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

The controls in - just to name a few games - Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, and Super Paper Mario are fine and those aren't 20 minute party games. I didn't read any reviews stating the controls in those games are incredibly disappointing, terrible, or imprecise.



What shortcomings? Again, Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, Super Paper Mario, etc. have fine controls and those aren't 20 minute party games. I'm not sure what level of motion controls you're expecting, but I'm fine with some gestures and pointing. Are you expecting every movement to be motion-based? As I've written before, if I had to wave my arms back and forth for an hour to swim from one location to another in Endless Ocean, that would be stupid. If I had to jog in place to make Mario walk in Super Mario Galaxy, that would be stupid.

What shortcomings? You are reading this thread aren't you?

Imperfect accuracy, functionality, and responsiveness of the Wiimote should be enough to detail "technical shortcomings" and I'm pretty sure that they've been detailed ad nauseam in at least the last few pages (if you've been reading).

Now, as far as "expectations" let's please not jump to conclusions or make any assumptions about what I. PERSONALLY. EXPECT. from the system.

I never claimed that the controller should function in the way that you described.

If I could sum up the way that I feel about the Wiimote as concisely as possible it would be that Nintendo made me a promise in 2005 that what I'd have in my hands would make my experience in games more "immersive", "exciting", and that I'd see control features more "innovative" than I ever have before. It's now 2008 and other than Wii Sports, I don't feel that any of the above apply to any gaming experiences I've had on the system. I'm sorry, but I'd find an excellent game like Super Mario Galaxy equally fun and exciting with a Gamecube Controller. Simply put, I feel like I bought into some serious hype that has yet to be delivered on, and it has a lot to do with the technical boundaries of the controller's hardware versus the promises that Nintendo made.

Please watch this video and tell me if you think that everything in it is a completely accurate and factual depiction of how the Wii functions, because for many of us, this video was the genesis of our interest in the system and it's controls and was a large part of what we built our expectations on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aWdWpYLcs

[Rob2600]

The Wii Remote does not function with 100% accuracy under non-optimal conditions.

That's the main issue. ... If the fucking "X" button doesn't work on the Xbox 360's controller 3% of the time, and it is supposedly working as designed, wouldn't you say that's a damn critical design flaw?

Yes, but there's a difference between the Xbox 360's controller and the Wii remote. The Xbox 360's controller is the evolution of 20 years worth of controllers. The Wii remote is new technology. Usually when new technology hits the market, there's a certain level of tolerance people have with it, right?

For example, when the PlayStation hit the market, people put up with turning it upside down to get it to read their discs. It was annoying, but the PlayStation was so cool that people overlooked that flaw. When the iPod hit the market, people put up with dying batteries. It was annoying, but the iPod was so cool that people overlooked that flaw.

People expect, for example, a controller that's based on 20-year-old commonplace technology to be perfect. People are a bit more forgiving when it comes to new technology.



The controls in - just to name a few games - Super Mario Galaxy, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, The Godfather, and Super Paper Mario are fine and those aren't 20 minute party games. I didn't read any reviews stating the controls in those games are incredibly disappointing, terrible, or imprecise.

We went over this again already. I responded and didn't hear reasoning against my opinion. This becomes more than redundant, it becomes a waste of time.

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. You wrote that the Wii remote is only good for 20 minute party games. I replied stating the Wii remote works great in non-party games as well, like Super Mario Galaxy and The Godfather. If that doesn't go against your opinion, then what does?

[Rob2600]

Nintendo made me a promise in 2005 that what I'd have in my hands would make my experience in games more "immersive", "exciting", and that I'd see control features more "innovative" than I ever have before. It's now 2008 and other than Wii Sports, I don't feel that any of the above apply to any gaming experiences I've had on the system.

Nintendo made the same promise to me and I think it delivered. I am more immersed and excited about video games than I'd been during the last few years. That means you and I had different expectations.

[blissfulnoise]

Yes, but there's a difference between the Xbox 360's controller and the Wii remote. The Xbox 360's controller is the evolution of 20 years worth of controllers. The Wii remote is new technology. Usually when new technology hits the market, there's a certain level of tolerance people have with it, right?

Good point. I didn't really think of it like that. I wouldn't say that spatial motion detection is "new", and I'd argue that the PS3 does it better than the Wii does (though no spatial), but it's a good point.

Thank you.

[Rob2600]

Good point. I didn't really think of it like that. I wouldn't say that spatial motion detection is "new", and I'd argue that the PS3 does it better than the Wii does (though no spatial), but it's a good point.

Thank you.

You're welcome. That's my view regarding the Wii remote. It's not 100% perfect, but it's so new, cool, and fun that I'm willing to let little imperfections slide. The fun I have outweighs the imperfections.

And spatial motion detection might not be new technology overall, but it is new in terms of mainstream video gaming.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You're welcome. That's my view regarding the Wii remote. It's not 100% perfect, but it's so new, cool, and fun that I'm willing to let little imperfections slide.

And spatial motion detection might not be new technology overall, but it is new in terms of mainstream video gaming.

Just curious Rob ... how long have you owned your Wii?

I'm not going to make some kind of presumption that you won't like it anymore in a few months, I'm just curious in general about how many people I meet that are still as enthusiastic about the motion controls after a year or so.

[Rob2600]

Just curious Rob ... how long have you owned your Wii?

I'm not going to make some kind of presumption that you won't like it anymore in a few months, I'm just curious in general about how many people I meet that are still as enthusiastic about the motion controls after a year or so.

I've had mine for about seven weeks, but I've been playing it with my brother since December 2006.

I think you're viewing the Wii remote as a novelty, so you're more likely to get bored of it or dismiss it. I understand that. However, I'm viewing the Wii remote as a new standard controller, so I'm taking it more seriously (for lack of a better description), which is why I don't think I'll be bored of it two years from now. To me, this is the new type of controller. To you, it's an experiment. Again, I understand that, but it seems like we have two different perspectives.

Were some gamers equally critical and apprehensive of the radical new NES controller when it debuted in 1985? I imagine going from the Atari 2600 joystick to the NES control pad probably caused debate.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

No, no.

I neither view it as a novelty or an experiment. And I've never called it a "gimmick".

If this is the direction that Nintendo wants to go moving forward with all of their systems, I'm fine with that since they failed to really "standardize" an evolutionary controller post the SNES (though the "classic" controller add on for the Wiimote is a freaking EXCELLENT design that I love using on the virtual console for just about everything that allows it) . If this is "the new" controller that Nintendo decides on moving forward - I only hope that they continue to build on it (namely add some type of spatial realizing hardware) and allow it to evolve before moving onto something different..

I DO NOT hope that Sony or Microsoft on the other hand supplant their existing controllers in the future with Wiimote style design evolutions, as they've both made ergonomic steps forward in their controller designs that have made the "gamepad" as close to perfect as I've ever seen.

I'm fine with the Wiimote, I simply feel it's technologically limited, I expected slightly more based on what Nintendo "eluded" to in early press, and I don't feel that it truly "immerses" me in the experience of a game like Resident Evil or The Legend of Zelda (or any other example that you can come up with) any MORE than a good control pad does.

[Rob2600]

I neither view it as a novelty or an experiment. And I've never called it a "gimmick".

If this is the direction that Nintendo wants to go moving forward with all of their systems, I'm fine with that since they failed to really "standardize" an evolutionary controller post the SNES (though the "classic" controller add on for the Wiimote is a freaking EXCELLENT design that I love using on the virtual console for just about everything that allows it) . If this is "the new" controller that Nintendo decides on moving forward - I only hope that they continue to build on it (namely add some type of spatial realizing hardware) and allow it to evolve before moving onto something different..

I DO NOT hope that Sony or Microsoft on the other hand supplant their existing controllers in the future with Wiimote style design evolutions, as they've both made ergonomic steps forward in their controller designs that have made the "gamepad" as close to perfect as I've ever seen.

I'm fine with the Wiimote, I simply feel it's technologically limited, I expected slightly more based on what Nintendo "eluded" to in early press, and I don't feel that it truly "immerses" me in the experience of a game like Resident Evil or The Legend of Zelda (or any other example that you can come up with) any MORE than a good control pad does.

Fair enough. :) Great post, too.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Fair enough. :) Great post, too.

Thank you kindly sir.

:cheers:

[WanganRunner]

I *do* think that the Wiimote adds an amusing-but-not-mind-blowing degree of extra immersion to some titles.

I may be alone here, but I thought that the use of the Wiimote in Twilight Princess gave me a sense of greater attachment to what was going on in-game. I liked using it to shoot arrows and aim the hookshot. I know it was silly and very much not revolutionary, but I liked it anyway and that's all that should really matter.

The kinds of titles that should really take full advantage of the motion sensing seem not to exist yet. I'm waiting for interactive building games where you can move things around in 3 dimensions with the wiimote, like interactive legos, which will really create the sensation of "reaching inside the TV", like Nintendo originally claimed.

I don't entertain the idea that this sort of utilization works or makes sense for every title though, just like every DS title doesn't need to use the two screens.

[lendelin]

Yes, but there's a difference between the Xbox 360's controller and the Wii remote. The Xbox 360's controller is the evolution of 20 years worth of controllers. The Wii remote is new technology. Usually when new technology hits the market, there's a certain level of tolerance people have with it, right?

This is your response to the statement that gamers would be outraged if the 360 or PS3 controllers wouldn't work well.

That means we have to be a bit more forgiving and understanding because the technology is new. This biased starting point is exactly the reasons for your euphemisms. A flaw becomes a "limitation" or "imperfection" and should be overlooked because it is "new" after all.

It is ok to point out that the D-Pad of the 360 controller doesn't work well, but "people" (all sorts of gamers, reviewers?) use lower standards to evaluate the new controls.

This would make the evaluations of the new controls in reviews even worse because they are held to a lower standard...unless you assume that reviewers are close minded, they don't give the Wii a fair chance, or they are so used to the standard controls that they are not able to produce an unbiased review.

I'd like to make a comment about the "new"-reasoning because I heard it very often and because think this is actually the crux of our differences regarding the Wii.

As you pointed out in a later thread, you are enthusiastic about the new controls and regard them as the new substitute ("standard") of the establsihed controls, and...


It's not 100% perfect, but it's so new, cool, and fun that I'm willing to let little imperfections slide.

I think when you play the Wii you see not only how the Wii remote is, but you also play with it its potential. This enthusiasm determines your evaluations which is admirable but leads to bias.

I understand your enthusiasm, and I think motion sensing is a great alternative to the standard controls we are all used to. It opens phantastic possibilities.

However, I evaluate what IS, not what could be, should be, or will be. For you it is already fun to an extent which make you overlook "little imperfections," for me and lots of others the flaws of the Wii remote made it suitable for short, lighthearted party games, but are insufficient beyond that level.

Beyond short fun games they are either used in trivial ways, severely hampered ways, and are just half-baked when more 'simulation' is needed than limited gameplay. Right now they are gerat for Super Swing Golf, but not for Tiger Woods, Top Spin, or Table Tennis. The latter couldn't hold water to its 360 version.

As long as the standard buttons deliver better control, I have more fun with them. I am enthusiastic about the potential of motion sensing, but I keep a cool head when I try out new hardware.


Were some gamers equally critical and apprehensive of the radical new NES controller when it debuted in 1985? I imagine going from the Atari 2600 joystick to the NES control pad probably caused debate.

This 'just give it time like other great new innovations' because gamers are not flexible enough to embrace great technology doesn't work. The NES controller was an instant success, it got immediately prasie, and after one year after its release noone in his right mind would have gone back.

The same was true for the N64 analog stick which opened new possibilities and delivered rich gameplay. In stark contrast to the Wii remote everyone agreed that it makes the games of the new generation better.

Gamers are smart enough to embrace new technology - that is if it delievrs.

[Icarus Moonsight]

To answer Frankie's query: I've had my Wii for 51 weeks now.

RE: "they are so used to the standard controls that they are not able to produce an unbiased review."

My mind immediately goes to this possibility. Especially when the term 'waggle' is used and not in a lighthearted or joking manner.

Stay with me here, I have a point I'd like to reiterate. :)

Metroid Prime really changed my views and opinions on console FPS. I enjoyed the cube versions so much, I've neglected/abandoned PC FPSs for the last few years as a result. The lock-on targeting made the genre playable on consoles for me. However, lock-on does have that 'crutch' feel to it. Sometimes I wondered if some battles were made a bit too easy because of it. Corruption took Samus off her crutches and forced you to earn those kills with actual aiming. Instead of being 2nd best to keyboard/mouse (MP and Echoes) it outright toppled the tried and true standard configuration (I still maintain that dual analog is slow-broken-crap, it never responded well to my input and how I intended and is a severe hindrance for me). The wiimote gave tactile feedback through rumble and the speaker and emulated her arm cannon to your own hand. I hesitate to use perfect to describe it but, it's pretty damn close.

That is why, in a nutshell, I don't believe the controls only lend themselves well to short multiplayer minigames fests. It lies solely in the application whether the final outcome is good or bad (my previous point, restated). If the Wiimote was responsible for making games bad there wouldn't be good games at all. For every horrible example there is a good one. Far Cry has MP3 as it's anti-thesis. Soul Calibur Legends has No More Heroes. Also, with application of the logic: 'the quality of the control equals the quality of the games' then why is there so many bad games on systems with traditional control schemes if they are truly superior? If this still can not be rejected, then I ask: Why two sets of standards?

[lendelin]

RE: "they are so used to the standard controls that they are not able to produce an unbiased review."


This shuts down every criticism and is wishful thinking. Under these assumptions the Wii remote will be always great and independently of its quality invulnerable.

We have to assume that everyone gives the Wii remote a fair shot, are not smarter or dumber, flexibe or inflexible, open-minded or close-minded than others. Otherwise we determine an elite who speaks for others, and even worse we evaluate from the desired result: bad grade from biased reviewers, good grades from impartial ones.

Do you think that the supporters of the Wii remote in this thread are flexible gamers with limited experience or stubborn inflexible long-time gamers?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Honestly, I think we all are, at least a little bit (stubborn and inflexible). We've just forked paths. If not for that division we'd probably be in majority, if not total, agreement.

I was seriously considering staying out of modern consoles this cycle. Maybe my taking up the Wii was inflexibility on my part? But, then I'd have to discount all the other reasons I own mine that I previously posted about which are genuine. It's more likely that no matter what I wasn't going to be into the new consoles and the Wii just happened to fall into both my tastes and my lap at the right time to keep me in the game, so to speak. LOL

My disdain for reviews comes more from my low opinion of professional critics. I'm a consumer reports kind of guy. I'd rather hear what real people think (as long as it's intelligible and not a unhelpful summary statement like; "It's the roxxors"). Probably why I keep posting in these types of threads. :hmm: I think, especially these days, career critics are far too prone to coercion, bias and being jaded in both material covered and their occupation. Yes, it's prejudice, blanket and preconceived, maybe a touch suspicious but, I don't think I can help it. I have trust issues. LOL

[sidnotcrazy]

And anyone who thinks that the success of the Wii will be the downfall of the industry really needs to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.

Exackly, there is so much variety in the marketplace now. I enjoy everything, including my WiI, and I don't think I am alone in saying such.

[blue lander]

And at the end of the day, there's nothing that can really be done about it. If that's the way the market's moving, then that's the way the market's moving. And it's obvious it's going to pass a lot of people by whether they like it or not. If companies can make more money going after casual gamers, they aren't going to stop because it angers some inflexible old nerds on some message board.

[lendelin]

And at the end of the day, there's nothing that can really be done about it. If that's the way the market's moving, then that's the way the market's moving. And it's obvious it's going to pass a lot of people by whether they like it or not. If companies can make more money going after casual gamers, they aren't going to stop because it angers some inflexible old nerds on some message board.

When are you willing to give up your angry Don Quixote role? I'm afraid never. It is convenient to go after opinions which were never stated and completeley ignore the opinion of others, but this way you'll never be able to 1) think, 2) be fair, 3) change or correct your opinion based on better reasoning of others. All of the above prevents us from becoming radicals, and point 3) is an exciting intellectual feast.

[blue lander]

You know... I've enjoyed this thread, especially reading the back and forth between Rob2600 and Frankie_says_relax, and I'd like to think I'm above name calling (like, say, "ignorant fanboy"), but I've never met anyone on these boards as thoroughly intolerant and dismissive of opposing viewpoints as you are.

I don't think you'll ever be satisfied until everybody "corrects" their viewpoint to match yours. That'd require a detachment from reality that I'm not capable of without the aid of controlled substances and I have a feeling if this thread gets derailed any further than it already is it'll get locked, so I'll just leave it at that.

[esquire]

. . . and I'd like to think I'm above name calling (like, say, "ignorant fanboy"), but I've never met anyone on these boards as thoroughly intolerant and dismissive of opposing viewpoints as you are.


If companies can make more money going after casual gamers, they aren't going to stop because it angers some inflexible old nerds on some message board.

:hmm:

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You know... I've enjoyed this thread, especially reading the back and forth between Rob2600 and Frankie_says_relax, and I'd like to think I'm above name calling (like, say, "ignorant fanboy"), but I've never met anyone on these boards as thoroughly intolerant and dismissive of opposing viewpoints as you are.

I don't think you'll ever be satisfied until everybody "corrects" their viewpoint to match yours. That'd require a detachment from reality that I'm not capable of without the aid of controlled substances and I have a feeling if this thread gets derailed any further than it already is it'll get locked, so I'll just leave it at that.

Admittedly, this has been a tough thread to not just break down and say something easily regrettable at the end of the day.

But, like I've said about myself in the past ... as frustrated as I get about some companies and their decisions, I only ever try to make my message board ramblings constructively critical, and have them serve as a call for improvement.

IMO, This thread has so many respectable (albeit divergent) views on both sides of the Wiimote argument, that it was really tough to get into the discussion without directly opposing one while supporting another (or while coming up with a completely new one).

Though, I think when everything is said and done, the overall tone of the thread even in it's most heated segments still serve as being supportive of the Wii overall (in some cases through aggressively vocal constructive criticism), and most criticism at it's core is a cry for Nintendo to simply improve what they've started, not abandon it in favor of more traditional controls.

Dunno, that's how I sees it.

[blue lander]

Hey, we're all inflexible old (for the most part) nerds. We're still playing games that everybody else moved on from 20 years ago, after all.

[mezrabad]

Do you think that the supporters of the Wii remote in this thread are flexible gamers with limited experience or stubborn inflexible long-time gamers?

Are those our only choices? There's a middle being excluded somewhere! :)

I'm a flexible gamer with long-time experience!

What I'm seeing in the Wii is an interesting control device, the full potential of which was realized with its pack-in game. As an entertaining device that sits under my TV, it's done its job for my family videogame time and for parties. That's really all I've asked of it and I've been satisfied. I AM a Wii supporter, and though I would call it the "Winner" of this generation of consoles, I wouldn't consider it the "Best", merely the "Best Deal for the Widest Range of People".

I do see that the imprecision would be either a problem in games asking too much of it (Under the Knife for instance. I haven't played it but I can only imagine it being very frustrating using the Wiimote) or an unnecessary tacked-on feature in games that don't really call for it. Sadly, Super Mario Galaxy fits that description. An awesome game, certainly, but I think it would even be better without the Wiimote.

So, if a game's use of the Wiimote is absolutely necessary for the game to be a good play then its use is innovative: Wii Sports is the obvious example. On the other hand, for something that just uses the feature because it's there, like Super Mario Galaxy, it's a gimmick. For an application that would really benifit from the type of control offered but fails because the control is not precise enough, like Under the knife, I presume, then it could be considered a liability. (I am Presuming here and admitting it! Someone let me know how this game handles on the Wii, please. Kay? Thx.)

So, judging by this thread, it sounds like very few games on the Wii, (other than Sports and Play) are using the Wiimote to its full potential by neither tacking it on nor trying to force it to do more than it can. However, it seems that even using it to its full potential will fall short of what'd we'd like to see it do, given it's imprecision.

What we're looking at here, is similar to the Eye-Toy if the Eye-Toy had come built in with every Playstation2 sold and every game was forced to use it to some extent.

The Eye-Toy was also fun at parties and my family also enjoyed it, but my problems with it (mostly having to do with the levels of light it needed to work properly) caused me to disconnect it and put it away. Innovative and fun, but ultimately a dissappointment.

So, that's my point: Wiimote ~ Eye-Toy. It's a gimmick that has done well only because it was included with the system and every game has to use it. If it was sold separately we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'd still think it might be fun to play Kaboom with the Wiimote. I hope that happens.

[Kid Ice]

Hey, we're all inflexible old (for the most part) nerds. We're still playing games that everybody else moved on from 20 years ago, after all.

Actually I see that attitude as the opposite of inflexible...we're still giving old games a chance AND playing new games.

[CartCollector]

The kinds of titles that should really take full advantage of the motion sensing seem not to exist yet. I'm waiting for interactive building games where you can move things around in 3 dimensions with the wiimote, like interactive legos, which will really create the sensation of "reaching inside the TV", like Nintendo originally claimed.


Actually, there is someone working on a LEGO builder (http://www.xgamestation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5807) who wants to use Wii-like controls. (http://www.xgamestation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6488&highlight=remote+lego) It's for PC, though.

[lendelin]

You know... I've enjoyed this thread, especially reading the back and forth between Rob2600 and Frankie_says_relax, and I'd like to think I'm above name calling (like, say, "ignorant fanboy"), but I've never met anyone on these boards as thoroughly intolerant and dismissive of opposing viewpoints as you are.

I don't think you'll ever be satisfied until everybody "corrects" their viewpoint to match yours. That'd require a detachment from reality that I'm not capable of without the aid of controlled substances and I have a feeling if this thread gets derailed any further than it already is it'll get locked, so I'll just leave it at that.

blueLander, when I said that you hit the fanboy and ignorant level, that was way too harsh and therfore not called for, and for that I apologize.

[blissfulnoise]

First off, I just got back from a weekend of snowboarding.

Related story: my ass really hurts.

I brought my Reggie as Bruce Lee Wii shirt and it made me think of this thread. I love that shirt.

http://www.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/11/reggieT.jpg


Actually I see that attitude as the opposite of inflexible...we're still giving old games a chance AND playing new games.

God bless this site.

We've disagreed on some things in the past Kid Ice, but man if I don't think we're cut from the same cloth.

Sometimes I get a little discouraged around here with random posts harping on the "good 'ol days" of gaming and how modern gaming does nothing to improve the hobby. Despite how both of our sides disagree, good to know we can debate the merits of modern gaming without drawing empty comparisons to "classic" gaming.


I'd still think it might be fun to play Kaboom with the Wiimote. I hope that happens.

WarioWare has several mini-games (and one of the "mega" games) that is essentially the same thing. I use it as an example of how the Wiimote can perform poorly.

To play, you lay the Wiimote perpendicular in your open palm and slide to the left and right to catch falling blocks. If (When) the sensor fails to recognize your spatial position, the platform you're controlling will immediately slide hard to the left or the right causing you to miss the falling objects. But I'd encourage you to pick up a copy to see how it works for yourself.

As far as forced "waggle" in Wii gaming goes, I see it fading very soon much like forced "scratching" on the DS. I've been playing Days of Ruin and, though it does offer some touch control, you can play (more successfully I might add) without using it at all. Smash Brothers Brawl is going to lead the way of getting the waggle out of the Wii. It's novel and it's gimmicky and it will certainly have its place in a few (some excellent) games; but we've seen that it doesn't belong in the entire library. Nintendo will see that soon too.

[djbeatmongrel]

I'm tired of seeing this thread near the top of the modern gaming forum so I going to post this. If you don't like the Wii, fine, don't play it. If you like it, play it like its the last system you'll ever own.

This thread sucks.

[j_factor]

I'm tired of seeing this thread near the top of the modern gaming forum

Then you shouldn't have posted in it. ;)