The double- edged Wii – Economic Success and Game Quality

[lendelin]

It was the best of systems, it was the worst of systems. The Wii produces unprecedented controversies.

The Wii is undoubtedly THE most successful system of the new generation. Its success explains the way some people have attacked it and the way other have so vigorously defended it. Although its competitors have been doing much better in the last three months, the Wii dominates hardware sales worldwide and particularly in the most important market, the US – most predictions notwithstanding, among them mine. Two years ago I said that the Wii will be a very distant third to the PS3 and Xbox 360. Famous last words!

I content that the economic success of the Wii is a tragedy for game quality and the popularity of games but has also some positive aspects for game development.

The system was marketed and built around a not-so-new control scheme, the motion sensing Wii remote. This control scheme is the only reason for buying the system. After all, no one in his right mind would have paid $250 for a mere slightly enhanced GC in 2006 when the then top-notch GC cost $200 in 2001; and let’s face it, the Wii without the Wii remote is just a super-white shining version of the GC. Five years behind in technology, it can’t hold water to its competitors.

The question is if the new controls compensate for the lack of technology – the system was marketed as such promising innovation through the new controls.

16 months after its release we can certainly say that the new control scheme is an utter disappointment on all fronts. I have been carefully reading reviews of Wii games since its release, and objective observers cannot even remotely come to another conclusion. It was a marketing gimmick, nothing else - and a very successful one.

The controls simply don’t deliver – even measured by lower expectations and disregarding the euphoric sword, baton, and club swinging commercials in 2006.

The motion sensing isn’t refined enough for rich game play. Faster movements are inadequately translated onto the screen. The technological barrier produces necessarily shallow game play. The fun is short and certainly not sweet. It’s not long before boredom sets in. The exemplary role models of Wii Play and Wii Sports are as good as it gets.

1:1 motion sensing is a failure in sword games like Red Steel, Soulcalibur Legends, Dragon Blade, and Twilight Princess, in golf games like Tiger Woods, the list of disappointing games is extremely long. The evaluations range from terrible to at best ‘doesn’t mess up the game.’ Metroid Prime 3 is with standard buttons as good as with the Wii and Nunchuk. The motion sensing doesn’t contribute a thing to game play – it is nothing more than tucked-on little gimmicky game play elements..

Table Tennis should have been the ideal game for the Wii. Because of inaccurate controls the result was a disappointing party game at best while the original game on the 360 with standard button controls is one of the best sports games I have ever played.

The recent ‘No More Heroes’ actually gets praise for its Wii controls. It was a big surprise for sure; but the praise actually points to the failure of the Wii remote. Motion sensing is dramatically reduced and dumbed down. Sword swinging is done by - surprise! - the tried and proved standard buttons. It works well, we have known that for decades. Motion sensing is reduced to up and down flickers and shaking once in a while. Incredibly, some messages can be heard through the speakers on the Wii remote – truly an innovative revolution in game experience (not).

To be sure, the Wii doesn’t prevent good games. No technology does, otherwise I wouldn’t play Bionic Commando, Ninja Gaiden, or In The Hunt every once in a while, and I’ll enjoy Super Paper Mario to no end. The point is that these high quality games developed by Nintendo itself could be on the other systems or on the GC. What makes them great has nothing to do with the new controls. This is exactly the reason why the Wii controls are nothing other than a very successful marketing gimmick.

I very often hear that lamentations about the Wii are futile. In the end, it contributes to a diverse game library. You have your PS3 or 360, and the Wii is not an alternative but a complimentary system. This is absolutely right. However, the danger of the gimmicky Wii controls and image is a simple one - its extraordinary success. The more successful system will be copied.

We already have the six-axis controller which is nothing other than a similar gimmick produced by Sony to counteract the image of the Wii, and these controls made the good Lair a sub-par game. While it is not surprising that shallow games with great images sometimes sell very well, the surprising success of the Wii sets a terrible precedent for the industry. Let’s just hope we won’t get a motion sensing controller for the 360.

There are positive aspects about the Wii for sure, and they have a lot to do with why this system is so successful.

First, the Wii success reminds game designers how important simplicity and shorter challenges in games are, and how important simple controls are. The success of the Wii is a wake-up call for game developers. In the last decade game designers delivered richer game play overall with more complexity, not simplicity. More options, buttons and button combinations galore, controllers got more complex. This trend is certainly a hindrance to casual gamers who want to simply enjoy games or play them more frequently.

Game developers underestimated one of the basic needs of every gamer, the casual ones and frequent ones alike - simplicity and challenge. This is exactly why we enjoy older games, why classic gaming experienced a renaissance in the last ten years, and the success of Xbox Live Arcade and the classic NES games on the Wii. Game development has to go more in the direction of GO and not chess. Simplicity doesn’t mean shallowness. Virtua Tennis showed how simple button controls can produce incredibly rich game play.

Second, almost everyone underestimated the potential of attracting older age groups and women to gaming. Older gamers like me knew from the early arcade times that women can be as passionate about games as men and male teenagers, but women gamers have certainly been neglected during the last twenty years.

It is great that casual gamers and non-gamers are buying consoles and becoming interested in games. The stable gender gap and gaps of age groups have to be closed - something Nintendo did with surprising success. It is high time to make new efforts to explore what game elements are attractive for the other sex and to rethink game design. The more gamers, the better – unless game quality is sacrificed on the altar of sales figures. Myst which got non-gamers interested in games was a great and rich game, games purely built around motion sensing are not.

NOTE: My apologies for the length of this post. I’ve been carrying it around with me like an unborn child. It was a difficult birth.

[swlovinist]

While I think that the Wii controls are not that great, I think that only time will tell if the Wii really is a spash in the Pan. The sad truth is that many people bought it for Wii Sports, which is a prime example of how the controls can work right. If the controls did not work right, there would not be such a demand for the system. What we have going on, is that there are good games on the Wii, outnumbered by some truly lousy stinkers.

[Bojay1997]

I bought a Wii just after launch and don't necessarily regret it, but I do think the motion sensing controls have become more of a hinderance than a positive in a lot of the third party games I have played. Most of the first party games utilize motion control quite well, but to be honest with you, I don't exactly look forward to playing most of them because I'm a bit lazy when I play games, usually after a long day of work and other stuff. If I had kids, the Wii would be a great system for them. As for me, I just don't have the energy and wish they had made the system just a little more powerful so third party developers would develop unique IPs for it that did not involve motion controls. Just my two cents.

[Kid Ice]

IAfter all, no one in his right mind would have paid $250 for a mere slightly enhanced GC in 2006 when the then top-notch GC cost $200 in 2001; and let’s face it, the Wii without the Wii remote is just a super-white shining version of the GC. Five years behind in technology, it can’t hold water to its competitors.

IMO graphics plateaued in 1999 with the Dreamcast. Last night I played Crimson Skies for the first time and thought "wow these graphics are fantastic"...that game's four or five years old? This is why I haven't been moved by the "Wii's just Gamecube 1.5" argument. I haven't seen games with graphics much better than Metroid Prime or Resident Evil 4.

In short:

1982-1987...Huge improvement in console graphics.

1992-1997...Huge improvement in console graphics.

2002-2007...Little improvement in console graphics.

Without the advent of HD I would actually say there's been NO improvement. I was very unimpressed with the 360 until I saw it in HD.

I think Nintendo's goal was to bring gaming out of the teenager's basement and back into the family living room, and they succeeded. Do you feel a loss of ownership? I do. When I'm at the lunch table with my coworkers and they're discussing last night's Wii Sports session, suddenly I'm feeling left out in A CONVERSATION ABOUT VIDEOGAMES.

[CartCollector]

My apologies for the length of this post.

Ah, it's okay. You make a lot of good points, though I will say all this been said before for the DS. A common sentiment back in late '06/early '07 was that "The DS has a bunch of interesting features, and it's defied all predictions and done well. However, it doesn't make full use of its features, and its library is filled with too-short, depthless games." And the Wii inherited this sentiment right around when it became successful.


1982-1987...Huge improvement in console graphics.

1992-1997...Huge improvement in console graphics.

2002-2007...Little improvement in console graphics.


AKA law of diminishing returns. Which is something you'd expect with graphics. The more colors, the less they're noticed; the more pixels, the less they're noticed; the more antialiasing, the less it's noticed. Check out these pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_palettes#List_of_software_palettes) for proof of the first point.

[BHvrd]

Nintendo + Gimmicks = No dice.

Nintendo makes too many promises with "new devices" and doesn't deliver, history shows this.

Instead of getting more DS/Wii cross support and more actual things I have been looking FORWARD TOO, I get "Wii Fit" and MORE AND MORE GIMMICKS. Great more stuff to buy till they bring out the good stuff...

I don't like the way they are going with the Wii, all I see are a bunch of devices that are going to be useless and collect dust. As usual Nintendo needs to focus all it does around the things that have made them successful. Too often they abandon the projects that are suppose to "enhance" the experience and invest in new projects when they haven't even come close to tapping the potential of previous ones.

If i'm going to spend that much on all these "gimmicks" they damn sure better have LOADS of games to back it up! AND I MEAN SOME GOOD STUFF! The only Wii game at the moment that interests me is the Dragon Quest Sword game. It seems like a step in the right direction.

I wouldn't be so negative, but Nintendo always gets me pumped up with their new ideas only to give them half-ass support. My theory is Nintendo uses all these "gimmicks" to help financially support the occasional great game they make "face it they can make some great ones when they really focus".

I'm not buying into all this junk for now though, I got burned by last gen Gameboy Advance/Gamecube connectivity and i'm not looking for a hole to throw my money in. I have become more skeptical with bigN as time goes on.

Good post btw, hope I didn't get too far off topic but I think you bring up some good points and sound relevent to where Nintendo stands as a company.



P.S. They better not screw up the next Animal Crossing and where is a "DECENT <----key word" Wii Pokemon game!......FORGET ALL THIS FOO FOO FLUFFY POO POO. HARDCORE FOO FOO FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, I may need to go to bed now. ~_^

[mezrabad]

If I understand what the original poster is saying: You're saying that the Wii is an okay console with a few great games and a motion sensing gimmick that drew in non-gamers. You're forgetting the second gimmick: low supply. Whether intentional or not, the fact that it was and remains so difficult to get one certainly contributed to people wanting one.

I, for one, love the Wii on several levels. As a gamer, I'm crazy about Super Mario Galaxy and the Virtual Console (though I've yet to actually buy anything for it, I still like window shopping). As a member of a family, I love playing Sports and Play with my wife and children, not to mention Everybody Votes and Check Mii Out. As a couch potato, I love surfing the internet from my couch; hitting YouTube for instance and watching a pile of GameTrailers.com clips.

So, if you're saying the Wii isn't "winning" because of its library of games, but because of its gimmicks, then I can't disagree with you, but I still love its gimmicks, at least in the games I've been playing (SMG, Sports and Play).

[CartCollector]

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.

[j_factor]

I don't get why "gimmick" suddenly became an insult when the DS and Wii came around. Guitar Hero is a gimmick, but people don't seem to make snide comments about it. Lots of popular games were gimmicky. That doesn't mean they're not good.

I don't get why some people are so disappointed in the Wii controller. It pretty much works exactly as I expected it to before I ever touched the system. And it can add much to the game experience. For example, I think Ghost Squad is great with the Wiimote, and way better than playing a light gun game with an analog or digital control pad. And I for one wouldn't give a damn about yet another Medal of Honor game, but Heroes 2 sparked my interest specifically because of the controller (well, that and the arcade mode).

[lendelin]

Guitar Hero is a gimmick, but people don't seem to make snide comments about it. Lots of popular games were gimmicky. That doesn't mean they're not good.


If it works, it is not a gimmick. Guitar Hero works and does what it supposed to do, motion sensing doesn't; if Harmonix would have produced not only a couple of games but a hardware system for its games -- at least we could say that the controller works very well.

R.O.B. was a gimmick, but at least the NES wasn't built and marketed around it, and the machine could compete with systems of its generation. The Wii cannot.

[lendelin]

IMO graphics plateaued in 1999 with the Dreamcast. Last night I played Crimson Skies for the first time and thought "wow these graphics are fantastic"...that game's four or five years old? This is why I haven't been moved by the "Wii's just Gamecube 1.5" argument. I haven't seen games with graphics much better than Metroid Prime or Resident Evil 4.

In short:

1982-1987...Huge improvement in console graphics.

1992-1997...Huge improvement in console graphics.

2002-2007...Little improvement in console graphics.

Without the advent of HD I would actually say there's been NO improvement. I was very unimpressed with the 360 until I saw it in HD.

I think Nintendo's goal was to bring gaming out of the teenager's basement and back into the family living room, and they succeeded. Do you feel a loss of ownership? I do. When I'm at the lunch table with my coworkers and they're discussing last night's Wii Sports session, suddenly I'm feeling left out in A CONVERSATION ABOUT VIDEOGAMES.

I don't buy the law of diminishing returns. Certainly the difference of graphics between the 8-bit machines and 16-bit systems were much more dramatic than the jump from the last gen systems to the present ones.

The difference is more than noticeable in graphics, and processing power doesn't affect graphics alone.

The new systems are made for HD, and a couple of days ago I played my admired Gran Turismo 4 again in HD. I was a bit amazed. GT 4 on the PS2 is as good as it gets, it is a great game, but after I played Forza 2 some weeks before I was amazed about the difference in graphics. I played Need for Speed Most Wanted on the Gamecube (admittedly with composite cables on my vacation time in Germany), and then on the 360 at home on my HD set. Dramatic difference, same gameplay, very different game experience.

Processing power also means refinement of physics engines and AI -- the latter a big challenge of game design in the future. The Wii just cannot compete.

BTW, from a hardware standpoint the GC is still my favorite system. Do yourself a favor and buy an HDTV -- lots of GC games play in progressive scan and look gorgeous. (Zelda Collectors edition, and F-Zero GX, just great).

I'm all for bringing consoles back to the living room and making games a more social experience -- but not at the price of gamequality.

[lendelin]

...though I will say all this been said before for the DS. A common sentiment back in late '06/early '07 was that "The DS has a bunch of interesting features, and it's defied all predictions and done well. However, it doesn't make full use of its features, and its library is filled with too-short, depthless games." And the Wii inherited this sentiment right around when it became successful.


Exactly, I was one of the critics who said that the second screen is nothing else than an "innovation image" which sells well. The system has a fantastic game library, but not because of games which make use of the second screen. All Castlevania games could be on a single screen, the second screen is obsolete.

The second screen of the DS is the motion sensing of the Wii. It gives the systems an undeserved innovative image, and it worked and sold systems. The DS was Nintendo's test run for the Wii.

Nintendos strategy is even further entangled with the DS. The success of the handheld systems was the leg Nintendo stood on and with them Nintendo survived the lost console wars. Nintendo made of the Wii a cheap console system with games that have the characteristic of handheld games, family games, and short party games.

Nintendo learned lessons in particular of the Japanese market. I said already in 2006 before the Wii was released that changed leisure time activities and with it the trend to shorter, simpler games make the startegy of Nintendo a smart business decision; the same goes for the potential to penetrate the non-gamer demographic.

However, I thought of the Wii as a niche console, and completely didn't foresee its sucess. The sucess of the Wii is frightening. An outdated system with gimmicky controls that only work half way outsells the 360 2:1 and the PS3 4:1? Frightening.

[lendelin]

So, if you're saying the Wii isn't "winning" because of its library of games, but because of its gimmicks, then I can't disagree with you, but I still love its gimmicks, at least in the games I've been playing (SMG, Sports and Play).

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.

The discrepancy of the innovation image created by Nintendo's PR department and the actual gameplay irks me to no end. There is nothing innovative about the system nor the controls. This is what makes motion sensing a gimmick. A system designed around half baked controls in order to create an image. It worked.

We'll get Wii fit, too, and probably some people actaully believe that playing games leads to weight loss. Frightening and disillusional.


I, for one, love the Wii on several levels. As a gamer, I'm crazy about Super Mario Galaxy and the Virtual Console (though I've yet to actually buy anything for it, I still like window shopping).

Sure, I'll love Mario Galaxy for sure and will play it, and I like classic games as well...but my point is that this has nothing to do with the new control scheme.

[lendelin]

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.

I agree with the core points of the article. I also believe that game design and genres and consoles go through cycles. The Wii will be important because it influences future game development. Its success cannot be ignored.

The Wii might also be an indicator for reenforced developments similar to the book and movie industry.

Diversification of games from Mass Effect to Wii Sports and penetrating segmented customer groups might become stronger developments than we eexpected. After all, we get Lord of the Rings, and also Talladega Nights, the Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies, and movies explicitly made only for certain age groups.

Nintendo went with the Wii the shallowTalladega Nights route. I still have the most respect for Nintendo as a game developer; certainly they have been milking franchises (Mario Party and many others) but for core games it is still one of the few developers which polish their games and do not rush them because of set release dates.

Unfortunately, as a hardware manufacturer Nintendo lost all my respect. The moment Miyamoto, Iwata, and Nintendo's PR departments stressed that gamers are not interested in graphics but only in short innovative games, and the Wii mote is the future of gaming, I felt duped.

It irks me and it is bothersome if a PR department of a track and field club tries to convince me that it is actually an advantage for a sprinter to have only one arm, and sells this as the future of the 100m and 200m dash. This is particularly disturbing after the same club stressed for two decades how important the movement of both arms is in order to achieve good times.

I cannot imagine that I would have bought in 1991 a slightly enhanced version of the NES with an advanced R.O.B., and the Genesis would have been presented as a powerful but nonetheless standard game systems avoiding innovation. Nonsense.

[Icarus Moonsight]

As a long time gamer that owns only a Wii out of the new systems I have some input. First off, why not PS3 or 360? Major factor is price point, cost of ownership (Live subs & $10 premium on new titles) lack of software offerings that appeal to my taste (PS3) and, in the 360's case, reliability issues. The tech-superior consoles are also very close both in game selection and gaming experience brought to the table by the PC (which I partake in). Only the PC does the job better, as it always has, in my 10 year playtime with the platform. So that marginalizes and oft times negates any benefit I can reap from ownership.

Another factor is I'm getting older. As a result, I have less free time to spend playing games then I used to. As a married guy with an extended family I'd rather spend time with them than by myself, thumb-jockeying (though I still do from time to time). My wife will gladly play many older games with me and we have a lot of fun. We partner up to take on some newer games as well (Baldurs Gate DA, Champions of Norrath, Burnout, DOA/Volleyball, Smash Bros. Melee and Zelda Four Swords), but our selections are fewer than on the older systems. It got to a point (2-3 years ago) when I picked up a great game, she would try it, find it too difficult and tell me that it was more fun to watch me play it and ask if I'd take over. Now, that isn't right. We fell out of step with console gaming at that point because it no longer served the purpose of a joint activity.

Christmas 2005, we got into the DS and we were back playing together. It was a handheld though and suffered from it's inherent limitations as such. So we didn't game together at home like we used to (with new(er) games) where we put in more time gaming. We mostly played while waiting in lobbies for appointments, in restaurants - before and after our meal and other out-and-about places when it was convenient. It wasn't a perfect surrogate, but it made due, for awhile.

I've said all that to say this; We bought a Wii to play together again and it worked. There are still some fantastic games (IMO there are more than it gets credited for) that I want and get that she isn't into (No More Heroes, MP3, Zelda and RE4), but there is plenty more titles we can play together and have fun doing so, in the game room (even the living room with said extended family - neat bonus), like we used to. Elebits, Tiger Woods, WarioWare, Monkey Ball, Wii Sports/Play and much more to come. For all it's failings, in our position, the Wii makes much more sense than either a PS3 or 360. Though my wife REALLY wants N3 on 360 and I would like to get MGS4, we want Animal Crossing, SSBB, Mario Kart and Harvest Moon MUCH more. We decided it's just not worth getting a second new system at this time. When we get around to them they will be cheaper, possibly more reliable (RRoD), and we'll have more familiarity with the software we want to go after and I'll be able to pick it up used or from members here. The truth is: I'm not the gamer I used to be and at the same time, I am. It's not paradox, it's change. You got to roll with it. ROFL

I could have saved you all some time and just said, "I like the Wii and I have my reasons." But, it doesn't have the same effect as the longer explanation. :)

[slip81]

to OP:

man, you gotta calm down. Alright fine, you don't like the Wii, but do you really have to go on ad nauseam about how it's just a shitty GCN 2.0 gimmick (wait, you're not Anthony1 are you)?

You're more than entitled to your opinion, everybody is, but there is a point when opinion turns into childish rant, and I think you, with your paragraphs that venture into the double digits, saying basically the same thing you said in the first post, has reached that point.

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. the Wii and it's bad games will not topple the other guys. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the Wii sells so well, it's cheap and simple. I'm sure if MS and Sony dropped their consoles down to $199 they would fly off the shelves. And really bud, the motion controls work fine when the developer takes the time to make them work.

Yeah, there are plenty of games for the thing with shitty motion detecting, but that isn't Nintendo's fault. This isn't 1983, the market is too strong now to be toppled by one system with more bad games than good.

[Daria]

to OP:
You're more than entitled to your opinion, everybody is, but there is a point when opinion turns into childish rant, and I think you, with your paragraphs that venture into the double digits, saying basically the same thing you said in the first post, has reached that point.



Actually the OP both bashed and defended the Wii. Maybe if you'd read his "childish rant" you'd have caught that point.

I realize Anthony1 was a manaical technophile, but when did having a lot to say (on a forum!) become such a bad thing. I've never been to another message board that harps on long posts as a negative, but it happens regularly here. What also amazes me is that the demographic at DP is made up of much older users. It's not like you guys are children. Slow down, take you time to read the post and if you really can't slosh your way through it then move on. But some of us would like to hear what lendelin has to say.

[Daltone]

NOTE: My apologies for the length of this post. I’ve been carrying it around with me like an unborn child. It was a difficult birth.

Can I adopt it? It's very very rare that I agree with absolutely everything that someone's written.

[djbeatmongrel]

As someone in his early 20's with only a Wii out of the modern gen of consoles and probably a lot more games for it than the normal wii owner i think i can give a different demo graphically view. I personally think the wii has good motion sensing controls, its just dependent on how well the developer applies there respective games. I'll be honest, the only first party games i have played for the wii are metroid prime 3, wii sports, and link's crossbow training but theres a ton of solid 3rd party games already that are improving on the usage of controls and innovative applications. No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki are probably the two best examples so far of non "gimmicky" applications.

I hate to single you out Lendelin but I think people with your mind set are afraid to think outside of whats the norm in modern gaming. And it seems like you expect a onesided vied of how the wiimote is to be used "omg no swords wtfbbq." Really i think of the wii in the same way as the ds, its gonna take time for some reall fleashed out innovation with the control medium but after the first year or so the software really seems to kick ass only this time i think the wii had a much better first year.

Also what is wrong with shorter games? really it seems like the longer games are full of filler no a days to try to extend already lacking game play. Older games, for the most part were a lot more cut and dry and were still fun. from a price stand point i'd say a lot of wii games seem to be priced accordingly overall. its hard to complain about a short $30 title.

Theres nothing wrong with the 360 or ps3 but the wii seems to offer a more accessible experience plus a nice breath of fresh air.

[NinjaJoey23]

I agree with DJ on the quick, fun factor. I have a 360, and I love it. But many 360 games are a huge investment of time, and sometimes I'd like a quick, fun experience. I haven't played Mass Effect yet, and I can't wait, but I know it is an investment. It speaks volumes about Wii Sports that a game with no story and simple, innovative gameplay can be enough to satisfy most Wii owners for quite a while.

I agree that the Wii has failed on one level, and I think Nintendo realizes that, but they seem to have finally started crawling out of the "No good 3rd party support" hole. At the same time, they have a long way to go. The only must-have game on the horizon for me is Brawl, and I could see myself buying a Wii just to play it, whereas on the 360 I bought it with several games in mind. Even though the Wii has partially failed because its marketing was based heavily around the motion controls, it has also succeeded simultaneously in being marketed as a "complementary console."

edit: btw lendelin, I really heart your Megaman avatars.

[Rob2600]

1:1 motion sensing is a failure in sword games like Red Steel, Soulcalibur Legends, Dragon Blade, and Twilight Princess, in golf games like Tiger Woods, the list of disappointing games is extremely long.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess received a 9.5 out of 10 overall. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 both received a 7.3 out of 10 overall. Since when is that disappointing?

Games like Red Steel and Soulcalibur Legends were disappointing because they were bad. Vampire Rain and Pimp My Ride for the Xbox 360 were bad, too. It's not the controller's fault, it's the developer's fault.


Metroid Prime 3 is with standard buttons as good as with the Wii and Nunchuk.

Really? According to IGN's review (http://wii.ign.com/articles/815/815424p1.html):

"Metroid Prime 3's new Wii-enhanced control scheme is so good and so responsive that by comparison the original title and its sequel feel clumsy. In fact, using the nunchuk's analog stick to control Samus through environments as you point the Wii remote to target with speed and accuracy obliterates just about every dual-analog control setup currently available. If there is a game that proves the potential of the Wii remote for first-person experiences, this is it, and our hat is off to Retro for stepping up to the challenge when others couldn't or wouldn't. ... Controls better than any console first-person game before it."

According to Gamespot's review (http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/metroidprime3/review.html?sid=6177714):

"the Wii controls are terrific and intuitive, so if you hoped that controlling bounty hunter Samus Aran would be a dream, that wish has been granted ... an intuitive and configurable scheme that sets the standard for first-person shooting controls on the Wii"


the question is if three or four games which are fun for the family justify the price of an outdated console

In what way is the Wii outdated? It reads optical discs, outputs very nice high-resolution graphics, and outputs Dolby surround sound. Is it as advanced as the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3? No, but as Kid Ice pointed out, "graphics plateaued in 1999 with the Dreamcast. ... I haven't seen games with graphics much better than Metroid Prime or Resident Evil 4. ... Without the advent of HD I would actually say there's been NO improvement."

I wouldn't go quite as far as Kid Ice, but I definitely agree with his overall thought. Graphics have been improving since 1999, but not drastically. Compare Metropolis Street Racer on the Dreamcast to Burnout: Paradise on the PlayStation 3. Yes, of course, there's a difference in graphics, but it's not an amazingly huge difference. Compare Dead or Alive 2 on the Dreamcast to Dead or Alive 4 on the Xbox 360. Again, there is of course a difference in graphics, but - again - not an amazingly huge difference.

Even if some "hard core" gamers insist that the graphics in Dead or Alive 4 are a million times better than the graphics in Dead or Alive 2, "casual" or "mainstream" gamers don't notice a difference. I'm serious, they really don't. To my girlfriend, my family, and my friends, the graphics in good Wii games (Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Link's Crossbow Training, Zack & Wiki, etc.) look just as good as the graphics in Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 games.


There is nothing innovative about the system nor the controls. This is what makes motion sensing a gimmick. A system designed around half baked controls in order to create an image. It worked.

I'm glad Nintendo went with motion control. I like it. Do all Wii games use motion control extensively? No...and they shouldn't. Waving my arms back and forth for an hour to swim to different locations in Endless Ocean would be stupid. Thank goodness the developer didn't implement a control scheme like that. However, flicking my wrist to pull ropes, open bottles, and open doors in Zack & Wiki is cool and fun. When the Wii remote is used in subtle and clever ways like that, I'm more connected to the game than if I were just pressing the "A" or "R" buttons all the time.

That said, I still play old games using standard controllers and they're fun and immersive too, but good Wii games pull me in even a little bit more.


We'll get Wii fit, too, and probably some people actaully believe that playing games leads to weight loss. Frightening and disillusional.

Why is that frightening and disillusional? Wii Fit won't turn people into body builders, but I don't think anyone is expecting it to. It will help them get in shape though. I bet playing Wii Fit regularly (and properly) and eating properly would make a big difference in many people's lives.

IGN - The Wii Fit Workout (http://wii.ign.com/articles/850/850936p1.html)

Also:

Yahoo! News - Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wiihabilitation_medicine)

"WakeMed Health has been using Wii games at its Raleigh, NC, hospital for patients as young as 9 'all the way up to people in their 80s,' said therapist Elizabeth Penny. 'They're getting improved endurance, strength, coordination. I think it's very entertaining for them.'"

[blue lander]

Let me start by saying I've never actually tried playing a wii, so my impressions could be way off the mark. If I want to play simple, fun pick-up-and-play games and I don't care about graphics, I just fire up the 2600.

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? Does it even mean anything to them at all?

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.

Sure, maybe the wii will only end up with a handful of truly excellent games by the end of its lifetime. How many games do you think the average casual gamer actually has time to play?? The wii to them might just be a fun toy to pull out at parties or on rainy days every once in awhile, not something that they devote their lives/money to and spend hours on message boards arguing about.

A lot of complaints I hear from serious gamers the wii sound like a race car driver complaining about a Station Wagon because it can't win the Indy 500. It was designed for a completely different purpose, one that some of us can't even relate to.

[Rob2600]

A lot of complaints I hear from serious gamers the wii sound like a race car driver complaining about a Station Wagon because it can't win the Indy 500. It was designed for a completely different purpose, one that some of us can't even relate to.

Amen to that and everything else you just wrote.

The Wii is bringing home video gaming back to the point it was at when it started in the 1970s and 1980, where family members would take turns playing games or compete against each other. My family's Atari 2600 was connected to the living room TV and we would all take turns playing games like Breakout, Demon Attack, Warlords, Circus Atari, etc. We'd invite relatives and friends over and have tournaments. It was a lot of fun. My family would also play the NES a lot (Super Mario Bros., Arkanoid, Q*bert, etc.). My friends' parents also got into games like Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! and R.C. Pro-Am.

For a while in the 1990s and early 2000s, it seems like that wasn't happening. As Kid Ice wrote, "I think Nintendo's goal was to bring gaming out of the teenager's basement and back into the family living room, and they succeeded."

[heybtbm]

Arguing with Nintendo fan-boys is an exercise in futility. I'm surprised so many people here at DP haven't figured that out yet.

I love to rile up the Nintendo Mafia as much as the next guy, but writing these epic 5000 word replies just bolsters their "faith" and eggs them on even more.

[Kid Ice]

Arguing with Nintendo fan-boys is an exercise in futility. I'm surprised so many people here at DP haven't figured that out yet.

I love to rile up the Nintendo Mafia as much as the next guy, but writing these epic 5000 word replies just bolsters their "faith" and eggs them on even more.

Is the problem the "Nintendo Mafia" or the Fanboy Finger Waving Club?

I don't care much for the Wii, and I thought the Gamecube was the biggest waste of time ever produced by Nintendo (well except for the V-Boy). I just disagree with the whole "Wii sucks because it's Gamecube 1.5" philosophy.

The original post, although I disagree with most of it, was well written and thoughtful and so have been most of the replies.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Hmmm ... I need the most concise response possible ... let me see if I can respond to the original post in 5/7/5 Haiku form.

wii is great console
too much shovelware produced
despite that still fun

there you go kids, Wii Haiku for your reading pleasure.

[diskoboy]

I think the only reason the Wii is selling is because of the nostalgia factor. The NES generation is now grown up, and buying consoles for their kids now.

Adults want it because of the Nintendo brand name, and because it's rep as a family friendly console - Nintendo has used the same characters for generations now. Everybody who grew up in the late 80's would recognize them in an instant. Not to mention, it's the cheapest console of the three. But the old adage in the industry is "give away the razors to sell the blades" is a bit off, here. The razors are selling, but the blades they're giving us are dull.

Kids want it because all their friends want or have one, or they wanna play Pokemon. When I gave my 7 year old nephew Super Mario Galaxy or Christmas, he looked at me as if I murdered Santa. When he opened up Pokemon and Lego Star Wars his face lit up again. Kids could care less about Mario or franchises they aren't familiar with.

[Rob2600]

I think the only reason the Wii is selling is because of the nostalgia factor. The NES generation is now grown up, and buying consoles for their kids now.

Adults want it because of the Nintendo brand name, and because it's rep as a family friendly console - Nintendo has used the same characters for generations now. Everybody who grew up in the late 80's would recognize them in an instant. Not to mention, it's the cheapest console of the three.

If that's really the case, then why didn't the GameCube outsell the Xbox or the PlayStation 2? It was made by Nintendo, so - according to you - it had the nostalgia factor, it had Super Mario games, so - according to you - adults should've felt comfortable buying it for their children, it had Pokemon games, so - according to you - children should've gone crazy for it, and it was the cheapest of the three consoles.

Perhaps the main reason the Wii is selling so well is because, like the iPod and the PlayStation, it has that mysterious "cool" factor.

[CartCollector]

I thought the Gamecube was the biggest waste of time ever produced by Nintendo

A very true quote. How much time have I wasted with my friends playing Super Smash Bros. Melee and Pac-Man Vs.? Far too much. At least it's some of the best gaming out there.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

For what it's worth, Nintendo sure as hell makes it easy for people TO BE critical of their console efforts.

Sure, with their position in the handheld marketplace in the US, it was what they gave ya' or NOTHIN for about 10+ years ...

... but with the other Consoles/Developers/Choices out there, and the successes the others are having with both third party software developers being on-board in a big way with exclusives, consistent above-average third-party releases, success on the online-gaming front, quality original downloadable exclusive software, multimedia options ...

... it's pretty darned easy not only for non-Wii owners but also people who have had one since launch (myself included) to go ... "WHAT the HELL Nintendo!!??" on a pretty regular basis over any number of decisions.

But, out of fairness, I've been doing that since the N64 in response to most of their decision making processes at the retail marketplace.

[Rob2600]

Nintendo sure as hell makes it easy for people TO BE critical of their console efforts.

Microsoft doesn't? The whole red-ring-of-death debacle...

Sony doesn't? $600 price tag...no rumble...ports that run at half the frame rate...releasing upgraded machines every three months...

"Hey, I just bought the PlayStation 3!"

"Cool, which one?"

Which one? Come on. The beauty of a home video game console is that everyone has identical hardware, which usually lasts about five or six years. It's supposed to be cheap and simple. If I wanted to pay $600 for a machine, only to have the company bring out an upgraded version every three months, I'd buy a Dell computer.

Am I too old fashioned?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Microsoft doesn't? The whole red-ring-of-death debacle...

Sony doesn't? $600 price tag...no rumble...ports run at half the frame rate...releasing upgraded versions of its machine every three months...

"Hey, I just bought the PlayStation 3!"

"Cool, which one?"

Which one? Come on. The beauty of a home video game console is that everyone has identical hardware, which usually lasts about five or six years. It's simple. If I wanted to pay $600 for a machine, only to have the company bring out an upgraded version every three months, I'd buy a Dell.

Am I too old fashioned?

Sure Microsoft and Sony also make mistakes...

...every console developer makes mistakes...

Nintendo just seems to have a knack for doing things that cause for huge, massive question marks to pop up over my head on a pretty regular basis ... where MS and Sony get more ... I don't know, squiggly heat lines from frustration ...

... Nintendo's consistent inability to move with standardized hardware trends - most notably frustrating being moving to the CD/DVD format in a timely fashion, and their outwardly xenophobic online "friend coding" (which nearly defeats the purpose of having "online communities" when everybody is relegated to a non-memorizable, non-customizable NUMBER) ... when comparing the way that Nintendo has handled their own approaches to those (amongst other) things to both of their main competitors (who have both been major successes in both fields of taking advantage of disc-based hardware as well as online gameplay) well, it often makes me do just what I said I've done since the N64 era.

Go "WHAT the HELL Nintendo!!??"

But, again, when discussing anything related to Nintendo, one needs to take into account that any amount of success/failure in any area of gaming will be staunchly defended by obsessively faithful Nintendo loyalists.

To those who are in that camp - if Nintendo didn't want to move to discs at the time that they did, it was a good move. If they never did, it would have been a good move. It was a good move that they used a proprietary disc-based media with smaller storage size on the Gamecube, and a good move that the Wii uses DVD media, but doesn't play DVD video or music CD's.

All good, defend-able decisions, and no amount of quantifiable successes from any other company in the global market is evidence against that.

Now ... don't get me wrong ... I love my Wii (not so much the selection of software in the market, but the hardware - it's nice.) and there is little about the Wii that I think is "wrong" that couldn't be solved with a bit of firmware tweaking (Get online ramped up some more, change the way that online ID and "friend making" handled, add online components to the classic emulated software on the Wii Virtual Console, and give the thing some external HDD support, and you've got a system that IS in fact comparable to the 360 and the PS3 ... but, I doubt Nintendo will do any of those things ... because they simply have never and will never listen to their critics, especially when their critics are their biggest fans! *Yes, yes, thank you, late 90's with the Gameboy line ... but still searching for an instance on console hardware.*)

[neuropolitique]

More of the same lendelin. You've been on this track since at least Jan 07 and before foretelling the demise of Nintendo. Maybe you could just try to enjoy games for once?

Myself, I'm not sure where I stand on the Wii yet. Mario Galaxy was fantastic, but it's the only game of the four I have I can say that about. Paper Mario is ok, but I can't seem to get into it. Wii play hasn't been in since the day I got it. Wii Sports is good, but how much of that can I play? I'm hoping things improve now that it has a huge install base, but for now I see myself buying one game this year, Brawl.

And to keep things fair, I have about as many 360 games so far. This generation in general is leaving me feeling Meh.

[neuropolitique]

... because they simply have never and will never listen to their critics, especially when their critics are their biggest fans!)


It was nearly completely through the outcry of the gaming public (transmitted through voices -and the wallets of retailers) that Nintendo was ENCOURAGED to keep the GameBoy line alive, and in turn encourage 3rd party developers to continue to support an aging, technically limited system.

Just curious, which is it?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Just curious, which is it?

Ah, touche mon petit fromage.

Okay. In the case of the Gameboy, they wanted to scrap it, but due to the massive amount of demand from retailers and consumers, they kept the line alive (un-altered hardware-wise for the next few years, but alive nonetheless).

I wish I could think of an instance over the past three console cycles where people have been critical of their decisions and they've gone back and re-thought/re-formatted anything mid-cycle at all based on public outcry, where we've clearly seen that to SOME degree from Sega, MS and Sony.

I mean, look at the great hardware revisions that Nintendo gives us with their handhelds (GBP<GBC<GBA<GBASP<DS<DS Lite) ... why can't they stop, look, listen and adjust with their consoles in the same fashion?

[diskoboy]

If that's really the case, then why didn't the GameCube outsell the Xbox or the PlayStation 2? It was made by Nintendo, so - according to you - it had the nostalgia factor, it had Super Mario games, so - according to you - adults should've felt comfortable buying it for their children, it had Pokemon games, so - according to you - children should've gone crazy for it, and it was the cheapest of the three consoles.

Perhaps the main reason the Wii is selling so well is because, like the iPod and the PlayStation, it has that mysterious "cool" factor.

Because Nintendo stuck with the kiddie motif during the Gamecube era. The Gamecube (and now the DS and Wii) were a dumping ground for Nickelodeon\Disney\Cartoon Network shovelware. As a 33 year old, it's just hard to take the Wii seriously. There was a new Mario Kart or Naruto game every 6 weeks, it seemed. Plus there were no NEW IP's to speak of. Eternal Darkness and Pikmin - maybe. But that's about it.

What I meant was Adults are now looking at the Wii through the rose-tinted glasses of childhood. For a few bucks, you can go and download all those NES/SNES/Genesis games you loved as a kid, and maybe they'll make a new Metroid, Zelda, or Mario to keep the cycle going.

If you ask me, Nintendo is slowly becoming the Disney of the gaming industry.

[djbeatmongrel]

you forgot chibi robo and animal crossing, they were also new IPs

[blissfulnoise]

Excellent original post. In 100% agreement. Well, nearly 100%... Talladega Nights is a damn funny movie.

Where people get off track in lendelin's argument, what I perceive it to be anyway, isn't so much a bashing of the console. But a bashing of the technology. And it's well deserved because, frankly, it's faulty.

The decision to use RF and Accelerometers was an incredibly poor one. And don't tell me it's the cost. Nintendo makes money off of each Wii sold; an exclusive attribute in this generation.

The Sixaxis offers an infinitely superior motion control experience due to the tech applied. And if, as a company, you were putting all of your eggs into this proverbial basket, you'd think they'd have made the effort to focus R&D into your systems main selling point.

I made a big deal in my mini-review of No More Heroes that it was the first game I've played to incorporate the motion control gimmick nearly flawlessly; its unobtrusive, engaging, clever, and, most important, creative. Most so in Japan where the "sword-charge" motion actually has you mimicking something else. But its not the core component of the game play.

Take a look at a game like WarioWare where the core game component does exclusively rely on the motion controls. Several of the mini-games are extremely difficult to complete due to the faulty nature of the controls. Others are nearly broken. WarioWare should have been a showcase for what the Wii was capable of. Instead it had the direct opposite effect and showcased every flaw in the mechanic.

When I play a particularly intensive motion sensitive Wii game (of which, there are not many), I have to ensure that there are no reflective surfaces in the path between the TV (sensor bar) and myself. I also have to dampen any direct light sources. When I play flOw or Warhawk, I focus on having a good time, regardless of surroundings.

So, in response to this, most Wii (not necessarily Nintendo) fans will point to the games popularity and success of a handful of games: Metroid (I totally disagree with IGNs review), Zelda, Wii Sports, et all. I think this is a bit of a red herring and I'll try to filet the fish...

Let's start with sales. Yes, the Wii is moving systems at a nearly unprecedented rate (I say nearly due to their success with the DS) but what about the larger picture? The global attach rate is 3.6 games per console. This takes into account that Wii Sports is not bundled with the system into Japan and that the game has a nearly 1:1 attach rate there. Wii Play is also sitting a nearly 1:1 attach rate both there and here. This doesn't leave room for many 3rd party titles and the trend suggests that people are only interested in 1st party games. The Gamecube suffered a similiar fate, however, the install base wasn't nearly as large. What does this mean? That, should the trend continue, the Wii will see some interesting one-off unique, quirky, or otherwise interesting titles in the 3rd party scene but not much else. Also, Nintendo will make a boat load of cash.

So, sure, Nintendo's strategy of appealing to non-gamers is working, at least superficially. But what we're learning is that non-gamers don't really like to game. And so long as the Wii is a game system (and I'm pretty sure it is), that has to count as a failure in principle (though not in Nintendo's pocketbook).

Regarding the games, and let’s be clear that this is the most important factor, yes, there are some great games for the Wii. Endless Ocean is a breath of fresh air on retail shelves. (Though not as unique as its made out to be. See: Aquanauts Holiday, Everblue.) No More Heroes is essential gaming. Super Mario Galaxy is very entertaining (though I seriously thought that Sunshine was the better game). Super Paper Mario is a fine and fun time (though clearly a Gamecube game). Twilight Princess is much the same way and shows that Zelda is getting a little long in the tooth. And the Virtual Console offers some fantastic gaming even if the return on investment is a bit high.

We all know that the Wii will deliver some very high quality gaming. So much so that gamers would be remiss not to get one to experience it. But that high quality will crux on the motion controls that set the system apart. My guess is that most games will steer clear of it and focus on traditional content. This is what makes the DS so successful over the technically superior PSP. Some of the best games on the system don't use the touch functionality at all, or if they do, only in a superficial way. It's all about content and Nintendo is set to deliver as well as (if not better) than anyone else.

As far as "Next Generation" goes, I'm not much of a graphics guy, some of my favorite games highly style and originality over technical prowess and this is well documented on the forums. But there are some games on the system that look abysmal in context of modern games (Metroid, I'm looking at you); so much so that it detracts from the game-play experience. This reiterates that if the Wii is looking to plant a stake in the ground with gamers, they're going to have to do it through gameplay.

I own 9 Wii Games. Of them, I've played 4 for more than a few hours. But, that said, I own zero physical games for the PS3 so read into that what you will.

For all my gripes about the Wii, I'll say again that I think it's an essential system for gamers. Just like the 360 and just like the PS3. I know not everyone can own all three, especially with the price points (and let's face it, $250 isn't "cheap" or a casual purchase for most of America) and that's probably where a lot of these stupid arguments come in. People who don't have (or can't afford) to own all three consoles feel as though they're backing something and take offense at criticism levied against their metaphorical horse. I understand the sentiment but blind obedience to a brand because of how you voted your dollars is pretty dumb.

All three current consoles have their strengths. It's just the Wii's strength isn't where people expected it to be (controls). Instead, its in the place that all Nintendo consoles strength lay; in the first party games.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

What Blissfulnoise said.

I've always been of the position that one can be both a supporter AND a critic of something. In fact, I think that it's most important for supporters TO be critical of small failings or find areas for improvement in any thing that anybody is passionate about.

That's how the learning process works most effectively. If you're a student of any art, (Nintendo being the student in this scenario) personal breakthroughs come at a certain speed, but if you listen not only to what your teacher says, but also your critics and your peers, you'll move more quickly towards the next level of quality/learnedness towards perfection (though, perfection is almost never realistically attainable anyway).

I've always been a supporter of what Nintendo has done in the marketplace, however, any time I provide a criticism, which in most every case is meant to be a provision of advice, and not a personal attack, I'm usually publicly stoned by the more ... "blindly patriotic" of the Nintendo faithful.

[blissfulnoise]

Eternal Darkness and Pikmin - maybe. But that's about it.

Crystal Chronicles, Cubivore, Killer7, Odama, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Metroid Prime (so different, it revitalized the franchise), and Baten Kaitos were other new, successful IPs.

Animal Crossing, however, wasn't a new IP. It was Animal Forest 1.5. Though it was new to the US.

[Kid Ice]

A very true quote. How much time have I wasted with my friends playing Super Smash Bros. Melee and Pac-Man Vs.? Far too much. At least it's some of the best gaming out there.

I knew the way I worded that was going to come back to haunt me. ;-)

True it is a great multiplayer console.


If you ask me, Nintendo is slowly becoming the Disney of the gaming industry.

In a poll a couple years ago it was found that more children worldwide recognized Mario than Mickey Mouse.

[lendelin]

As a long time gamer that owns only a Wii out of the new systems I have some input. First off, why not PS3 or 360? Major factor is price point, cost of ownership (Live subs & $10 premium on new titles) lack of software offerings that appeal to my taste (PS3) and, in the 360's case, reliability issues. The tech-superior consoles are also very close both in game selection and gaming experience brought to the table by the PC (which I partake in). Only the PC does the job better, as it always has, in my 10 year playtime with the platform. So that marginalizes and oft times negates any benefit I can reap from ownership.

Another factor is I'm getting older. As a result, I have less free time to spend playing games then I used to. As a married guy with an extended family I'd rather spend time with them than by myself, thumb-jockeying (though I still do from time to time). My wife will gladly play many older games with me and we have a lot of fun. We partner up to take on some newer games as well (Baldurs Gate DA, Champions of Norrath, Burnout, DOA/Volleyball, Smash Bros. Melee and Zelda Four Swords), but our selections are fewer than on the older systems. It got to a point (2-3 years ago) when I picked up a great game, she would try it, find it too difficult and tell me that it was more fun to watch me play it and ask if I'd take over. Now, that isn't right. We fell out of step with console gaming at that point because it no longer served the purpose of a joint activity.

Christmas 2005, we got into the DS and we were back playing together. It was a handheld though and suffered from it's inherent limitations as such. So we didn't game together at home like we used to (with new(er) games) where we put in more time gaming. We mostly played while waiting in lobbies for appointments, in restaurants - before and after our meal and other out-and-about places when it was convenient. It wasn't a perfect surrogate, but it made due, for awhile.

I've said all that to say this; We bought a Wii to play together again and it worked. There are still some fantastic games (IMO there are more than it gets credited for) that I want and get that she isn't into (No More Heroes, MP3, Zelda and RE4), but there is plenty more titles we can play together and have fun doing so, in the game room (even the living room with said extended family - neat bonus), like we used to. Elebits, Tiger Woods, WarioWare, Monkey Ball, Wii Sports/Play and much more to come. For all it's failings, in our position, the Wii makes much more sense than either a PS3 or 360. Though my wife REALLY wants N3 on 360 and I would like to get MGS4, we want Animal Crossing, SSBB, Mario Kart and Harvest Moon MUCH more. We decided it's just not worth getting a second new system at this time. When we get around to them they will be cheaper, possibly more reliable (RRoD), and we'll have more familiarity with the software we want to go after and I'll be able to pick it up used or from members here. The truth is: I'm not the gamer I used to be and at the same time, I am. It's not paradox, it's change. You got to roll with it. ROFL

I completely agree. Your situation and the reasons you gave why the Wii is attractive for you makes very clear why the Wii is a success. Gamers like you were neglected, and family oriented games became a niche. Nintendo emphasized multiplayer games for the family, and it was successful. With increased living standards the families became smaller and the houses became bigger with multiple TVs. The result is that peer groups play together, not the family.

However, my criticism about the the Wii still stands. Family games yes, but imprecise motion controls which was marketed as innovation and don't deliver, no.

I admit, however, that they do deliver for to acertain degree for short party and family games with not too much in-depth gameplay. No more Hereos, Zelda, RE 4 are good games but not of the motion controls which was according to N the justification for a lack of power. If the new controls don't work what's left is a clearly underpowered system compared to its competitors.


I could have saved you all some time and just said, "I like the Wii and I have my reasons." But, it doesn't have the same effect as the longer explanation. :)

Great that you elaborated about your incentives to play the Wii. I'm not interested in short judgement calls, I'm only interested in reasoning. :)

[Rob2600]

my criticism about the the Wii still stands. Family games yes, but imprecise motion controls which was marketed as innovation and don't deliver, no. ...

No more Hereos, Zelda, RE 4 are good games but not of the motion controls which was according to N the justification for a lack of power. If the new controls don't work what's left is a clearly underpowered system compared to its competitors.

Why do you keep insisting the controls in Twilight Princess, No More Heroes, and Resident Evil 4 don't work?

[lendelin]

to OP:

man, you gotta calm down.

I'm very calm.



You're more than entitled to your opinion, everybody is,...

My experience: People who stress this obvious fact are tempted to suppress dissenting opinions.


...but there is a point when opinion turns into childish rant,...

see above. I hope not, I'm 50.


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.

If someone says this he deserved the 'idiot of the year medal.' Note: Instead giving me generously the right to my own opinion you should actually read it. Don't reason gainst something which was never said, otherwise you turn into Don Quixote fighting against windmills.


Yeah, there are plenty of games for the thing with shitty motion detecting, but that isn't Nintendo's fault.

No? They are responsible for the hardware...and as a developer, do you think the sword slashing in Zelda works well? Do you think the tennis game in Wii Sports and the little mini games in Wii Play allow for refined ball control or is the motion sensing dumbed down to the basics becasue the translation of movements onto the screen are imprecise?


This isn't 1983, the market is too strong now to be toppled by one system with more bad games than good.

What an insight. Again: Don't play Don Quixote. I think I could explain much better than you why 2008 isn't 1983. It's the extreme opposite.

[lendelin]

...are improving on the usage of controls and innovative applications. No More Heroes and Zack & Wiki are probably the two best examples so far of non "gimmicky" applications.

If you mean with innovation to use the Wii remote as a flashlight like in Super Paper Mario, or shake it once in awhile with no meaningful gameplay, or open a door by pointing the remote, and many other applications, I wholeheartidly disagree.

I don't know about Zack and Wicki, but I stressed that the motion controls in No MOre Heroes is reduced and dumbed down to such a degree that it truly deserves the label 'tucked add-on.'

The developers were smart enough to ignore the motion controls for essential gameplay and use standard buttons for sword slashing. Thank goodness because No More Heroes is a playful, quirky, well designed game that deserves much better than the Wii motion sensing. Again, it is a great game, but not because of the new controls. It would be a good game on the Cube and on every last generation and present generation system. I'm glad it was released in America.


Also what is wrong with shorter games?

Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, I stressed the demand for and the necessity of them.

[lendelin]

More of the same lendelin. You've been on this track since at least Jan 07 and before foretelling the demise of Nintendo.

Even if this were true I certainly dont "foretell the demise of Nintendo." I stressed the economic success and criticized the motion controls which were the main reason to justify technological power of 2001 for a $250 system in 2006.

In the past I stressed that N is in a very difficult situation in the console business, and that the decision for the Wii was a smart business decision. The latter opened the door to survive. However, I thought with many others that the Wii would be a niche console and a very distant third to its competitors. The latter is hardly foretelling the "demise" of Nintendo.




Maybe you could just try to enjoy games for once?

Cheap nonsensensical response. I do, that's why I'm critical of them. I love good games. But that doesn't mean that my brain shuts down when I'm playing.


Myself, I'm not sure where I stand on the Wii yet. Mario Galaxy was fantastic, but it's the only game of the four I have I can say that about. Paper Mario is ok, but I can't seem to get into it. Wii play hasn't been in since the day I got it. Wii Sports is good, but how much of that can I play? I'm hoping things improve now that it has a huge install base, but for now I see myself buying one game this year, Brawl.

Maybe you could just try to enjoy games for once?

[lendelin]

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess received a 9.5 out of 10 overall. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 both received a 7.3 out of 10 overall. Since when is that disappointing?

C’mon, this is besides the point. Why do enthusiastic defenders always point to lions in order to demonstrate the greatness of crocodiles?

I didn’t criticize Zelda, I criticized the tucked-on motion play elements of Zelda. Zelda is a great game despite the motion sensing, not because of them. Or do you believe seriously that the motion control elements of the game increased the score even by .1?

I criticized the motion sensing for various genres in comparison to the standard controls, and the result of this “revolution” in game play is very disappointing. I read the reviews since the Wii release very carefully, and my opinion might be wrong but it is neither arbitrary nor biased. I made a case that the standard control at this point in time delivers by far the most precise and best control.

You mention Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods 07 on the Wii was a sub-par game because of the Wii controls; and since you like review scores, IGN gave the 360 version a 8.5, the PS3 version a 8.3, and the Wii version a 7.0. Quote:“The real question is whether or not the Wii remote perfectly simulates a golf club. The answer is no - there are still some issues, which we'll outline, but it works well enough most of the time for us to recommend Tiger Woods,...”

The score gaps for the different version of TW 08 were similar: 360 and PS3 8.5, Wii 7.1. So much for the notion that developers will learn to implement the new control scheme. One year wasn’t apparently enough to get it straight.

I still remember the bad review of TW 07 in Game Informer, that’s why I mentioned the game in my OP.

Quote GI: “Lagging well behind the series’ standards, the Wii remote has a hard time detecting your backswing. Thus, it’s harder to control. There were even times the game putted for me by accident.” (Score 6.5)

If the controls work better like in Hot Shots and Wii Play and Sports, they are dumbed down to the basics because the technology just isn’t capable detecting complex movements, and even worse, misinterprets faster movements. The result is limited game play suited for party games, but nothing else.

If I have a frantic boss battle in Devil May Cry, I certainly don’t want to play the game in slow motion so the controls work.


Games like Red Steel and Soulcalibur Legends were disappointing because they were bad. Vampire Rain and Pimp My Ride for the Xbox 360 were bad, too. It's not the controller's fault, it's the developer's fault.

The two games on the 360 were hardly great opportunities to show the emphasized new opportunities of the system, they are shovelware we find on every system. Red Steel (in particular as an early title) and SC Legends were prime examples to demonstrate the alleged revolutionary gameplay the Wii design revolves around; and in all seriousness, do you really want to compare the amount of shovelware for both systems in order to make the case for the Wii? I don’t think so.

In the cases of Red Steel, SC Legends, Table Tennis and many others the inadequate game play isn’t the developers fault, it is the limit of the technology. No More Heroes is proof that developers gave up on motion sensing in particular for sword swinging because it would have made an excellent game mediocre at best. The remaining game play elements of the Wii remote in the game are trivial.


Really? According to IGN's review (http://wii.ign.com/articles/815/815424p1.html):

As someone who just HAS to play every Metroid game I remember very well the IGN review. It was too enthusiastic, and even sometimes contradictory. However, granted, the motion sensing was an alternative on par with the standard control scheme. I remember very well the DP thread about the game. Some said they liked it, some said they prefer still the standard control, at least it was something different worthwhile to try out. That’s why I evaluated the motion sensing in Metroid Prime in my OP carefully. Still, Metroid Prime was and still remains an exception.



In what way is the Wii outdated? It reads optical discs, outputs very nice high-resolution graphics, and outputs Dolby surround sound. Is it as advanced as the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3? No,

Are you serious?


but as Kid Ice pointed out, "graphics plateaued in 1999 with the Dreamcast. ... I haven't seen games with graphics much better than Metroid Prime or Resident Evil 4. ... Without the advent of HD I would actually say there's been NO improvement."

Isn’t that like saying without FoxNews CNN would be still in good shape? The new systems are tailored towards HD, that’s the point; and if you say that the Wii “outputs nice high resolution graphics” don’t you admit that they are 1) important, and 2) that 480p compared to 720p/1080p is a very noticeable difference? (Besides many other graphical abilities the Wii just can’t deliver)


Compare Metropolis Street Racer on the Dreamcast to Burnout: Paradise on the PlayStation 3. Yes, of course, there's a difference in graphics, but it's not an amazingly huge difference.

I don’t have Burnout Paradise, but just two days ago I compared Metropolis Street Racer to Project Gotham Racing 4 which I started playing last week. Granted, I have my Dreamcast on S-Video on a good STDTV; the STDTV and the HDTV are side by side.

Actually, I was amazed about the difference in graphics. I remembered the graphics of Metropolis Street Racer much better than they actually are.

Still, I like the original Dreamcast racer better because of its music and relative straight forwardness. I admit, the new concept and freshness of the original is still more impressive than the more refined gameplay of the old idea. However, the difference in graphics IS huge.


However, flicking my wrist to pull ropes, open bottles, and open doors in Zack & Wiki is cool and fun. When the Wii remote is used in subtle and clever ways like that, I'm more connected to the game than if I were just pressing the "A" or "R" buttons all the time.

That said, I still play old games using standard controllers and they're fun and immersive too, but good Wii games pull me in even a little bit more.

You know, this might be a valid reason why gamers (like the two of us) evaluate the new motion controls so differently. I admit that I feel like a hopping around idiot using the thing, and I can accept that pulling ropes, pointing the remote as a flashlight, turning doorknobs and so many other little things immerses you and others a bit more in the game. This might be a difference in personalities and human nature.

I feel more detached from the game when I do it, in particular if the motion controls don’t work accurately even for little game play elements, while you feel less the screen between you and the game. I have no difficulty to admit that I arrogantly belittled such an effect on gamers in my posts.

Still, even with those effects, isn’t the new motion control overall disappointing and doesn’t come even close to meet expectations?

[p_b]

Ok, Lendelin, you don't like the Wii, or at least it's not the system for you. That's ok, no problem at all. I still don't see why the Wii is supposed to be the demise of the video gaming industry. It's bringing "new" people into gaming, while the "traditional" gamers will still buy a PS3/360 and maybe a Wii as well. So, that means more money goes into the industry, which probably isn't the worst thing that could happen...

[lendelin]

Ok, Lendelin, you don't like the Wii, or at least it's not the system for you.

It is not a matter of like or dislike, it is a matter of hardware and the limits in gamequality it can produce evaluated on the basis of what it was designed for.


It's bringing "new" people into gaming, while the "traditional" gamers will still buy a PS3/360 and maybe a Wii as well. So, that means more money goes into the industry, which probably isn't the worst thing that could happen...

Said the same thing. Read before responding. Or are you like President Schwarzenegger from The Simpsons Movie?: "Im elected to LEAD not to READ."

[Rob2600]

two days ago I compared Metropolis Street Racer to Project Gotham Racing 4 ... the difference in graphics IS huge.

Of course, you and I can tell the difference between the graphics in Metropolis Street Racer and Project Gotham Racing 4, but to normal people who haven't played video games every day for the last 25 years, they both look good.

To quote one of my previous posts in this thread:

Even if some "hard core" gamers insist that the graphics in, for example, Dead or Alive 4 are a million times better than the graphics in Dead or Alive 2, "casual" or "mainstream" gamers don't notice a difference. I'm serious, they really don't.

Big-budget AAA games look great, but graphics have reached a point where even mediocre games look fine to "casual" or "mainstream" gamers. That's what I meant when I wrote, "In what way is the Wii outdated? It reads optical discs, outputs very nice high-resolution graphics, and outputs Dolby surround sound." To most people, the Wii isn't outdated...they think it's really cool and have no problem with the graphics.

However, to a rich technology fiend who can afford the best big-screen TVs and the latest high-tech gadgets, yes, I guess the Wii would seem a bit outdated.

[blue lander]

It is not a matter of like or dislike, it is a matter of hardware and the limits in gamequality it can produce evaluated on the basis of what it was designed for.


I don't know, it seems like the wii was designed for non-gamers to have fun playing simple easy-to-pick-up games, and to not cost more than a non-gamer would be willing to pay for a quick diversion. Doesn't seem like any of the wii's technical limitations keep it from doing that... Who knows how much more it would have cost to give the wii perfect 1:1 motion detection? And who knows if the wii's target audience (read: not you or me) would give a crap if it did? Maybe the average wii user is just happy waggling a piece of plastic at a TV screen. Maybe it works just as well as it needs to in order to deliver the experience Nintendo was aiming for. How you expected the wii to work and how Nintendo intended it to may be two completely different things.

[Wirestone]

I have so far resisted posting in this thread. It's no good for my blood pressure. However, allow me to toss a bit of gasoline on the flames, after which I will scurry away like the tiny woodland creature I am.

At least the Wii does not regularly spontaneously combust, like the XBox 360.
And, unlike the PS3, there are games I actually want to play on the Wii.

That is all.

[CartCollector]

[The Wii] outputs very nice high-resolution graphics

480p component might be high resolution, especially when compared to an RF or composite connection, but it's not high-definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv#High-Definition_Display_Resolutions) Using "high resolution" is misleading, though you probably didn't intend it to be. And anyways, most of the people playing the Wii probably use a composite connection, as the games are usually made to accomodate this (large cursor, not-too-saturated colors, etc).
Let's find out what the people on this board use. Sure it might be biased, but it should be telling. Show of hands, what's your Wii A/V connection?
I'll go first: Component. Though I did use composite for the longest time (I had to get a component/VGA converter).

Anyways, now that that's out of my system, let me say why the control system is so crappy: Money. If Nintendo added another accelerometer (an ADXL330, (http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,764_800_ADXL330%2C00.html) according to Wikipedia), it might cost them only $.50 (price at 1,000 units: $5.45). That might not sound like much, but how many consoles have they sold? According to nexgenwars, (http://nexgenwars.com/) about 20,000,000 as of February 12, 2008. So that's how much in savings? And that's not even counting extra controllers and WiiPlay.
But then again, you'd have to account for the abscence of a sensor bar, the glass window on the controller, and the camera (to capture the LEDs). But if it would have been the same price or cheaper, why did Nintendo use the method that they did? The only remaining possibilities, it seems, are ease-of-use for programmers or a rushed development team.

And Lendelin, are you Anthony1 ressurected? The long posts, the Nintendo criticism, the mobs with torches and pitchforks...

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I use the 408p component cables. Got them from Hong Kong a week after the Wii launched.

I have my Wii hooked up to a 52 inch TV, so, any little thing I can do to get a 480 system up a notch in resolution helps.

As any gamer with a big TV will tell you, when you start stretching 480 level resolution systems that big, you can get some really ugly looking tearing and bleeding in the resolution ... and it can actually get pretty stressful on the eyes.

[blissfulnoise]

I have so far resisted posting in this thread. It's no good for my blood pressure. However, allow me to toss a bit of gasoline on the flames, after which I will scurry away like the tiny woodland creature I am.

At least the Wii does not regularly spontaneously combust, like the XBox 360.
And, unlike the PS3, there are games I actually want to play on the Wii.

That is all.

Scurring away is probably a good idea seeing is how little you added to the conversation.

Yes, the 360 has serious hardware issues that have gone long unchecked. No, it doesn't combust. Xbox 360 hardware failure is very well documented; intellegent, constructive Wii critism isn't. But, please, feel free to add yet another subject on this issue if you'd like.

And, as far as the PS3 game library goes. Yes, it's smallish at this point. But to say you don't want to play Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance, flOw, Everyday Shooter, PixelJunk Monsters, Calling All Cars, Super Stardust HD, and Tekken 5 says more about you as a gamer than anything else you posted.

[Rob2600]

Show of hands, what's your Wii A/V connection? I'll go first: Component.

I'm using an S-Video cable on a very nice 27" standard-definition Panasonic TV (model CT-27G14).


I have my Wii hooked up to a 52 inch TV... As any gamer with a big TV will tell you, when you start stretching 480 level resolution systems that big, you can get some really ugly looking tearing and bleeding in the resolution and it can actually get pretty stressful on the eyes.

I'm not an HDTV expert, but I've been told that some HDTVs have excellent upscaling chips in them and some have cheap, horrible upscaling chips in them. Is this true?


to say you don't want to play Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance, flOw, Everyday Shooter, PixelJunk Monsters, Calling All Cars, Super Stardust HD, and Tekken 5 says more about you as a gamer than anything else you posted.

I don't want to play any of those games, either. I guess I'm not a true gamer. :(

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Well, it's not about the set's ability to handle upscaling at all.

480i is ACTUALLY only 240 lines of resolution (interlaced) for each image displayed 60 times per second.

480p displays the entire 480 lines of resolution 60 times per second.

On a 19 inch screen, 480i doesn't really have any discernable distortion when viewed by the naked eye ...

but when you take a native 480i image and STRETCH it to a 52 inch (or bigger) display, you're going to see things that weren't previously noticable in the form of bleeding, blurring and crawling distortion.

480p does make a difference, regardless of any built-in smoothing / upscaling features a modern big-screen TV has.

[Wirestone]

Blissful -- You realize the combustion thing was a joke, right? Just checking.

It seems that some folks here resent the Wii a bit. I'm not sure why. Exploding consoles aside, the 360 caters pretty much exclusively to the hardcore. Do we need another machine for that audience?

The Wii seems like a logical step from the DS, another machine that experimented with game input. It doesn't work perfectly -- neither does the DS. (Tried to do any voice recognition on it, lately?) But the pointing functions and the basic tilt mechanism are both robust, and I expect we'll see most polished games use those and avoid extensive waggling. (Let's take Mario Galaxy -- some pointing, some tilting, only a touch of waggle. That suggests that Nintendo knows precisely what the strengths and weaknesses of the console are).

But anyway, I've said too much, and I need to scurry away once again.

[Kid Ice]

Exploding consoles aside, the 360 caters pretty much exclusively to the hardcore. Do we need another machine for that audience?

How does the 360 cater exclusively to the hardcore? I'd be hesitant to hang that tag on any of the 3 consoles because all 3 have downloadable casual games (the 360 even moreso than the others).

[Icarus Moonsight]

lendelin isn't Anthony1, by a good measure, I can actually enjoy reading his posts, while long he doesn't repeat himself over and over, ask the same thing 40 different ways or sacrifice chickens and goats over a Commodore Monitor altar. :p I think some need to actually read what he has written in this thread and remember to place things within context. Makes for better discussion. ;)

Look how he responded to my post. He isn't argumentative or belittling my position at all. He understood it and thanked me for my input. I wish that would happen more often around here, that's for sure.

[Wirestone]

My point isn't that the 360 has only hardcore games. (If that's the case, how have I managed to play Lumines Live for the last two months?). But the console caters to enthusiasts, in the sense that Microsoft seems to see such gamers as its core constituency. Much of the xBox live experience has been designed for that hardcore crowd (Mountain Dew ads, leaderboards, gamer scores, emphasis on multiplayer shooters, etc.).

That being said, if there's money to be made from the post-hardcore or casual markets, both Sony and Microsoft seem interested. But they're sure not deserting their bread and butter by removing buttons from their controllers.

[lendelin]

Rob2600 and blueLander:

I don’t dispute that very casual and non-gamers don’t really care about the cutting-edge technology and about the latest in processing power which means worse AI, phsysics engines, and graphics. Otherwise the Wii wouldn’t outsell its competitors, and I bet (that’s a mere guess) there are a lot of Wii owners out there who don’t have the two other systems and couldn’t care less about them.

I criticize, however, how cheaply these gamers are won over; by that I don’t mean the price tag of the Wii but the shallow game play even for the party games the Wii delivers best. This might sound elitist, but it’s not intended as such. As a weak clarification of my basic position I refer to this old link at DP:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18021

I cannot be on the side of frequent gamers and the targeted new demographics, both of whom lower expecations about the Wii after its release. Sometimes gimmicks sell, and for some time they even dominate. When Clay Aiken sold a lot of Cds and David Hasselhoff's songs were popular in Germany, I still thought they are shallow songs and I preferred Willie Nelson and Bruce Springsteen.

We have to make judgement calls about the game quality of the new motion sensing controls independently of sales figures.

The demand for shorter, challenging, playful games for the whole family was certainly neglected, but that doesn’t mean that 1) game quality should be sacrificed, and 2) PR departments should be successful with marketing gimmicks. The image of the Wii as an innovative game system with new controls drives its sales, and the image of the Wii is shallow because it doesn’t fulfill expectations of the image.

I have a neighbor who hardly plays games, but a couple of months after the release of the Wii he told me that he thinks the Wii is interesting and he might buy it. I asked him why, and he said ‘well, it get’s you off the couch.’ A couple of weeks later Wii Fit was announced, and in the meantime Wii Fit is one of the top selling games in Japan!!? God help us all. I’m glad the Aerobic games for the Xbox and PS2 didn’t outsell God of War.

I’m indeed concerned about upcoming wars of marketing gimmicks because they really worked well so far.

[lendelin]

I have so far resisted posting in this thread. It's no good for my blood pressure. However, allow me to toss a bit of gasoline on the flames, after which I will scurry away like the tiny woodland creature I am.

At least the Wii does not regularly spontaneously combust, like the XBox 360.
And, unlike the PS3, there are games I actually want to play on the Wii.

That is all.

There are no flames in this thread. Your gasoline merely fell on the ground and evaporated. :) I won’t flame anyone.

Your assessment about the PS3 and 360 are absolutely right. (I’d go even beyond that; the 360s design flaws are outrageous, and I’m VERY glad that the PS3 at the original price tag didn’t sell well and lost hands down to the Wii. At the same time I would have mentioned their positives – the great game library of the 360, and the reliable hardware of the PS3)

You point fingers at the weaknesses of the other two systems, but that doesn’t change the evaluations about the Wii and about the game quality its new controls deliver. It just says something about the alternative of the Wii as a buying option.

[blissfulnoise]

There are no flames in this thread. Your gasoline merely fell on the ground and evaporated. I won’t flame anyone.

I sure will if they deserve it.


I don't want to play any of those games, either. I guess I'm not a true gamer. :(

Why wouldn't you?

What type of games do you enjoy? Because outside of sports/racing, those games pretty much covered every genre and are very highly critically received. You've proven here that you're obviously a fan of the Wii (though not necessarily rabid). Are your blinders on here or is there an actual critical reason for not wanting to try some of those breakthrough games other than, "I just don't want to"?

I guess I'm just fucking dumb (feel free to quote that apologists) but I don't get it. Why wouldn't gamers want to try high quality games, regardless of platform?

What I'm gathering the main defense of the Wii to be is that its casual appeal. Doesn't the PS3 and the X360 have games that are also explicitly designed for (or even by) the Popcap audience (Hexic, Jewel Quest, Luxor, Bejeweled, Chessmaster, Backgammon, Solitare, among many others)?

So is it the quality of the "causal" games? I've got to be missing something because from the games lists on the Wii there seems to be just as much shovelware crap as any other system (more actually, discounting the DS).

The only argument I'd think would be valid would be their Virtual Console service. It's offering something that neither of the other online services really offer, and that has access to a library of games with staggering timeless appeal. But, simultaneously, it shows just how badly Nintendo failed all of us gamers by not offering any improvements (and in some cases, creating determents), trickling out quality games while releasing some really abysmal ones, and offering the games at a high price point.

Regardless, none of this is even really relevant as these lofted “casual-gamer” Wii owners aren't exercising any real opinion on gaming. The numbers are already showing that most Wiis are collecting dust, and these “non-gamers” are certainly not buying any games for their systems. It's the real enthusiasts out there that are buying the NiGHTS and the No More Heroes. The only thing the Wii has proven is that Nintendo can still market the hell out of a piece of hardware and push consoles like few others. Some of it was savvy, some of it was luck.

And the arguments about being able to play Wii games for short periods of time extends to every system. It's the games, not the system that offers that type of play style. The Wii has many games that require bigger time investments just as every other system (Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem). Or are we holding up Wii Sports, WarioWare, and Mario Party as the sole representatives of the platform?

Look, I'm not trying to keep gaming in the basement. I couldn't even if I wanted to; it came out of the basement with the PS2. But what I do want to see is gaming to move in interesting new directions while still able to make excellent games to drive down already established roads. The Wii stood better than most to make this happen but squandered it on faulty hardware and traveling the same road they've gone down since the N64. Shovel junk software out there and let us put out a few triple-A games a year that people will actually buy.

It really pisses me off when “gamers” blow off whole libraries of games because of the platform they're on, but then uphold mediocrity just because that's how they (mistakenly?) spent money. Judge the games themselves after trying them, and then you'll be in a place to critically respond.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Why wouldn't you?

What type of games do you enjoy? Because outside of sports/racing, those games pretty much covered every genre and are very highly critically received. You've proven here that you're obviously a fan of the Wii (though not necessarily rabid). Are your blinders on here or is there an actual critical reason for not wanting to try some of those breakthrough games other than, "I just don't want to"?

Blissfulnoise, as a Sony console owner who obviously takes the time to explore their library beyond just scratching the surface and shopping for AAA releases (based on the games you just listed) ... I'm SURE this isn't the first time you've run into that ever-familiar response of anything you list that's a Sony exclusive causes a reaction like a kid who wont eat their vegetables (even though they've never tasted them before).

Now, I'm not claiming that's what Rob2600 did, because he didn't ... but as a Sony enthusiast, I've lost count of the amount of times I've tried to extol the virtues of some of their PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP and most recently PSN catalog and gotten that "Meh, sorry, couldn't be more DIS-INTERESTED (even though I've never even tried any game you're listing)" response.

And, well, it's like the vegetables thing ... how could you possibly know you're "not interested" in a game like flOw unless you've actually tried it ... it practically defies genre placement, or any "I've played similar types of games before" kind of assumptions about it.

[Wirestone]

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.

Frankly, as a GB, GBA, DS, NES, SNES, N64, PS2, Wii and 360 owner (and still buying games for all of the systems) I feel like I have a broader view than many. But there are still things I know I won't play, just because I don't have the time or bucks.

(And lendelin -- I'm not going to defend the Wii. I enjoy Nintendo products, sure, but I enjoy other stuff too. The system, the games available, and the experience of players speak for themselves. For good or ill.)

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

A major issue I have with the concept of "defending" (as you put it Wirestone) the systems that one owns ...

... is that what often goes on isn't so much "defending" one's personal choices and owned consoles/software rather - it's attacking the consoles, platforms and exclusive software on the consoles and platforms that one DOESN'T OWN.

And if it's not "attacking" it's passing judgment without any actual experience.

It's all tantamount to digital bigotry. Making up one's mind that something isn't worth owning without taking the time to spend any amount of time with it, and passing judgment against it in a public forum.

Sure, I understand that not everybody can afford to be a multi-console owner, or that even if they can that they WANT to be one ... but it's frustrating to see so many people speak out against consoles for reasons other than genuine critical shortcomings ... and it's kind of insulting when they admit to their exposure to said systems is little to none.

I mean, would you listen to a film critic that hasn't seen the movies they're reviewing, and would you respect them if they said that a movie was bad JUST because the price of the movie ticket was too much?

I only WISH that more people could find the strength and tact to "defend" what they own without "attacking" what they don't...sadly, that's rarely the case.

[lendelin]

Blissfulnoise, I agree with almost everything you said. You are right to point to the diverse library of arcade games of short, fun, accessible games on XboxLive, and Sony will soon follow and reach the same standard. Great, fun, simple, challenging, short games can be on every console; and noone should be blind about the offerings of different consoles, and we certainly should NOT discuss on the dreadful and blind defense/attack level.

However, you have to admit that there is something unique about the Wii remote no other game system delivers. It is new, attractive, fresh, simple and has an unsurpassed accessibility. You see the thing laying on a table and watch how it is used, and almost everyone is tempted to pick it up and try it out.

I didn’t change my opinion about its limits and stand by me previous posts...

...BUT the success of the Wii has two very important positive aspects. It showed how important simple controls are and it made people interested in games who already gave up on them. It was difficult to explain the button controls of a simple tennis game to a non-gamer and motivate him to play...not to mention shooters or adventure games. The Wii tore this barrier down.

With the Wii you just have to say ‘hit the ball and be careful that the thing stays in your hand.’

Nintendo did something truly admirable with the Wii. It showed there is a video gamer in all of us. Not only children who are anyways playful, but also parents, and grandparents and younger and older women want to play. It is just fun to watch and amazing how easily non-gamers pick up suddenly the remote and start to play. We want to play, it is innate.

I think we all (including Nintendo executives) were surprised by the success of the Wii and underestimated the gamer potential out there. We knew (and sometimes corrected statistics about gamer habits for it) that older gamers play simple and short games, card games, puzzle games, and many others on the PC.

You have to admit that Nintendo is the first video game company that tapped in these neglected and relegated demographics. I think this is more important and will have more consequences for game development than even the broadening of the demographics Sony achieved with the PS1.

Video games grew up, they became more serious, darker, storylines developed, they deliver movie-like experiences, we discuss if they are ‘art forms’ and defend them against Roger Ebert. These are all great developments, and Mass Effect shows what videogames can achieve.

During these important developments game developers neglected another important aspect of videogames – the lighthearted, simple, challenging, and sometimes quirky playfulness of their arcade grandfathers which made them so popular in the first place. In this vacuum jumped Nintendo with the Wii.

While the library of all systems are diverse, the Wii game library (despite its good portion of cheap shovel ware, despite the downplay of motion controls) offers more than the libraries of other systems lighthearted playful games – and that is a good thing. The game industry and the gamers took themselves a bit too seriously in the last two decades.

That is why I’d never ‘bash’ the Wii, and I wouldn’t anyway ‘flame’ someone who points out these advantages of the Wii. It is indeed a very important console.

IMPORTANT:

This...


In 100% agreement. Well, nearly 100%... Talladega Nights is a damn funny movie.

...is just plain sad and unforgiveable. :)

[Chadt74]

I've been gaming for almost 30 yrs and I enjoy my Wii. Plain and simple because instead of playing alone almost anyone can play with me. My parents visit and we all bowl or try and hit home runs, I have never seen my parents play a video game before the Wii. At half time a football game friends and I have just enough time for some Wii Sports. I enjoy most types of games but the Wii has brought back social (non-internet)gaming. The controls might not be perfect, and yes I am aware of the technical limitations of the motion control set up, but pretty much anyone can pick up the games and play. As much as I love my PS2 I can not make this statement for any other system.

I am not a Nintendo fanboy, I've only owned an NES, and N64 (which didn't get much use) so there isn't much Nintendo love here.

As for the FPS, after playing MP3 I have to say that was the best FPS I've played in terms of controls. I started with Doom on the PC and played everything up to Halo2 and IMHO the Wiimote and chuck are a very good set up. Even Red Steel (which I liked) has a good and easy to remember reload/pick up, you just lower your left hand which shows the potential for the control set up.

I think the quality (in person) time with family and friends is being discounted and that is the Wii's best feature in my mind. If this was an "I only game alone" thread I would have some slightly different comments.

[blue lander]

Reading this thread, I can't help but think of all the technophiles I've heard spaz out about the iPod being an inferior piece of technology and how much better other mp3 players are, yet the casual consumer keeps buying them for the same reason casual consumers are buying the wii: They're small, cute, and hip. Plus they work well enough and deliver the experience the casual user was looking for.

There are far more solitaire-playing "non-gamer" gamers out there than there are casual and hardcore ones combined, so it shouldn't be suprising that the console aimed at them is doing so well. Maybe the Xbox 360 has similar non-gamer friendly titles out there, but I just can't imagine some 35 year old soccer mom walking into Gamestop to shell out $300+ on a 360. Why buy something that does so much more than she needs it to? What will her friends say when they see a 360 hooked up to her television?

And so what if most wiis spend more time collecting dust than they do playing games? They're aimed at people who don't want to play games every day! I don't think the average non-gamer would spend any more time with their wii even if it had a solid library.

[Rob2600]

The demand for shorter, challenging, playful games for the whole family was certainly neglected, but that doesn’t mean that 1) game quality should be sacrificed

I don't think game quality is being sacrificed. True, there are garbage games on the Wii, but I don't buy them. I only buy the good, fun games.


the Wii is shallow because it doesn’t fulfill expectations of the image.

It meets my expectations just fine. The graphics are nice, the controls are clever, and the games are fun...at least in the games I buy.



I have a neighbor who hardly plays games, but a couple of months after the release of the Wii he told me that he thinks the Wii is interesting and he might buy it. I asked him why, and he said 'well, it get’s you off the couch.' A couple of weeks later Wii Fit was announced, and in the meantime Wii Fit is one of the top selling games in Japan!!? God help us all. I’m glad the Aerobic games for the Xbox and PS2 didn’t outsell God of War.

I'm excited about Wii Fit, too. 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 so that the number of people who enjoy them gets smaller. They want gaming to be like a special club, where only the veterans should be allowed to join and share stories. 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.



I don't want to play any of those games, either. I guess I'm not a true gamer. :(

Why wouldn't you?

What type of games do you enjoy? Because outside of sports/racing, those games pretty much covered every genre and are very highly critically received. You've proven here that you're obviously a fan of the Wii (though not necessarily rabid). Are your blinders on here or is there an actual critical reason for not wanting to try some of those breakthrough games other than, "I just don't want to"?

I enjoy playing old games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Contra, Life Force, Mega Man II, Castlevania, Super Castlevania IV, Star Fox 64, Burnout 2, Beach Spikers, etc. These aren't very long, involved games. They're more arcade-style.

Sure, in the past, I've devoted a lot of time to more in-depth games like The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Metroid, Super Mario World, EarthBound, Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Rayman 2, etc., but for the last few years, I just haven't had the time to play long games like that.

For example, every time I'd start to play Wind Waker, I'd play for a few hours, make decent progress, and then come back to the game a few weeks later when I had another several hours of free time. The problem is, I'd forget where I left off. Where was I? Where was I supposed to go? What was I supposed to be doing? I can't remember! Time to start from the beginning...again.

That wasn't fun for me. I really wanted to enjoy Wind Waker, but my full-time job, extra freelance work, and personal life (going to the gym, having dinner with friends, etc.) prevent me from dedicating more than a few hours a week to gaming...which is fine.

That's why instead of getting involved in long, complex games like Halo, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, etc., I decided I wanted a Wii. These days, I'd rather play something fun and relatively short with simplified controls, like Kororinpa Marble Mania, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Zack & Wiki, or Mario Kart.

That's another reason I like the Wii: the controls are simplified. Games on the other consoles have complex control schemes. Yes, I enjoyed Nintendo 64 games like Perfect Dark and Turok 3, but that's my limit of complexity. The controls in a game like Splinter Cell were so complex that I could never remember which button did what. A is to shoot, B is to duck, C is to switch weapons, D is to switch to night vision, L is to throw grenades, R is to...wait, what does A do again?

I'm the same way with modern sports games. Madden NFL and NBA 2K are too complex for me. I'd much rather play Tecmo Bowl or Double Dribble.

Of course, every once in a while I make an exception and play a long game, but it's rare. Super Mario Galaxy is the only long game I've gotten excited about in the last few years. Usually though, I prefer to pay $20 or $30 for games like Link's Crossbow Training, Kororinpa, or Ghost Squad than $50 for games like Fire Emblem, Medal of Honor Heroes 2, or Twilight Princess. I'm not implying those are bad games. They're highly rated and part of me wants to play them and enjoy them, but I just don't have the time or the patience anymore. My brother is much younger than I am and has more free time than I do. Whenever I visit him, I watch him play long games like that for a few hours. I enjoy watching him play...I also enjoy being exposed to good epic games...but when I go home, I stick to the arcade-style games. I like them, my girlfriend likes them, and my friends like them. We enjoy Wii Sports and are looking forward to Wii Fit, which we don't think is lame or stupid at all.

The fact that the Wii is relatively cheap at $250, it comes with a game, and many good new games only cost $20 or $30 is great, too.

I guess for gamers like you, the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are the next step in gaming progress. However, for a gamer like me, whose lifestyle and needs have changed since I was a teenager, the Wii is exactly what I needed...back to basics.

[blissfulnoise]

For those of you who like graphs (http://kotaku.com/355812/say-did-you-know-how-many-wii-games-suck):

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/02/wiireviews.jpg

Comparing the popularity of the iPod next to the Wii only proves one thing; that most consumers don't care about seeking out superior (or just alternative) products. Most don’t even understand what they're really buying; they just want what the Jones' have. You can chalk this up in any given category of consumerism. Bose speakers, iPods, Ethen Allen furniture, the list goes on.

This was further proven to me via talking with a co-worker who casually picked up a Wii last week simply because they were in stock. Not because he necessarily wanted to play any games on it. And what games did he buy for his new purchase? None.

And let’s be fair here. The X360 core retails for $299, the PS3 starts at $399, and the Wii goes for $249. We're not talking about vast differences in money here. You can argue that the PS3 is 60% more (and it clearly is) but at those price points, most people are apt to make the best investment for them regardless if the Wii is cheaper or not. $250 is not, and never has been, a casual price point for consumers.

As far as group gaming goes, people can defend casual entry point games on any system here (well, admittedly less so on the PS3). Rock Band is perhaps the ultimate party game; able to be played in short bursts or "until the day moon rise". What about a game like Scene It? I know it's available as a board game, but its popularity is pretty amazing and it’s available on the 360. And what games other than Wii Sports (and Wii Play) are we really citing here for non-gamers to gravitate towards?

I too introduced my parents to Wii Sports over the holidays. They had fun (mostly with boxing each other; I think there's a term paper in there somewhere) but they were pretty much done after 20 minutes. I tried to get them into WarioWare but it just confused them. I know these experiences aren't universal, nor are they necessarily representative of everyone's particular experience, but I can't imagine they're unique.

Keep in mind that my gripes don't extend to the couple of really excellent games on the platform. I'm looking forward to Brawl more than most. And I'm anticipating a handful of Wii games very eagerly. My goal with all of this rambling is to extend the argument against, and even for, the Wii platform.

And I understand that the PS3s price point is higher than the other systems out right now (debatable against the “real” X360) and that can turn gamers away from trying quality games, but to say:


And, unlike the PS3, there are games I actually want to play on the Wii.


In jest or otherwise is just ignorant if you've never actually played the games in question. But your last response, Wirestone, was thoughtful. Just remember that you may not necessarily know what you like until you try the games in question.

I would not defend bad games regardless of platform, price point, or how foolish I felt for purchasing them. I know I wasn't expecting much from the PS3 until the big titles started to release, but I've been very pleasantly surprised. I imagine most gamers would feel the same way if they dropped the rhetoric and tried the software.

[blissfulnoise]

I guess for gamers like you, the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are the next step in gaming progress. However, for a gamer like me, the Wii is exactly what I needed...back to basics.

See: Calling all Cars, Everyday Shooter, flOw, Super Stardust HD, and LocoRoco Cocoreccho!. All downloadable, all available for $9.99 or less.

I'd be remiss not to point out that every game you mentioned is a Nintendo game as well.

[Rob2600]

See: Calling all Cars, Everyday Shooter, flOw, Super Stardust HD, and LocoRoco Cocoreccho!. All downloadable, all available for $9.99 or less.

Good point. However, I can't afford to buy multiple game consoles just because a few arcade-style games exist on each one. I had to decide on one console. For my needs, the Wii was the most appealing. I'm excited about games like Wii Fit and Mario Kart. I'm not excited about games like Devil May Cry or Gran Turismo. I grew up with games like Pac-Man and Frogger, so cartoony games don't seem childish to me.


I'd be remiss not to point out that every game you mentioned is a Nintendo game as well.

Kororinpa Marble Mania, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, Zack & Wiki, and Ghost Squad aren't Nintendo games.


What I'm gathering the main defense of the Wii to be is that its casual appeal. Doesn't the PS3 and the X360 have games that are also explicitly designed for (or even by) the Popcap audience (Hexic, Jewel Quest, Luxor, Bejeweled, Chessmaster, Backgammon, Solitare, among many others)? ...

The Wii has many games that require bigger time investments just as every other system (Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem).

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.

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

That's why those great "hard core" Wii games sometimes slip through the cracks during message board debates. For some reason, the complex, "hard core" games on the Wii aren't taken as seriously as the complex, "hard core" games on the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 because the Wii isn't marketed as a complex, "hard core" machine. Likewise, the user-friendly, "casual" games on the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 aren't taken as seriously as user-friendly, "casual" games on the Wii because the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 aren't marketed as user-friendly, "casual" machines.

It's silly, I know, but that seems to be how things work.


Look, I'm not trying to keep gaming in the basement. I couldn't even if I wanted to; it came out of the basement with the PS2.

The PlayStation and the PlayStation 2 brought gaming out of the tennager's basement or bedroom a little bit, but not nearly as much as the Wii. My girlfriend's mother, sister, and aunt and uncle had no interest in video gaming at all and couldn't care less about the PlayStaton 2, but now all three are buying Wii consoles. 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.


Reading this thread, I can't help but think of all the technophiles I've heard spaz out about the iPod being an inferior piece of technology and how much better other mp3 players are, yet the casual consumer keeps buying them for the same reason casual consumers are buying the wii: They're small, cute, and hip. Plus they work well enough and deliver the experience the casual user was looking for.

Exactly. The Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 come off as being complex, expensive, and intimidating to "normal" people. The Wii comes off as being user-friendly, affordable, and cool.

The same philosophy applies to the DS and the PSP. The DS is perceived as being more user-friendly. The PSP is perceived as more complex and "hard core," which can be intimidating to some.

As Apple has proven with the iPod, marketing and "coolness" is more important technical capability.


there is something unique about the Wii remote no other game system delivers. It is new, attractive, fresh, simple and has an unsurpassed accessibility. ...

It showed how important simple controls are and it made people interested in games who already gave up on them.

Thats why I like it. :)


You have to admit that Nintendo is the first video game company that tapped in these neglected and relegated demographics. I think this is more important and will have more consequences for game development than even the broadening of the demographics Sony achieved with the PS1.

Video games grew up, they became more serious, darker, storylines developed, they deliver movie-like experiences, we discuss if they are ‘art forms’ and defend them against Roger Ebert. These are all great developments, and Mass Effect shows what videogames can achieve.

During these important developments game developers neglected another important aspect of videogames – the lighthearted, simple, challenging, and sometimes quirky playfulness of their arcade grandfathers which made them so popular in the first place. In this vacuum jumped Nintendo with the Wii.

While the library of all systems are diverse, the Wii game library (despite its good portion of cheap shovel ware, despite the downplay of motion controls) offers more than the libraries of other systems lighthearted playful games – and that is a good thing. The game industry and the gamers took themselves a bit too seriously in the last two decades.

Excellent post overall. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

[blue lander]

Comparing the popularity of the iPod next to the Wii only proves one thing; that most consumers don't care about seeking out superior (or just alternative) products. Most don’t even understand what they're really buying; they just want what the Jones' have. You can chalk this up in any given category of consumerism. Bose speakers, iPods, Ethen Allen furniture, the list goes on.


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.