Is online gaming with the Wii unacceptable?

[Half Japanese]

Everyone already knows how inconvenient friend codes are for Nintendo's online titles, but I just read this brief article (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/02/27/mario-kart-wii-to-support-text-chat) that confirms that Mario Kart for the Wii will be limited to text chat only. To me, it's bad enough that the ps3 didn't come with a headset (meaning over half of the people playing games online haven't bothered with buying one seperately, myself included), but at least the functionality's still there.

Is it just me, or is online console gaming without voice chat capabilities pretty much a joke? I know Nintendo isn't targeting the same market that the ps3 and 360 are, but I have to wonder why even bother at all if you can't toss the fans a bone with voice chat. Understand that I don't own a Wii myself and have no plans to get one in the near future, but even as someone who has long tired of Nintendo's relentless recycling of their franchises I'll admit that Mario Kart and Smash Bros. seem like a great time online. Before anyone chimes in about how many rotten-mouthed brats play Halo 3, realize that you have the option to mute them and ideally the Wii should be no different. Why punish those who enjoy the social aspects of online gaming?

[Rob2600]

Is it just me, or is online console gaming without voice chat capabilities pretty much a joke?

It used to be that men complained about their wives blabbing with their girlfriends too much on the telephone. Now, grown men whine about not being able to blab with their boyfriends while they play fake army man video games. What happened?

All joking aside, I don't mind at all.

[Snapple]

In all honesty, I don't like voice chat. I'm there to play, not chat. And it's tough sometimes going online with, say, sports games, because most of the people there don't seem to want to play with guys who don't have headsets.

[Ponyone]

You mean I don't have to hear morons talk about raping me, my mother, my brother, my dog, and my kart? I don't have to hear about newbz and noobs and noobz? I don't have to hear a 13 year old test out his vulgcabulary without his parents knowing?

Sign me up.

[norkusa]

Even in the last generation of consoles, online games without voice chat was a joke (remember RE:Outbreak?). Doesn't make sense why Nintendo would want to do it with the Wii after seeing how annoying it was on the PS2. What are they afraid of?

[Rob2600]

Even in the last generation of consoles, online games without voice chat was a joke (remember RE:Outbreak?). Doesn't make sense why Nintendo would want to do it with the Wii after seeing how annoying it was on the PS2. What are they afraid of?

See all of the replies above.

[Half Japanese]

In all honesty, I don't like voice chat. I'm there to play, not chat. And it's tough sometimes going online with, say, sports games, because most of the people there don't seem to want to play with guys who don't have headsets.

I used to play Team Fortress 2 on XBL a fair amount and many hosts (the good ones by no mere coincidence) would often boot players without mics because they were unable to communicate, which was vital for helping the team win. Of course, this could arguably be apples to oranges as the 360 includes a headset and not having it in a team game that requires strategy implies laziness.


You mean I don't have to hear morons talk about raping me, my mother, my brother, my dog, and my kart? I don't have to hear about newbz and noobs and noobz? I don't have to hear a 13 year old test out his vulgcabulary without his parents knowing?

Sign me up.

Here's the thing: if a voice system were implemented, why couldn't they just include the option to mute other people or even have a setting where you have a symbol (or lack thereof) beside your name indicating that you aren't participating in voice chat? If that were the case, you'd please both parties and ultimately expand and strengthen the already-strong communities for Nintendo's first-party titles.

[Ponyone]

The mute option would be nice

[blissfulnoise]

The real irony is that Nintendo IS supporting voice chat in their DS games (Pokemon, Metroid Prime Hunters).

It doesn't have anything to do with Nintendo's stance on objectionable online activity, it has to do with their lack of any sort of long-term plan for online play.

Personally, I'm not much of a chatter either, but online gaming in something like Catan without voice chat is pretty much impossible. And, having played many puzzle/fighting games online, really offensive players are pretty much non-existant. The majority of these horror stories come from whatever FPS game is popular that month, and it's not even really that common in those games. And even when it does happen, all bullshit pretty much stops as soon as the game begins because most people prefer winning over losing.

Personally, I'm disappointed that Brawl won't feature any sort of voice chat. But so long as the online play is lag free, I'm willing to hold it up as a compromise.

[Neil Koch]

It would be nice to have, but it's not a necessity for me.

I used it quite a bit on Xbox1 games to talk with friends long-distance (much cheaper than a phone call), and there were some fun times late at night when I would just be chatting with some random person from a foreign country.

But at the same time, the level of stupid crap spouted on most any open game is just mind boggling, and caused me to just unplug my headset.

For the Wii itself, my online play has been limited (kinda got burned out on it during Xbox1) but I haven't missed the voice chat.

I will say though, if Nintendo puts in pay-to-play for online games, they'd better have voice chat in there. The Wii has USB ports, so I wouldn't think it's be a huge problem to support headsets.

[FantasiaWHT]

The presence or lack of voice chat makes absolutely zero difference to me. I honestly couldn't care one way or the other. It has no impact on whether or not I buy a game or even whether I play it online.

[digitalpress]

Hmm. Fascinating to see the response here. I thought I was the only one playing online without a headset. The only time I use one is when it's a "friends only" game (and that is rare). I just can't take the foul-mouthed adolescents. In fact, I'd like to see gaming in general get away from games where you have to voice chat. Just give me a player 2, 3, or 64. I don't want to know them. I sure as hell don't want to talk to them.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I'm absolutely in the camp of not being able to STAND listening to other people chatter on open-channel microphone situations...

...this stems from the fact that in games like, say, for instance: Warhawk, where team based communication is essential to effectively communicate with a 10-15 person team in massive environments ... yet even when mic chatter is limited to people on the SAME team I still have to put up with people calling each other names and making prolonged random "noises" into their mics.

Mic communication is the great double edged sword of online gaming. It's a perfect idea that can and has been implemented well, but will NEVER be effectively utilized due to the following equation:

disposition for acting immature + microphone + anonymity + online networking = annoying asshole

While I really disagree with what Nintendo is doing with friend codes ... I'm not too pissed over their mic situation ... because, frankly, I have multiple microphone situations on both 360 and PS3 and I rarely put myself in a situation where I make use of them.

[BHvrd]

Hmm. Fascinating to see the response here. I thought I was the only one playing online without a headset. The only time I use one is when it's a "friends only" game (and that is rare). I just can't take the foul-mouthed adolescents. In fact, I'd like to see gaming in general get away from games where you have to voice chat. Just give me a player 2, 3, or 64. I don't want to know them. I sure as hell don't want to talk to them.

Couldn't agree more.

More often than not I will quit matches because of the idiocy that is described as chatting. Nothing is worse than the bored teenager who just wants to start trouble cause he is bored and then once all hell breaks loose and people split he starts asking about algebra or something similar that I try to escape from by playing games.

I have been involved in some "role playing" guilds that were very fun on the other hand and in general if this rule is understood "even across voice chat" it can make voice chatting much more enjoyable.

Leave your problems "girls, homework, car trouble, rebuilding a house" at the fucking door!


Back on topic "kinda off, lol":

Yes. Wii should be rolling out the voice chat for sure, it's unacceptable imo. Even if it's "proximity banter" as someone passes you to add a distinct flair as Nintendo likes to do they could have incorporated it somehow.

Voice chat can be a good and bad thing but that isn't at question, in this generation most games should include the option, though in some ways I do still prefer text chat, but a game like Mario Kart would benefit from voice imho.

[Leo_A]

Online gaming didn't have voice chat for many years, its only been the last 5 years or so where its became more common in PC titles and been integrated into some classic titles like Half-Life 1 derived titles like Counterstrike.

I almost never use a headset when I'm playing in Xbox Live. I'm playing online for the competition, not to listen to idiots or to be ridiculed. So unless theres a friend joining me, the headset is kept off.

People can socialize anytime, they should be urged to go beyond Counterstrike, Xbox Live, and Mario Kart to do it if you ask me. So I think its good news. :)

[UK Collector]

The text only route could allow for a PSO style translation system, as I suppose the whole point of online play is playing people around the world who may not speak the same language as you. Perhaps Nintendo will go down that route?? It is possible.

[Half Japanese]

Online gaming didn't have voice chat for many years, its only been the last 5 years or so where its became more common in PC titles and been integrated into some classic titles like Half-Life 1 derived titles like Counterstrike.

Keyboard chatting on PC games is still perfectly acceptable (though not as fluid) due to the implication that most PC gamers are playing at a desk and aren't having to have a keyboard lying across their lap. As someone who put more than their fair share of time into Unreal Tournament for the DC as part of a clan, I can tell you that it isn't ideal.

That said, I'm really surprised at all of the 'silent types' that not only don't want voice chat, but seem openly hostile to the idea. Do you guys ever play team games or with a clan, or is mostly just 1 on 1 and free-for-all deathmatch gametypes? Personally I can't imagine playing team games without a headset (having gone so far as to wear a tight beanie had with a broke-ass Xbox mic barely clinging to the space between it and my ear), but I understand how you're not really missing much without one in free-for-all gametypes.

[s1lence]

I like voice chat if I'm playing with friends, thats about it. I don't like the idle chatter and the screaming, music, and other noises that you get to hear.

That being said, I'm still glad its there so I can talk with friends that I give a damn about.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Keyboard chatting on PC games is still perfectly acceptable (though not as fluid) due to the implication that most PC gamers are playing at a desk and aren't having to have a keyboard lying across their lap. As someone who put more than their fair share of time into Unreal Tournament for the DC as part of a clan, I can tell you that it isn't ideal.

That said, I'm really surprised at all of the 'silent types' that not only don't want voice chat, but seem openly hostile to the idea. Do you guys ever play team games or with a clan, or is mostly just 1 on 1 and free-for-all deathmatch gametypes? Personally I can't imagine playing team games without a headset (having gone so far as to wear a tight beanie had with a broke-ass Xbox mic barely clinging to the space between it and my ear), but I understand how you're not really missing much without one in free-for-all gametypes.

Well, like I said, I have a love/hate relationship with it.

I think it's somewhat essential to certain types of team-based gaming models, but even in the case of clan/team same-team-only communication you still more often than not wind up with jackasses chattering on incessantly.

And it shouldn't at all be surprising that a company as trepedatious (some would even say xenophobic) as Nintendo in getting involved in the social aspects of gaming is keeping the microphones off for the time being.

I've played Metroid Prime Hunters online with a microphone ... and a part of me thinks that Nintendo has payed CLOSE attention to how 13 year olds talk to each other online in that game ... and are basing this decision squarely on that research.

Unacceptable for us? Sure.

Unacceptable for Nintendo, who is currently sitting on the biggest console success they've had since the NES? Well, why should they gamble with anything that could land them in hot water with the press ... where they've been critical darlings for well over a year now?

[zektor]

Hmm. Fascinating to see the response here. I thought I was the only one playing online without a headset. The only time I use one is when it's a "friends only" game (and that is rare). I just can't take the foul-mouthed adolescents. In fact, I'd like to see gaming in general get away from games where you have to voice chat. Just give me a player 2, 3, or 64. I don't want to know them. I sure as hell don't want to talk to them.

I couldn't have said it any better.

I tried voice chat ONCE in my entire life, and this is the exact type of crap I dealt with. I wouldn't mind so much maybe playing a private game with a few friends via voice chat I suppose, but talking (or listening) to the general population is something I only *have* to do at work. I'm sure as hell not bringing that to my pastime ever again.

[CartCollector]

Can you imagine playing Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, or Bomberman without being able to talk to your opponent(s)? It takes some of the humanity out of the other players. But then again, when you play with them, they're right there next to you. So if they're being an asshole you can do something about it, and there's less of an incentive to do so because of this. The Internet screws up a lot of accepted social rules with people merely because they can't be seen. Does the assholery seen on chat rooms, message boards, and in games really happen that often in real life?

Moral of the story is, offline multiplayer games with friends are awesome. Okay, not all of them, either they're really good or really bad. But anyways, long live offline multiplayer!

[PsychoCandy]

I'd like to see a system where you can chat with team mates and before/after the matches.

[Sothy]

How is a 13 year old kid from Ohio named "(/////)|=======>U-Momma*SUX*MAHDIX420" going to be able to team kill me while making disparaging accusations regarding my sexual orientation then?

[xfrumx]

No voice chat here I just wanna play!

[RadiantSvgun]

How is a 13 year old kid from Ohio named "(/////)|=======>U-Momma*SUX*MAHDIX420" going to be able to team kill me while making disparaging accusations regarding my sexual orientation then?

Thats why I like NOT having voice chat. I'd rather see my opponent in person though. Voice chat annoys me, and if someone wants to insult me, I would rather have them do the work of typing it.

[j_factor]

I didn't realize ANYBODY actually cared about voice chat. I don't remember any PSO fans talking about how the Xbox version exclusively had voice chat. Most ignored the Xbox version altogether. Actually, I can see how voice chat improves squad/team based games. But other than that type of game, I can't see the lack of voice chat being significant at all.

When exactly did online voice chat become a selling point? I don't remember Alien Front Online flying off the shelves... and that game had 100% free online multiplayer, had the mic bundled in, and retailed at a budget price ($30). Now people are talking about how great it is to pay a monthly fee to play $60 games online. I guess people like to be gouged.

[lendelin]

In fact, I'd like to see gaming in general get away from games where you have to voice chat. Just give me a player 2, 3, or 64. I don't want to know them. I sure as hell don't want to talk to them.

AMEN to that. I underline every word.

[heybtbm]

Apparently the bulk of people in this thread don't play online with friends. Personally, I can't imagine the online experience without voice chat. I've experienced the annoying kids, the racists, the homophobes, etc like everyone else....but chatting with my friends while playing CoD4 or R6:Vegas is half the fun.

I've been playing mulitplayer FPS's since the days of Doom 2. You used to have to call up your opponents modem line directly and link up through DOS. Being able to talk to the other players was just a dream...now it's reality. Didn't any of you people play Goldeneye on the 64? 4-player splitscreen, trashtalking with your buddies. IMO, multiplayer shooters are at their most fun when they're social. Even games like Mario Kart or Smash Brothers would be fun to talk with people you know. To each their own I guess.

[Half Japanese]

I didn't realize ANYBODY actually cared about voice chat. I don't remember any PSO fans talking about how the Xbox version exclusively had voice chat. Most ignored the Xbox version altogether. Actually, I can see how voice chat improves squad/team based games. But other than that type of game, I can't see the lack of voice chat being significant at all.

When exactly did online voice chat become a selling point? I don't remember Alien Front Online flying off the shelves... and that game had 100% free online multiplayer, had the mic bundled in, and retailed at a budget price ($30). Now people are talking about how great it is to pay a monthly fee to play $60 games online. I guess people like to be gouged.

You're pointing out two pretty poor examples in the grand scheme of things. By the time PSO hit the Xbox, Sega had already tacked on a monthly fee, greatly reducing their user base. I'd hazard a guess that most of the people that ended up buying PSO for the Xbox did so after it was drastically reduced to get it off of store shelves. Also, Alien Front Online came out at a point when everyone knew the DC was on its last hurrah, and games released during times like that rarely ever fly off the shelves.

As for the Xbox Live: it might start to look silly when either Sony (possibility) or Nintendo (doubtful) get their online infrastructures developed to a similar level, but as it stands the difference is worth paying for if you play online games regularly, although if they made it free tomorrow you wouldn't hear me complaining.

[swlovinist]

The text only route could allow for a PSO style translation system, as I suppose the whole point of online play is playing people around the world who may not speak the same language as you. Perhaps Nintendo will go down that route?? It is possible.


I loved the PSO universal symbols. Chat is great, but not needed for some online play. I see Nintendo going the keyboard route with the Wii.

[NinjaJoey23]

I think voice chat is important in tactical or team games. Teams with good communication can beat a team with more skill that is poorly organized.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Lack of voice chat is not a detriment but, a well liked feature on my end as well. If I'm playing with a friend they are more than likely in the same room. If I am playing with my old buds still up in Minnesota there is always speakerphone for trash talk and banter.

There is something to be said of a team that doesn't require voice communication to get the job done. Also, is the exchange really that helpful? When your bud exclaims "Got the camper!" I'm sure you'll get the idea once you stop receiving abrupt headshots.

[Cryomancer]

I didn't realize ANYBODY actually cared about voice chat. I don't remember any PSO fans talking about how the Xbox version exclusively had voice chat.

I sure the hell did! Voice chat with PSO is INCREDIBLY useful and I can't believe that Blue Burst doesn't have it built in. Thankfully there's teamspeak and whatnot, but cmon, it was really freakin useful.

And personally to me, TF2 is all about playing on "fun" servers, and playing stupid sound clips and music and driving away the serious business players who get all bent out of shape about it. And the strategic element is certainly there too, when you are playing on a "real" server.

I'm in the "it should be an option" camp. Nobody should be FORCED to use a mic, although it does make a good server/host game option, and you should always be able to mute, but it certainly adds to a game, I think.

[YoshiM]

I'm a bit amazed at the amount of replies against voice chat, even as an option. Online gaming is becoming the next social past-time, up there with sitting with people playing poker or joining a volleyball/basketball/anything-ball league and playing with or against strangers. There are games where chat is either very useful or almost a necessity like in strategy or squad FPS games.

Personally, I like the option. Without it playing online against people would feel like I'm playing against a really cunning computer. To be able to hear a groan when they are defeated or a laugh when someone says something funny makes it more engaging for me. Sure I run into time where there's the occasional foul-mouth brat or the racist pig but to be honest that's really rare these days (not like the old XBL days).

Nintendo should at least have the option available, perhaps by giving the host the option of voice or not to increase the number of players. I can't get a group of people together under one roof for multiplayer gaming but having voice chat is the next best thing.

[Melf]

I used to play Team Fortress 2 on XBL a fair amount and many hosts (the good ones by no mere coincidence) would often boot players without mics because they were unable to communicate, which was vital for helping the team win.

Exactly. Try playing Gears of War or Rainbow 6 without voice chat and see how fun it is. You need to be able to communicate with your team, and simple pictures not only destroy the realism, but they also don't work in tactical combat situations.


Here's the thing: if a voice system were implemented, why couldn't they just include the option to mute other people or even have a setting where you have a symbol (or lack thereof) beside your name indicating that you aren't participating in voice chat? If that were the case, you'd please both parties and ultimately expand and strengthen the already-strong communities for Nintendo's first-party titles.

This is it right here. Why do games have to either all have voice chat or not have it at all? I thought the whole schtick about the Wii was "bringing gamers together." Apparently, that only applies if everyone is in the same room.

But then, this is what we should expect from Nintendo. Remember when they said no one wanted to play online games, using a golf title as their example? Nintendo fans said that online gaming wasn't necessary. Then it's announced for Smash Bros. and Mario Kart, and all of a sudden online gaming ROCKS! It's the same with voice chat. As soon as Nintendo gets off its ass and implements it, everyone will think it's the best thing since sliced bread.


Hmm. Fascinating to see the response here. I thought I was the only one playing online without a headset. The only time I use one is when it's a "friends only" game (and that is rare). I just can't take the foul-mouthed adolescents. In fact, I'd like to see gaming in general get away from games where you have to voice chat. Just give me a player 2, 3, or 64. I don't want to know them. I sure as hell don't want to talk to them.

If you only play with random players, then this does happen, but that's kind of like saying that you won't go to arcades because people there are loud and nasty sometimes. Are you seriously going to play all your games in silence because of this? See, if Nintendo actually took the time to implement voice chat, you could boot obnoxious players or at least mute them. Then again, if you play with those who have your friend code, this whole situation can be avoided entirely. I've been on Live since 2002, and the amount of nastiness I've encountered has been minimal.

And would you really want to play a game with 32-64 people in complete silence? That would suck big time. Voice adds a lot to me. Playing Uno and just chatting is awesome, and setting up strategy with friends in multi-player games makes the experience so much better. I don't see why people feel they have to limit themselves. If a game has voice chat and you don't want to use it, then just don't plug in the microphone. Why does it have to be omitted completely?


When exactly did online voice chat become a selling point? I don't remember Alien Front Online flying off the shelves... and that game had 100% free online multiplayer, had the mic bundled in, and retailed at a budget price ($30). Now people are talking about how great it is to pay a monthly fee to play $60 games online. I guess people like to be gouged.

You're comparing a mediocre clusterfuck on 56k to set ups like Xbox Live? That's like questioning why we need 16-32 people in modern multi-player games when Doom and other early titles did fine with only 4. Why is it a selling point? Because modern technology now allows it, that's why. Adding voice chat takes nothing away from the game, and you don't HAVE to plug your microphone in if you don't want to.

[Rob2600]

I don't remember Alien Front Online flying off the shelves... and that game had 100% free online multiplayer, had the mic bundled in, and retailed at a budget price ($30). Now people are talking about how great it is to pay a monthly fee to play $60 games online. I guess people like to be gouged.

Of course people like to be gouged. Why do you think millions of people pay $50 for Madden NFL and NBA Live year after year?


There are games where chat is either very useful or almost a necessity like in strategy or squad FPS games. ... Without it, playing online against people would feel like I'm playing against a really cunning computer. To be able to hear a groan when they are defeated or a laugh when someone says something funny makes it more engaging for me.

YoshiM, this isn't directed specifically at you, but I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

I just can't relate to people who take these army games too seriously. As good as technology will get, nothing will ever be as authentic as actually being in the military, so why not just go for the ultimate in realism and enlist?

I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead? They're obviously very into the hobby, right? Why stop at video games?

[heybtbm]

I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

I just can't relate to people who take these army games too seriously. As good as technology will get, nothing will ever be as authentic as actually being in the military, so why not just go for the ultimate in realism and enlist?

I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead? They're obviously very into the hobby, right? Why stop at video games?

I think we have our post of the year already and it's only March.

Congratulations. This is the single most asinine and immature thing I've ever read at Digital Press...an absolute classic. Did you even read through what you typed before you hit "submit"?

Wow...just wow.


It's weird.

You got that right, buddy.

[lendelin]

I agree with heybtbm. THIS...


YoshiM, this isn't directed specifically at you, but I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

I just can't relate to people who take these army games too seriously. As good as technology will get, nothing will ever be as authentic as actually being in the military, so why not just go for the ultimate in realism and enlist?

I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead? They're obviously very into the hobby, right? Why stop at video games?

...is just plain nonsense and dumb.

I'm certainly not a supporter of voice chat, but YoshiM had a perfectly fine reasoning. He said that replacing AI is great, but additionally voice chat is authentic when it comes to human intelligence and immerses gamers in games for certain kinds of games. ....and YOUR response is "Buddy, you take gaming too seriously, why don't you join the military?" ??? Are you serious?

We had our unfortunate discussions about the Wii where you stressed that certain motions with the remote immerses you more into games, pointing to doors, using it as flashlights, swinging rackets. If I had said to you the following: 'Buddy, you take gaming way too seriously, if you wanna be Lara Croft get a sex change and join an expedition in the Brazilian jungle.' You could have called me then rightfully an idiot.

NOTE about a secret: Videogames ARE about creating different illusions in very different ways.

[Half Japanese]

YoshiM, this isn't directed specifically at you, but I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

I just can't relate to people who take these army games too seriously. As good as technology will get, nothing will ever be as authentic as actually being in the military, so why not just go for the ultimate in realism and enlist?

I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead? They're obviously very into the hobby, right? Why stop at video games?

Why do you spend money on a computer to type things at other people about video games? Why not just show up at a game store and start yelling inane shit at everyone in the store? I would go into further detail as to why this is one of the most stupid things I've ever read on the internet, but I think it really speaks for itself.

[Leo_A]

If only good PC steering wheels only cost $150...

When you get serious about racing simulations, your looking at well over $500. My current wheel is a Thomas Superwheel, and its cost me $1000 so far after a few upgrades like adding a clutch pedal. And it's just a mid price range wheel, you can easily spend far more.

Still far cheaper than doing the real thing. $1000 doesn't buy you very much, yet alone the $150 you were whining about in your stupid post.

[CartCollector]

To continue everyone else's bashing...


I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

No, it's not. As realistic as these war games get, I doubt they'll ever have the thing which defines war, which is death. Since many people I know don't want to increase their chance of dying, they don't enlist. Including those who want to feel the terror and victory of war but would crap their pants in a real one.
Actually, realistic war FPSs are like condoms - they provide a desirable experience without the consequences. Well, with condoms, there will always be the chance of failure, but still. Those who use condoms often always want them to be improved so that the sex is more realistic, and those who play FPSs always want them improved so that they are more realistic. But there will always be a part of reality which they will not emulate.


I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead?

Let me get this straight: you list the price of the toy steering wheel to make it look expensive, but then you don't list the price of the car? I'll do it for you:

Rob2600 Brand Steering Wheel: $150
Microsoft XBox 360 Elite Bundle (w/ Forza Motorsport 2): (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020083) $449.99
1080p 46" Sony LCD HDTV: (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8442839&type=product&id=1183160363864) $2,299.99
MSRP of 2006 Saleen S7: (http://autos.yahoo.com/saleen_s7_twin_turbo/) $555,000
Rob2600's argument: worthless.

[Rob2600]

Heybtbm, lendelin, Half Japanese, Leo_Ames, and CartCollector:

Again, my previous post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I was venting and I apologize for going off topic. I had edited what I wrote several times, but I guess it still didn't come out quite right.

Let me try this again. There are some people who play a game like Call of Duty for hours upon hours a day and become experts at it. They put on their headsets, bark orders at other people, scream obscenities at their enemies, and know all the best places to hide. Because of that, they think they're cool and tough. However, in reality, if they were placed in the middle of real life combat, they wouldn't be cool or tough at all. They'd probably start crying like a toddler.

I don't like it when people get a big macho ego over an army video game. It also bothers me when people don't stop and think about realistic violence. "I wish the sequel makes me feel even more like I'm in the middle of a real war. I want to be able to communicate with my squad as we shoot strangers in the back of the head. I want to experience shell shock." Really? Is that what you want? To me, that's very insensitive. Why not just enlist in the military? That's the most realism ever.

Maybe I have a different perspective because I have relatives in the military.


Regarding racing simulations, there are some people who take them very seriously. They spend hours upon hours racing and upgrading their virtual cars. They're obsessed. They love cars so much, so why don't they delve further into the hobby and take real life racing lessons, too? Why stop at video games? If I loved cars that much, I'd rather spend extra money and drive on a real track for a little while than spend $150 on a toy version. Wouldn't that be more exciting?

Another example: some people enjoy playing Guitar Hero. They play it for a little while, get good at it, and then move on. It's fun. However, I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about people who play Guitar Hero for hours and hours and hours and master it. They love it and are obsessed with it...so why not take it to the next level and pay for real guitar lessons?


I'm sorry for going off on a tangent.

[zektor]

This logic makes absolutely no sense to me.

I *love* racing games. Next to shooters, it is my favorite genre. However, I am not really into cars. Actually, I know very little when it comes to cars, and really do not care. But I love my racing games and consider myself to be quite good at them. Are you trying to say that I can't be a master at a good racing game because I am not a master at the real thing? Nor should I love these games because I lack knowledge about real cars? Maybe I should get a real laser equipped space ship, blast off and shoot down some extra-terrestrials before I can play Space Invaders... heh.

Maybe people are buying into this hobby because this IS their hobby. Why don't all of those car enthusiasts start playing some videogame racers if they are really into cars? See my point?

[Half Japanese]

Heybtbm, lendelin, Half Japanese, Leo_Ames, and CartCollector:

Again, my previous post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I was venting and I apologize for going off topic. I had edited what I wrote several times, but I guess it still didn't come out quite right.

Let me try this again. There are some people who play a game like Call of Duty for hours upon hours a day and become experts at it. They put on their headsets, bark orders at other people, scream obscenities at their enemies, and know all the best places to hide. Because of that, they think they're cool and tough. However, in reality, if they were placed in the middle of real life combat, they wouldn't be cool or tough at all. They'd probably start crying like a toddler.

I don't like it when people get a big macho ego over an army video game. It also bothers me when people don't stop and think about realistic violence. "I wish the sequel makes me feel even more like I'm in the middle of a real war. I want to be able to communicate with my squad as we shoot strangers in the back of the head. I want to experience shell shock." Really? Is that what you want? To me, that's very insensitive. Why not just enlist in the military? That's the most realism ever.

Maybe I have a different perspective because I have relatives in the military.


Regarding racing simulations, there are some people who take them very seriously. They spend hours upon hours racing and upgrading their virtual cars. They're obsessed. They love cars so much, so why don't they delve further into the hobby and take real life racing lessons, too? Why stop at video games? If I loved cars that much, I'd rather spend extra money and drive on a real track for a little while than spend $150 on a toy version. Wouldn't that be more exciting?

Another example: some people enjoy playing Guitar Hero. They play it for a little while, get good at it, and then move on. It's fun. However, I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about people who play Guitar Hero for hours and hours and hours and master it. They love it and are obsessed with it...so why not take it to the next level and pay for real guitar lessons?

I've always been of the opinion that you can't polish a turd, which seems to be what this similarly worded "special edition" of your previous post tries to do. People "stop" where they do because it is realistically as close as many of them can or want to get to the "real thing." Video games are a form of entertainment, not unlike film and literature, the distinction with video games being that the focus doesn't always need to be on a narrative, information or instruction. You seem to be viewing games as a means to an end other than entertainment, which isn't the case in what I would assume to be more than 99% of those playing them. If I were to treat video games as a starting point from which to expand my hobby into other hobbies or lifestyles I would be a mercenary, fighter pilot, ping pong paddle, short order cook, hunter, quarterback, wrestler, vampire hunter, wizard, ninja, bartender, knight, and overindulgent anthromorphic yellow circle, to name a few.

Obsession is a part of any reasonably adopted hobby. You'll find people in any hobby or field of interest who are too wrapped up in it for their own good. Your singling out of video games by seeing escapism only as some sort of unfulfilled (and in most cases unfulfillable) fantasy is pure shitty logic. It's one thing to feign understanding of something one has no working knowledge of, but it's quite another to tell a shooter fan they're a pussy for not joining the military or a racing fan that they're a loser for not being able to afford a $500,000 vehicle and the time during which to race it.

[Rob2600]

Maybe I should get a real laser equipped space ship, blast off and shoot down some extra-terrestrials before I can play Space Invaders.

I think you know what I mean. Space Invaders isn't a realistic simulator. You made me laugh though. :)


If I were to treat video games as a starting point from which to expand my hobby into other hobbies or lifestyles I would be a mercenary, fighter pilot, ping pong paddle, short order cook, hunter, quarterback, wrestler, vampire hunter, wizard, ninja, bartender, knight, and overindulgent anthromorphic yellow circle, to name a few.

I'm talking about realistic simulation games. I don't expect someone who plays Super Mario Bros. to want to become a plumber. However, I would think that someone who plays Madden NFL every day, watches football games on TV, owns football cards, knows all of the stats, owns season tickets, and wears football jerseys would probably take his hobby to the next level and join a local rec team. What's so illogical about that?

There's a difference between someone who plays F-Zero of Mario Kart once in a while and someone who plays Gran Turismo five hours a day, seven days a week. I figure that person is really into cars and would want to take his interest one step further.

There's also a difference between someone who plays Street Fighter II once in a while and someone who plays martial arts-based video games every day, buys martial arts books, and watches martial arts movies. I don't think it's illogical to say to that person, "Hey, you seem to be very interested in martial arts. Why don't you join a class? You'd probably love it and get a lot out of it."


It's one thing to feign understanding of something one has no working knowledge of, but it's quite another to tell a shooter fan they're a pussy for not joining the military or a racing fan that they're a loser for not being able to afford a $500,000 vehicle and the time during which to race it.

That's not what I wrote.

Anyway, how much would it cost for someone to take race car lessons with an instructor? Is it really $500,000?


Why do you spend money on a computer to type things at other people about video games? Why not just show up at a game store and start yelling inane shit at everyone in the store?

I used to work at a video game store and, believe me, there were people who actually did that.

[Daltone]

I'm talking about realistic simulation games. I don't expect someone who plays Super Mario Bros. to want to become a plumber. However, I would think that someone who plays Madden NFL every day, watches football games on TV, owns football cards, knows all of the stats, owns season tickets, and wears football jerseys would probably take his hobby to the next level and join a local rec team. What's so illogical about that?

There's a difference between someone who plays F-Zero of Mario Kart once in a while and someone who plays Gran Turismo five hours a day, seven days a week. I figure that person is really into cars and would want to take his interest one step further.


Why can you not enjoy the game for what it is, a game, without having to do the 'real' thing? There's a vast difference in experience between, for example, playing Madden and knowing all the stats, getting behind a team, to being on a field with the sole job of stopping one man making a 6 yard run for an entire game. Equally, shooters like COD4 and Rainbow Six are hardly realistic simulations now are they? They present an enjoyable hyper-reality in the same way an action film does. Find me one person whose military experience is accurately summed up by either of those games. Playing an FPS just isn't comparable to joining the army, it's more like paintball - a series of short, exciting fantasy bouts. There's a vast difference between doing something in real life and playing a computer game.

[YoshiM]

YoshiM, this isn't directed specifically at you, but I think it's interesting how so many grown men want their video games to make them feel like they're actually in the middle of a war...voice chat, force feedback, surround sound, etc...but in reality, they would never actually join the army or fight on the battlefield for real. Most hard core Call of Duty braggarts would probably soil themselves and faint if placed into an actual battle, yet they want their pretend army man games to be more realistic. It's weird.

I know this quote was already touched on (and you had a follow up later) but I'll answer anyway.

When you're playing a team based game, ANY team based game, you *want* communication and voice is best. Unless you've got the eyes of a fly or can read minds, how can you know what's going on with your limited field of view? Want to know why you keep dying a few paces out of your respawn point? You couldn't if you didn't have voice and actually asked one of your team mates where the dang sniper is-it'd be trial and error to find the right path or hope you catch the sod off guard.

As for placing these hard core gamers into real life combat or racing situations-who wouldn't soil their pants (I had to specify, I have a feeling some smartass will comment about soiling oneself on the golf course or while fishing)? I know I'm a good driver but I've never personally taken turns at 100 MPH. I'd probably freak as I'm pressed into my seat, worrying if the car would flip over or if I'd hit the side wall or something. I know my many years of aircraft/spacecraft piloting on PC would mean a hill of beans if I was plopped into a real Cessna and told to land it. As others have said, these games are an escape-a past time of pretend. If you want to use the idea of being "grown" you could say these games are the "grown man's" backyard games of Cops n' Robbers/Army (or Star Wars in my case), playing with Matchbox cars in the dirt and (for the third person viewed type action games) playing with action figures.


I just can't relate to people who take these army games too seriously. As good as technology will get, nothing will ever be as authentic as actually being in the military, so why not just go for the ultimate in realism and enlist?

I have no idea why you'd even ask that. In a nutshell, people take games that have winning and losing conditions seriously because the want to win. This mentality is in both the virtual and the real world. It's a past time, the military is not and the comparison is just not valid.


I can't relate to people who take racing simulations too seriously, either. Instead of spending $150 on a toy steering wheel and sitting in front of your TV pretending to drive a race car and complaining about some minor physics issues, why don't they just spend their money on driving a real race car instead? They're obviously very into the hobby, right? Why stop at video games?

As others have mentioned: cost, availability and "Real Life". Don't need to explain it more than that.

I still can't believe people are still looking at voice chat as an "all or nothing" ordeal. Can't we all have our cake and eat it too?

[Rob2600]

YoshiM, Daltone, and lendelin, thanks for the responses. I guess I just take issue with realistic army games. Maybe I have a different philosophy...or maybe I'm just old fashioned. Either way, I'm not into voice chat at all.

I appreciate your explanations though.

[Leo_A]

Regarding racing simulations, there are some people who take them very seriously. They spend hours upon hours racing and upgrading their virtual cars. They're obsessed. They love cars so much, so why don't they delve further into the hobby and take real life racing lessons, too? Why stop at video games? If I loved cars that much, I'd rather spend extra money and drive on a real track for a little while than spend $150 on a toy version. Wouldn't that be more exciting?


Sounds like your describing NFS/Forza type fans, who are in it to collect cars and upgrade them more than racing. You won't find many people getting excited about racing a Honda Civic in the real world.

Real racing simulations allow you to do things most normal people never could in real life, like race a Lotus 49b around Monza in a simulated version of the 1967 Italian Grand Prix. Its about the racing more so than the cars, you won't find many people playing something like NASCAR Racing 2003 Season or GTR because they're excited there's a Pontiac Grand Prix modeled in the game. Nor is there upgrading in real racing simulations, your doing things like changing shock settings and gear ratios, setting up your racecar to handle the racetrack. Not buying new turbochargers and new tires like in a console arcade racer.

Racing simulations let you pretend to be a professional race driver. And again, unless you have thousands to spend, its the only practical way to do it. $150 won't buy you much in the racing world, not even one Hoosier tire for a late model stockcar. Beyond a few trips to a local gokart track, that's not going to buy you anything.

[Greg2600]

Racing simulations are my thing on the PC. About the only thing I still play. If you want the feeling of racing for real, this is the way to do it. Driving "experiences" cost several hundred dollars and last a few hours. I spent $50 on Nascar Racing 2003 and maybe $80 on a racing wheel years ago, and still play it now. With racing sims, voice chat on programs like Team Speak is very helpful. It's a bit difficult to type while driving, and if you are in a league or a private race, the conversations are normal. Same thing for Combat Flight simulators. These games require skill and experience in knowing how to place. It's not like a game like Star Wars Battlefront or Medal of Honor or Call of Duty where any nitwit can walk around and shoot a gun. I haven't played many FPS online these days. I played Star Wars PC games like X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter and X-Wing Alliance, where there were levels specifically for multi-player, which were meant to be done cooperatively.

Again, as for the voice chat, if its among people you know, it's cool. But with other strangers and obnoxious kids, no, that is terrible. However, if Nintendo lacks the feature, then that is another reason I've no qualms in
ceasing to buy their consoles after the N64.