It's hard for me to fathom the Wii being viable for more than 3 years [Archive] - Page 2

FantasiaWHT

01-02-2007, 10:30 AM

I haven't read all the replies, but replying to Anthony1's original post...

I really don't see any real arguments for your proposition there EXCEPT for the underpowered graphical capabilities of the Wii. Everything else just comes down to "it could happen so I think it will".

As far as graphical capabilities go, I think you are missing two important subsets of gamers

a) Those that don't care about graphical level. (I don't mean graphical QUALITY- There are beautiful 8, 16, 32, etc. bit games that are beautiful within their low LEVEL of graphics)

b) Brand new gamers who are getting swept in by the Wii's controls. I know ridiculous numbers of people, most of them a generation older than me who never considered playing video games before now, who have actually bought Wii after their kids brought it home for Thanksgiving/Christmas.

Lastly, history has shown both a) the system with the highest level of graphics within a generation is not the most succesful, and b) the system with the lowest level of graphics is not the least succesful. Even in the most recent generation of consoles, this was true.

Can't buy your argument Anthony. Your conclusion may be right but I don't see any decent reasoning to support it.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 11:06 AM

The Wii has absolutely horrible graphics. Ok, I said it. Even Zelda looks horrible. When I mean horrible, I'm talking in comparison to the other 2 consoles out there.

At this point, I've just got to assume that you've got eyesight problems, or are just saying crazy stuff just to get a rise out of people.

The Wii does not have "horrible graphics". Even in relation to the other two, they are not "horrible". They are indeed "different", but not horrible.

With that being said, I believe I am done replying to you within this thread. No disrespect intended. It's just that the bottom line is that you have a certain opinion, and most of the world has another. Neither is right or wrong. Again, they are just different. You are not about to change yours, and I am not about to change mine. So this conversation is kinda riduculous at this point.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 11:10 AM

My point is that with the Wii, Nintendo is attempting to capitalize on the huge majority of people who don't care about every last polygon and pixel-shader, and that is a relatively new thing. This is a HUGE untapped market of people who don't really play games, and whose only observation from seeing the PS2 next to the PS3 might be that the latter looks "more real". They will not be won by graphics power alone, or else they would've been already, since this has been the running trend for years and years now.

Berserker, I have already said this here in this thread and countless others. You agree, as do a bunch of other folks. The fact is, people like Anthony1 refuse to acknowledge this point, and there really is no use trying to convince them. It's like banging your head against a wall.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 11:16 AM

There were things Miyamoto couldn't do in the first Zelda game compared to the the SNES A Link to the Past.

I just don't understand how some of you just DO NOT get this... Of *course* there were things that Miyamoto could do in SNES Zelda that he couldn't do in NES Zelda. But, please give me an example of what he could do on a PS3 Zelda that he could not do on a Wii Zelda?

Sure, we've been hearings stories since the PS2 about "emotion engines" and "reactive physics" and all this other gobleygook, but the fact is that games haven't really changed much in the last 10 years, except for graphics. Yes, there are limited examples of gameplay tweeks, but 99% of the games coming out now are just prettier versions of games from ten years ago.

The graphics reached a pretty acceptable level, gameplay-wise with PS2 and XBOX. Would it effect gameplay to a significant degree if Zelda TP was on the PS3 and had ungodly ray shaders, "god rays", real flinging mud, and countless other tech demo attachments? I don't think it would.

BUT, if it would...then it is Sony's job to prove it. IF they can prove that, and IF they can get that price down, then the Wii is dead. I just don't think they can.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 11:22 AM

Have you ever played Oblivion? Its a beautiful game and its much fun to play. Now, would the game be just as fun if you had to go from full settings and resolusion to 640*480 and on the lowest settings? I hardly doubt so. One of the things that makes Oblivion so great is the way how everything looks.

You know, I'm glad you brought up Oblivion. Yes, the game is BEAUTIFUL. But truth be told, I just can't get into it. I've tried and tried, but the game is just too open ended and slow paced. (I know I can't be the only one like this, with this game. Anyone else out there?)

On the other hand, I just started playing "Golden Sun" on my DS and can't put it down. Make of that what you will.

In reagrds to your movie comment: Can you explain to me why black and white classics still run on TV on a regular basis? According to this discussion, people should get no enjoyment from them. Poor effects, no color, bad sound... What keeps people watching them? Hmm?

cyberfluxor

01-02-2007, 11:32 AM

It's true about graphics. Although memory has been increased along with processing speed there aren't too many companies out there actually pushing bounds by making things more complex in the ways of depth. Notice I said some are, most are just another blah game and there's a dozen or so major releases that actually blow our minds. I would like to see more creativity with how much power is supposed to be in these machines rather than pushing graphics for wow effects. This is why the Wii was so vital, the change in gameplay! Now if they can bring us more dimentions to the games, make them evolve into something new where games haven't gone before. It's difficult but it takes genious, imagination and the will to try something new.

slip81

01-02-2007, 11:37 AM

You know, I'm glad you brought up Oblivion. Yes, the game is BEAUTIFUL. But truth be told, I just can't get into it. I've tried and tried, but the game is just too open ended and slow paced. (I know I can't be the only one like this, with this game. Anyone else out there?)

I feel the same way. I've had Oblivion since mid August and have only logged about 10 hours on it. And I haven't touched it since October.

jajaja

01-02-2007, 11:47 AM

I just don't understand how some of you just DO NOT get this... Of *course* there were things that Miyamoto could do in SNES Zelda that he couldn't do in NES Zelda. But, please give me an example of what he could do on a PS3 Zelda that he could not do on a Wii Zelda?

Sure, we've been hearings stories since the PS2 about "emotion engines" and "reactive physics" and all this other gobleygook, but the fact is that games haven't really changed much in the last 10 years, except for graphics. Yes, there are limited examples of gameplay tweeks, but 99% of the games coming out now are just prettier versions of games from ten years ago.

There was something with Zelda 3 that they had to remove because of the size limitations on the SFC/SNES carts, or did they manage to do it afterall? I dont quite remember the story behind this, but there was some problems due to lack of space.

There are more than the gfx that have changed over the last 10 years. 2 major things are physics and AI. These 2 things requires power. If you want the best AI i games today you must also have the powerful hardware.

About what could be done with PS3 Zelda and not on Wii is mostly visuals. Possibly you could also have better AI too. If you had seen Zelda:TP with 360/PS3 gfx i could guarantee you that you wouldnt want to go back to GC gfx. Zelda is alot about how things looks, the feeling etc. Imagine this game with Shader 3.0, using same texture technology as Unreal 3 engine uses etc. damn.. the game would have come so much more alive.

Another good example is Splinter Cell Double Agent for Wii. This version has horrible shadows and SC is basicly all about the enviorments light and shadows. Play SC DA on 360 with a proper setup (HDTV, 5.1 etc.) and then play the Wii version. Im pretty sure you would want to switch back to the 360 version quickly.

In reagrds to your movie comment: Can you explain to me why black and white classics still run on TV on a regular basis? According to this discussion, people should get no enjoyment from them. Poor effects, no color, bad sound... What keeps people watching them? Hmm?

Because they are classics, its just the same thing why we still play Atari 2600 and NES. You can ask yourself why they remaster old movies :) My example was based on the same movie, im not comparing a 2006 made movie to a 1932 classic. Viewing that old movie (unless remastered) on a top notch system wont make much difference, but a 2006 movie will. No one here is saying that all the old stuff is junk and only the new stuff is worth something. If anyone here thinks so they are at the wrong forum.

When it comes to new consoles that are 3d based i want it to look the best way possible. Im under the impression that people assume i hate old stuff because of this. I dont know why and i dont really care, but its so far from the truth as possible. Me myself prefer 2d games over 3d games. All my favorite systems are 2d and i prefer to play a good NES game instead of the newest PC or PS2 game. Today basicly everything is in 3d and its a shame. GBA is the last real 2d system, pity :( I can still enjoy some of the old PSX games (which got bad 3d compared to todays games), but as said, when it comes to 3d games i want them to look as good as possible.

vertikalgrind

01-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Might be that the Micro is selling low, but it goes under GBA, its not a system of its own. GBA have sold like 80 million units worldwide :)

Got me there. true.

NE146

01-02-2007, 12:12 PM

The DS was released a while ago now too and it does seem to have some staying power. Even though it's graphics are severly outdated by PSP standards which is pretty evident when comparing games like Need for Speed on each of them. As we have obviously seen though, it has games out for it where the lack of DS graphic horsepower mattered naught... so that's the interesting point.

Whether this will be the same experience on the consoles is anyone's guess....

megamaniaman

01-02-2007, 12:52 PM

First off, what is the number 1 thing any business wants. Word of Mouth. And right now the Word of Mouth is freakin insane on the Wii. word of Mouth overcomes anything and will beat graphics any day of the week. A good example of this is the movie Borat. The fact was this was a film that had horrible PR. It also had very low production budget. By all accounts this film should of flopped. But a peculiar thing called Word of Mouth made this movie a box office success. What is making the wii so populor is simple and something that is being overlooked. This is a Virtual Reality Game console. I personally believe that this genre of gaming has been ignored for far too long. Don't get me wrong the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 are great systems. But the fact remains that these are not Virtual Reality consoles. Main reason was because of the failure of the virtual boy. But people forgot that the Virtual Boy caused ceasures in some kids, which caused a lot of people to shy away from it. Also grapically we were not there yet. When the Playstation 2, Xbox, and Gamecube
came out, we were finally there. So when people say this system has Xbox 1 graphics, it does not really matter because it is still strong enough to handle a virtual reality world. Virtual Reality is the next wave of gaming. In fact when the Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 consoles finally come out, Do not be suprised to see the systems built around virtual reality.

Anthony1

01-02-2007, 02:37 PM

know this, in about 5 years all three companies will release a new system, you'll buy all three, and then proceed to bitch about all of them.

Exactly! :)

I will buy all three of them, and bitch about all three. You can't say I'm biased, cause I will bitch about all of them. That's just my nature. If everything is rainbows and sunshine and waterfalls, what the heck is there to talk and argue about? I can talk major smack about all three current systems on the market, Xbox 360 included. Right now, I think the 360 has the best chance of being the No.1 system this generation, but it definitely has it's own share of problems as well.

Regarding this discussion of the Wii though, I must say that I'm not actually bitching about the Wii and it's horrible graphics. I knew the Wii had horrible graphics from the very beginning. When I handed the R'Zone clerk 270 smackers to get my Wii, I knew before handing her the money that the Wii's graphics blew chunks. But I was interested in the Wii regardless, because I knew it would be fun, and a new kind of gaming experience, and I was excited about it. I'm still excited about it. It's fun as hell to try to create Mii's for all your friends and family members, and I have a blast playing Wii Sports with my kids. The whole idea behind this thread, is that I'm wondering if the whole "Wii Phenomenom" as we know it, will wear off rather quickly, and then what are we left with? Graphics and Sounds circa November 2001, that's what. Right now, I'm highly entertained by the Wii, and I have nothing to complain about (other than the lack of online co-op play with the VC games, but that's another thread...) regarding the Wii. Again, before I plunked down 310 smackers on the Wii, I knew the graphics sucked. It's a known commodity that the Wii is going to deliver GameCube graphics. We all know that. That isn't that big of a deal. However, again, the point of my thread is to illustrate that I think this love affair that we are currently having with the Wii is going to fade away in two years, and the whole Wii thing is going to be rather short lived. I'm not sad about that, because I think it will be fun while it lasts, and I'm looking forward to Nintendo's next console.

8-bitNesMan

01-02-2007, 02:40 PM

What is making the wii so populor is simple and something that is being overlooked. This is a Virtual Reality Game console. I personally believe that this genre of gaming has been ignored for far too long. Don't get me wrong the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 are great systems. But the fact remains that these are not Virtual Reality consoles. Main reason was because of the failure of the virtual boy. But people forgot that the Virtual Boy caused ceasures in some kids, which caused a lot of people to shy away from it. Also grapically we were not there yet. When the Playstation 2, Xbox, and Gamecube
came out, we were finally there. So when people say this system has Xbox 1 graphics, it does not really matter because it is still strong enough to handle a virtual reality world. Virtual Reality is the next wave of gaming. In fact when the Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 consoles finally come out, Do not be suprised to see the systems built around virtual reality.

I REALLY hope the above rambling was meant to be sarcastic.

When I handed the R'Zone clerk 270 smackers to get my Wii, I knew before handing her the money that the Wii's graphics blew chunks.

Again, before I plunked down 310 smackers on the Wii, I knew the graphics sucked.

So exactly how many "smackers" was your Wii?

P.S. Keep up the good work writing the novels. They're entertaining!

Bronty-2

01-02-2007, 02:41 PM

What an assinine thread. Anthony1, you've done it again. You think graphics are going to determine the longevity/success of a console that doesn't compete on graphics? How mind boggingly obtuse.

At least, that's what I have to surmise the gist of your argument is because there is no way in hell I'm actually reading one of your rehashed, page-long graphics whore posts. Seen this movie too many times before. I guess sensible posting 'as we know it, is in GRAVE DANGER' when you're around.

Charlesaway

01-02-2007, 02:55 PM

By 2009, the Xbox 360 will be extremely affordable, on it's 6th or 7th generation of software. Heck, the core system should probably be $99 by then. The PS3 will be much more affordable by then as well, and will be on it's 5th or 6th generation of software, showing off much more of the original promise of the PS3.

That's quite an optimistic prediction as far as price drops go. The Xbox only managed to drop half it's original MSRP over 3 years. Over a 6 year course of price drops the PS2 went from $300 to just under $130. My prediction is that I honestly doubt you'll be seeing a core system priced under $150 for the life of the console, 4 to 5 years. Likewise, the PS3 isn't going to drop down to $200-$250 in 3 years.

The Wii, however, has a lot of 'wiigle' room to adjust downward and remain affordable, without sliding into that sub $100 'toy' range. So It's not really
fair to say that one of the reasons the 360 may ultimately trash the Wii is because it will be more affordable, because ALL of the consoles, including the Wii, will be more affordable.

In the end, only time will tell, and in three years we can all look back on the issue and know what really happened.

Anthony1

01-02-2007, 03:15 PM

What an assinine thread. Anthony1, you've done it again. You think graphics are going to determine the longevity/success of a console that doesn't compete on graphics? How mind boggingly obtuse.

As lackluster as the graphics for the Wii are right now, they are passable. Barely. But in 2009, the graphics for Wii games will look "mind boggingly absurd" in comparison to the PS3 and 360, and the Wii will be forgotten. You can bank on it. It might be sad to think the general public will have abandoned it just because the graphics look ridiculously lame in comparison, but check back with me in 2009 and see if I'm wrong.

Anthony1

01-02-2007, 03:19 PM

So exactly how many "smackers" was your Wii?

Well, the Wii itself cost just a hair under $270 with tax where I live. The Official Nintendo Wii component cable that I ordered from Nintendo.com cost just a hair under $40 with tax and shipping, so basically $310, plus a small amount to rent Zelda and Red Steel. If I could find some Wii-Motes at a retail store, I would be over $400 right now, but they are sold out where I live.

YoshiM

01-02-2007, 05:14 PM

It is just plain silly to assume that a Miyamoto or every other game developer would prefer systems which gives them less choices and opportunities. Nintendo chose this route out of economic necessity and not because they developed a heart for the true gamer and innovation, that is PR-babble.

If this were totally true then console gaming would be dead and PC gaming would be reigning supreme. Why develop for a device that's not upgradable and will be deemed obsolete in a few years, thus possibly causing issues when developers have pushed the system to its limit? Why spend a ton of money on proprietary development kits when a high end PC is all you need? When graphics go to the "next level" the learning curve won't be as steep when the new graphics/physics cards come out as it would be on a platform whose core is already well understood.

Right now the developers are quaking a bit because it's going to cost even MORE money to make games on the 360 and especially PS3, making their choice of games to make more restricted (can't have experimental games-gotta make more Maddens as that pays the bills...for now). More manpower+more expensive equipment+more time=more money needed. What good are these great artistic tools if it's too expensive to really make use of them?

This is where the Wii comes in. No it doesn't have the uber graphic whizbangs of the PS3 or 360 but the core development is easy as developers already have that knowledge. That saves money right there. With that savings of money it's less of a risk to try games that are different from the norm and with the audience the Wii is targeted to there's a better chance an inexpensive "un-next gen" looking, not-so-main-stream title may sell like hot cakes on the Wii whereas the same title would collect dust if made for the PS3 or 360.

I do agree that the less powerful Wii hardware offers less opportunities and choices...to a point. However it also opens doors to other possibilities not possible on the 360 or even the PS3 thanks to the controller.

"Classic" timeless gameplay works within past frame sets. It cannot be repeated although very basic gameplay rules are very similar or even identical. Innovative ideas work within limits. A Pitfall or a Galaga cannot and should not be repeated today. It were an abomination, the extreme opposite of innovative, and rightfully not a commercial success.

Oh but it has. For a while people were singing some praise over XBL content, which many of which has ripped the game concepts (even the games themselves) right outta the past. Has the general concept of play really changed in FPS games since Quake? What about Tetris-a-likes?

All other things being equal, it were a better game, no doubt; and better resolutions for Okami wouldn't hurt, maybe even more processing power would have given developers more gameplay ideas which could be implemented, the game would certainly not be worse on a 360 or PS3.

You think if Okami was made on a PS3 or 360 Clover would still be around? ;)

I played tonight MotoGP3 on the Xbox, and then a demo version of MotoGP 06 on the 360. Gameplay (control, feel for speed) is roughly the same, I prefer the newer version; and playing Zelda TP on the Cube and seeing graphics of the game on the Wii, I thought about Kameo and regret that Nintendo isn't able to compete with MS and Sony anymore.

Funny you bring up Kameo...a title that took roughly FOUR YEARS to get released and still looks like something that possibly even the Gamecube could handle? I'm glad it didn't come out on the Gamecube.

Anyway, I don't want to make this thread too much longer. Wii is different, it's attracting audiences developers have neglected and thanks to the experiment that was the DS it shows that doing something different CAN make money and be fun for the gamer. People see it as possibly fizzling out because, thanks to history, expect that each iteration of machine is supposed to be that much more powerful than the last. I see the Wii kind of like a PC: a niche market that the mainstream dismisses but will continue to live thanks to its unique interface and the titles that use that interface.

poieo

01-02-2007, 05:47 PM

Boy, there's a bunch of nice long posts i would reply to if i didn't think the resulting quotechain would drive everyone nuts. I'm just picking a few small shots here.

Another good example is Splinter Cell Double Agent for Wii. This version has horrible shadows and SC is basicly all about the enviorments light and shadows. Play SC DA on 360 with a proper setup (HDTV, 5.1 etc.) and then play the Wii version. Im pretty sure you would want to switch back to the 360 version quickly.

An interesting factor here is that the GC and 360 versions were done by different teams. Ubi Montreal did the Wii version (as well as the GC version), while Ubi Shanghai did the 360 version (as well as the PC and PS3 versions). Honestly, both versions are sounding like they were half-assed in one way or another, with the Wii version's shadows and the 360 version's plotholes (which are supposedly filled in by... the PS2/Xbox versions -- also done by Ubi Montreal).

Gotta love developing the same game across multiple consoles.

Anyway, I don't want to make this thread too much longer. Wii is different, it's attracting audiences developers have neglected and thanks to the experiment that was the DS it shows that doing something different CAN make money and be fun for the gamer. People see it as possibly fizzling out because, thanks to history, expect that each iteration of machine is supposed to be that much more powerful than the last. I see the Wii kind of like a PC: a niche market that the mainstream dismisses but will continue to live thanks to its unique interface and the titles that use that interface.

Like the PC market, but without the insane drive to upgrade single components for hundreds of dollars at a time. It'd be perfect. I don't see that as a niche at all.

But also, since we're talking about PCs and the Wii, has no one considered that the Wii might actually open up the arena for the two genres that PCs have always done better, the FPS and the RTS?

Pente

01-02-2007, 05:49 PM

Lets just say that if the Wii is doing just fine in 2 years, this will be one of the threads to dig up again and display old quotes and laugh :D

Or if it's doing poorly, then laugh at this one...

Bronty-2

01-02-2007, 05:55 PM

As lackluster as the graphics for the Wii are right now, they are passable. Barely. But in 2009, the graphics for Wii games will look "mind boggingly absurd" in comparison to the PS3 and 360, and the Wii will be forgotten. You can bank on it. It might be sad to think the general public will have abandoned it just because the graphics look ridiculously lame in comparison, but check back with me in 2009 and see if I'm wrong.

*You* can check back with *me* in 2009 because I'm sure as hell not wasting my time by putting that in my calendar. There are pluses and minuses for every system. Graphics is a con for the wii. Big deal. Price and fun factor are pros. Between wii, xbox, and ps3 there's a console everyone right now and to call this race over in spite of tons of positive press on the wii's side just because of anticipated graphics shortcomings in 2009 is comical to say the least.

Garry Silljo

01-02-2007, 06:01 PM

My prediction, Whatever drug company that produces Excedrin will be a little down in profits this month. With the money I've saved on headache medicine by refusing to reply to Anthony's latest headache inducing flamebait post, I'll be able to afford my Wii!

That's another sale for Nintendo. I will not be buying any of the other next gen systems. They do not impress me in the least.

To everyone getting frustrated, there is a piece of advice given out quite often around here. If you don't like it, don't buy it. This also applies to these threads. Up until now I have restrained myself from entering this thread, and after this I'm leaving. I no longer ram myself into the brickwall of Anthony1 thought, and the only way I could be any happier ..... is with a Wii.

ubersaurus

01-02-2007, 06:17 PM

I'll be honest, I played through Zelda, and I'm playing through Gears of War right now. Both are through S-video on a standard def tv, and even though Gears does look better, it's not a massive improvement. I'm sure in component on a high def tv, the difference is much more notable, but as it stands the difference in prettiness isn't a big deal to my eyes.

Anthony1

01-02-2007, 06:22 PM

Hey, isn't there some website that allows you to send yourself a email in the future? I would send myself a email in May 2009, 2 1/2 years after the Wii launched in the USA, with a link to this thread, and then I can post a reply to this old thread and revive and see if I was correct or totally off the mark. Either way, it would be worth a laugh in May 2009 to check back up on this thread.

jajaja

01-02-2007, 06:39 PM

An interesting factor here is that the GC and 360 versions were done by different teams. Ubi Montreal did the Wii version (as well as the GC version), while Ubi Shanghai did the 360 version (as well as the PC and PS3 versions). Honestly, both versions are sounding like they were half-assed in one way or another, with the Wii version's shadows and the 360 version's plotholes (which are supposedly filled in by... the PS2/Xbox versions -- also done by Ubi Montreal).

Gotta love developing the same game across multiple consoles.

Might be, havnt checked into it. I played through the PC version, only version i tried (great game btw, recommended to everything! :)), but i've heard from another SC fan that the Wii version was horrible due to lack of shadows. I havnt tried it myself so i cant speak much of it. Anyway, its just 1 game in a long line, we'll see in the future what the Wii can do :)

njiska

01-02-2007, 06:49 PM

Look i think there's something we need to stop doing if we ever want to reach any kind of understanding in the thread.

Stop bashing Anthony1. Someone just called this thread assinine a few posts back but if you look at the quality discussion going on here clearly this is an issue the community is divided about and wants to discuss. So lets say we drop all personal attacks and pointless jackassery, ok? That means against anyone.

Now as for the issue...

Saying the DS has dated graphics compared to the PSP is an incorrect statement. The DS has evolved graphically over the GBA by the normal amount. Much like the SNES to n64 Transistion. The PSP is not.

Simply but the DS is not outdated the PSP is ahead of it's time.

The Wii on the Other hand has practically the same graphics as the previous generation. I beleive this voids any arguements citing the DS's graphics as an example.

In reagrds to your movie comment: Can you explain to me why black and white classics still run on TV on a regular basis? According to this discussion, people should get no enjoyment from them. Poor effects, no color, bad sound... What keeps people watching them? Hmm?

Simple. People watch old movies for the same reason people still play SMB3, it's a classic, something so prolific that it stands the test of time. However you do not see new movie's made in this fashion because if they were they'd be unprofitable. Movies are made using the latest technology so they look the abslute best.

8-bitNesMan

01-02-2007, 07:01 PM

Leo_A

01-02-2007, 07:41 PM

He'll just be making a new version of this thread every couple months, like he does with the other two or three topics related to gaming that he cares to discuss constantly. No need for a reminder.

Soviet Conscript

01-02-2007, 08:20 PM

esquire

01-02-2007, 08:45 PM

As a person leaning towards agreeing with Anthony on this one, I have a question for all of you Wii supporters (no pun intended) who actually own the system and either a 360 or PS3:

Which cross-platform games, such as Call of Duty 3, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Need for Speed Carbon, Splinter Cell Double Agent or Madden 07, have you purchased for the Wii instead of the 360 or PS3 version, and why?

The reason I ask is that I own Call of Duty 3 for all three systems (I got the Wii version off TRU.com on a B2G1 sale they were having) and there is simply no way I can see myself purchasing any more cross-platform games for the Wii when I can get a superior version of it on either the 360 or PS3, unless, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the developers give us something really special in the Wii version that really makes use of the Wiimote as opposed to simply being a novelty for gameplay. Herein lies the problem of the Wii's inferior graphics and possible Achille's Heel for third-party development. (and I don't count the endless amount of kiddie games and movie franchises that will be ulitimately released for the system; I am talking cross-platform development - Grand Theft Auto; Rainbow Six; Prince of Persia, etc.)

Eventually (3 months; 6 months; 12 months) people are going to grow tired of playing Wii Sports and the same old party games regurgitated over and over. The true gamers are going to want something that holds their interest for more than an hour or something that they can play by themselves rather than waiting to invite the family over for a fun-filled evening of Wii Sports or the party games in Super Monkey Ball Banana Blitz. And when it comes to making those particular game purchases, they may look to the PS3 or 360 versions due to the superior graphics, or due to the fact those games aren't available on the Wii, not because of exclusivity, but rather due to the game being less profitable, for whatever reason, to port over to the Wii.

The Gamecube had a similar problem with third-party development, mostly due to the lack of online play, and games were either neutered for the Gamecube or not released at all.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 09:04 PM

Simple. People watch old movies for the same reason people still play SMB3, it's a classic, something so prolific that it stands the test of time. However you do not see new movie's made in this fashion because if they were they'd be unprofitable. Movies are made using the latest technology so they look the abslute best.

Yeah, but I can walk into Best Buy and purchase a black and white DVD of Grapes of Wrath. In addition, people do still occasionally make B&W movies. Schindler's List and Clerks to name two.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 09:07 PM

njiska

01-02-2007, 09:09 PM

Yeah, but I can walk into Best Buy and purchase a black and white DVD of Grapes of Wrath. In addition, people do still occasionally make B&W movies. Schindler's List and Clerks to name two.

Right but they're either low budget or done for a specifically intended effect. They are not the norm, nor are they any inclination that they are how everyone want's to see movies. You may also want to ad one of my favourites "Good Night and Good Luck" the the list.

As for buying Grapes in best buy it's no different then the VC or a retro collection. It's a much smaller market and purchased because of nostolgia or reputation, not simply on merit.

ManciGames

01-02-2007, 09:15 PM

Right but they're either low budget or done for a specifically intended effect. They are not the norm, nor are they any inclination that they are how everyone want's to see movies. You may also want to ad one of my favourites "Good Night and Good Luck" the the list.

As for buying Grapes in best buy it's no different then the VC or a retro collection. It's a much smaller market and purchased because of nostolgia or reputation, not simply on merit.

No doubt, "Good Night..." is a great recent example. Even if they use b&w "for effect", could you imagine someone releasing a $60 16-bit looking game on the PS3, "for effect"? That's a whole different thread, really, but I think this just goes to show how immature game developers are at this point.

By the way, I did not buy "Grapes..." out of nostalgia or reputation. I bought it because someone told me it was a "good movie" and that I should watch it. Is that "reputation" or "merit".? I dunno. Either way, all I know is that I was able to walk into BB and purchase a movie made in the 40's on a DVD and at full price.

njiska

01-02-2007, 09:21 PM

No doubt, "Good Night..." is a great recent example. Even if they use b&w "for effect", could you imagine someone releasing a $60 16-bit looking game on the PS3, "for effect"? That's a whole different thread, really, but I think this just goes to show how immature game developers are at this point.

By the way, I did not buy "Grapes..." out of nostalgia or reputation. I bought it because someone told me it was a "good movie" and that I should watch it. Is that "reputation" or "merit".? I dunno. Either way, all I know is that I was able to walk into BB and purchase a movie made in the 40's on a DVD and at full price.

That was reputation and an example of consumerism gone mad. However i would like to point out that dvd, while being black and white, is most likely a cleaned uped and restored edition.

The big point here though isn't what's for sale, it's ratio. You can name off all the b&w movies in Best buy, but i bet you it still amounts to less then 1% of their stock and probably even less of their sales.

Abman

01-02-2007, 10:32 PM

I have to disagree with you. I'm a pretty big Nintendo fan so I may be a little biased, but I personally believe the Wii will be the best selling system of this generation due to a few reasons:

1. Word of Mouth.

I mean so many people are saying how great it is, and it is indeed very fun. For example I have a friend who hated the idea of the Wii. He laughed when I said I was going to get one. But today I was talking to him and he actually played the Wii and loved it. So now we are both picking up Wii consoles and he convinced another one of my friends to get one, go figure.

2. The Price.

I feel that the Wii will be the first chioce for parents looking for a video game console for their kids. The price is much lower then the $500 X-box 360 bundle, and the Playstation 3 $600 bundle. Not to mention it has a pack in game.

3. Hardcore Nintendo fans.

Even though I admit I have been playing more Atari 2600 then NES as of late, I still consider myself a huge Nintendo fan. I know it's a bad thing to say, but I would pick up the Wii even if it looked like crap because of the fact it was manufactured by Nintendo. This has some what backfired on me before, I really could have lived with the Nintendo 64 right after launch, but I feel the Wii will be different.

4. The graphics aren't that big of a deal.

The jump from X-box to X-box 360 really isn't that huge of a graphical improvment. I mean its no where near N64 to Gamecube. Also keep in mind the Wii is just starting, the specs show it is two times as powerful as the Gamecube to my knowledge ;). Overall I really don't think the graphics will affect it half as much as you think they will.

I feel the Wii will be a great chapter in Nintendo's book and will be their return to the throne. I mean last time I checked my Gamestop had two PS3 units, and no Wii's or DS Lite units.

I also have to greatly disagree with you when you say Twilight Princess's graphics suck. I found the beutiful artistic landscapes to be much more eye catching and accractive then sweat rolling off a basetball player :P. I think the Wii will do just fine :).

Soviet Conscript

01-02-2007, 11:51 PM

2. The Price.

I feel that the Wii will be the first chioce for parents looking for a video game console for their kids. The price is much lower then the $500 X-box 360 bundle, and the Playstation 3 $600 bundle. Not to mention it has a pack in game.
.

good point but i think the days of the video game market being decided this way are over. alot of gamers are 20 somethings these days with a steady flow of income. but i'll also say this. i'm a 20 something with a steady flow of income and a $400 360 and a insanely expensive $600 ps3 are still not in my immediate future. price is the #1 reason i'm initially going for a wii and i think thats going to hold true for alot of people.

njiska

01-02-2007, 11:54 PM

4. The graphics aren't that big of a deal.

The jump from X-box to X-box 360 really isn't that huge of a graphical improvment. I mean its no where near N64 to Gamecube. Also keep in mind the Wii is just starting, the specs show it is two times as powerful as the Gamecube to my knowledge ;). Overall I really don't think the graphics will affect it half as much as you think they will.

Me thinks you need an eye test.

http://njiska.netfirms.com/photo/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/807_0007.jpg

http://njiska.netfirms.com/photo/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/807_0007%20-%20360.jpg

just as big as n64 to gc. just harder to tell.

Garry Silljo

01-03-2007, 12:03 AM

I see one picture s brighter than the other, but if you asked me to tell you which one is from which system, I can't. Maybe I'm just lazy, and thats why the graphics arent a big deal to me, but if I have to work to see the difference, it isnt big enough to matter.

That's just me of course. I guess my eyes arent cultured enough for your tastes.

Bronty-2

01-03-2007, 12:03 AM

harder to tell? that's the whole point! It's effectively not as big a leap if its harder to tell.

Besides, screenshots mean nothing - its how it looks on your tv at home. And if you don't have an hdtv the differences won't be as stark as those screenshots... which aren't that stark in the first place.

Abman

01-03-2007, 12:04 AM

Those screenshots are impressive there are no two ways around it, the Wii couldn't pull it off. But I still don't feel it's as big as deal as when we jumped from N64 to Gamecube.

I think I may have misworded myself in my last post. What I was trying to get across is the leap just isn't as important. See all the second screenshot really did was add a lot of details here and there. I also feel the crowd in the backround of the first screenshot shows EA getting lazy. The X-box and Gamecube could do better then that.

I was impressed the first time I played Super Mario Sunshine, how ever I'm not really impressed seeing that. The graphics on the Wii still look pretty good IMO, unlike how N64 graphics didn't look half as good when the new generation came along.

esquire

01-03-2007, 12:08 AM

I purchased CoD for the Wii based on the remote support alone.

and you prefer that over the version for the 360? or did you purchase it just to have a FPS on the Wii? Please elaborate. I am assuming that based upon your response to my question that you DO NOT have CoD 3 for the 360, i.e. you chose the Wii version over the 360 version.

In addition, I purchased Raving Rabbids and Elebits for the Wii because they are Wii exclusives.

As indicated in my first post, I was not counting Nintendo franchises or Wii exclusives. Of course people are going to buy those games first and foremost.

Now, Raving Rabbids is coming for the PS2 in the near future. Can I reverse the question and ask you: Would you rather buy Raving Rabbids on the PS2 (or PS3 if it were available) or the Wii?

What does the PS2 version have to do with anything here? We were talking next-gen systems. I guess you could argue that it might be compatible on the PS3, but it was not specifically developed for the PS3 (see next paragraph). It seems to me you are avoiding the question and attempting to turn it around to fit your argument.

Now it appears that it is coming out for the 360. Why its being released for the PS2 as opposed to PS3, which has the Sixaxis controller, is beyond me. Would I buy it for my 360 if I didn't have it already for my Wii? Maybe, if I wanted a party game for my 360. And as I said, people may get tired of playing the party games (Super Monkey Ball Banana Blitz and Rayman Raving Rabbids) on the Wii.

So going back to my point, why choose a cross-platform game for the Wii over the 360 (or PS3) if the only thing added is the gimmicky Wiimote control, when we know the other versions will be superior graphics wise? Its only going to sway me if something really special is done for the Wii version, not just an added extra character as in Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

poieo

01-03-2007, 12:53 AM

I'll quote something here from the last issue of Edge. For the shit it gets about being pretentious, it's still the best of the bunch.

"What you hold in your hands right now is the future of gaming. Looked at one way, that future is dark with mystique -- the high-tech, multimedia, aspirational vision of Sony. Looked at another way, it's light with simplicity -- the low-cost, entertaining, accessible vision of Nintendo. Turn to the back to the front to the back again, and it forces a realisation: we're all fanboys now.

That's not a thing to say lightly, but even the most rabidly ecumenical gamer will find that it's impossible to look from PS3 to Wii withoug warming to one a little more instinctively that the other. If the god of gaming appeared to you and declared he was going to give you the choice of which future was destroyed, and which was ensured, would you really be able to say: "Go ahead, mate --your pick. It's all the same to me"? It's impossible to avoid a bias, because the choice you're being offered is simply too stark. This isn't a rivalry between two pieces of hardware design, but between two scools of thought, and its inevitable that one or the other will be more closely aligned with your own. And, whichever way you lean, the future of gaming will be in your hands, because your purchasing decisions will ultimately determine the viability of both machines."

Which is pretty much why anyone who favors the PS3 is a fuckhead.

The big furor, as has already been said, is because not only have gamers never had such a clear contrast, but also because most of you have never actually had to face down that concept: of actively deciding which is more important, as opposed to just going along, waiting for your betters to fucking tell you.

It's something the so-called "casual" gamers never had to deal with -- they just decide which is more fun and which isn't absurdly expensive. Hence the complete inability of the videogame industry to actually penetrate the "casual" market. Hardcore dipshits, on the other hand, can't determine ANYTHING in their hazy little imagined world where nothing ever can be judged oh my let's hug and hope for the best but whatever either way, but also have to contend with years of conditioning for said dipshit behavior. "Hardcore" isn't an earned title anymore so much as it's a de facto standard occupied by those too dumb to take a step back like the true hardcore have.

It's not on anyone else, vague generalized target. It's on you. Don't buy all 3 just because that's what being hardcore is reduced to meaning -- mindless consumerism. You make the decision now, not in whatever idiotic vision of the future you occupy yourself with. Now. And if 20 years down the line we're offered a $1000 console that costs $1250 to make and has no games, then -- shocker of shockers, responsibility-dodging nitwits -- you finally have a clear idea of who to blame.

Yourselves.

And you should possibly know this yourself, Anthony, having WRITTEN THAT FUCKING TOPIC ABOUT THE INDUSTRY GOING THE WRONG WAY.

Might be, havnt checked into it. I played through the PC version, only version i tried (great game btw, recommended to everything! :)), but i've heard from another SC fan that the Wii version was horrible due to lack of shadows. I havnt tried it myself so i cant speak much of it. Anyway, its just 1 game in a long line, we'll see in the future what the Wii can do :)

It's just sort of funny, given that all i'm hearing from people who've tried either version (Wii or 360) is "the only version that actually seems complete is the one for the last-gen systems". Score another one for EA.

So going back to my point, why choose a cross-platform game for the Wii over the 360 (or PS3) if the only thing added is the gimmicky Wiimote control, when we know the other versions will be superior graphics wise? Its only going to sway me if something really special is done for the Wii version, not just an added extra character as in Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

Another completely idiotic mindset, usually expressed -- much like it is here -- without the slightest hint of irony.

Yes, genius. Keep acting like the graphics alone make for such a huge selling point while, in the exact same fucking sentence, calling the Wiimote a "gimmick".

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRR.

Hypnotuba

01-03-2007, 01:00 AM

Whoa, this thread exploded in size quickly. :) Tricky to try and jump in now, but, what the heck. Here's some stuff you've heard people say a million times before:

I don't have a clue whether the Wii will still be "viable" in 2.5-3 years. If it isn't, I don't know that it's lack of graphical power will be its downfall. If it has compelling games built around the functionality of the Wiimote, it'll be fine, I'd think, as those games won't be able to be duplicated on the other consoles.

If it is lacking in exclusives, multi-platform titles might be a problem for the Wii. When it comes to multi-platform games, I don't know which I'd choose. For something like Call of Duty 3, which is more immersive, the Wii control system, or the incredible graphics of the 360/PS3 version? I don't know. A case can be made for both.

Of course, personally, I don't have a 360, Wii or PS3, and won't for a long time. So, my opinion isn't worth too much. Heck, I still don't have a PS2. :)

...

Oh, and some old black and white movies can still look great even by today's standards, with great contrast and shadows. Plus a good story is a good story. Also, listening to music recorded in the '20s and '30s is still fine. Good music is good music. :)

kainemaxwell

01-03-2007, 01:16 AM

It's all about the gameplay and what you can do with the Wii. I'll also second the "Word of Mouth" on the Wii: more people have asked me at work if we have the Wii then Ps3 (least 3-4 people a day, maybe 1-2 people a week asking for a PS3), not to mention half my co-workers have bought Wiis since its release.

tonyvortex

01-03-2007, 03:08 AM

Which cross-platform games, such as Call of Duty 3, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Need for Speed Carbon, Splinter Cell Double Agent or Madden 07, have you purchased for the Wii instead of the 360 or PS3 version, and why?

so far i seem to have strayed away from all those cross platform games.i owe a wii and a 360 and none of those games listed interest me at all.for my wii i own rayman,red steel,monkey ball,trauma center,metal slug,elebits,excitetruck and far cry.i tend to shy away from some of the "bigger"and go for what i think seems fun.i think all the wii games that i listed are a heap of fun and everyone that comes in contact with mine also loves them.personally i am excited over trying anything with the wiiremote,i really like the openness of it.of the wii games that i have far cry is the only one that i have owned also on the 360 and enjoy the wii one a bit more becouse i enjoy the controls.

jajaja

01-03-2007, 03:46 AM

It's just sort of funny, given that all i'm hearing from people who've tried either version (Wii or 360) is "the only version that actually seems complete is the one for the last-gen systems". Score another one for EA.

Complete in what way? Both the 360 and Wii are next-gen systems. The last-gen systems would be PS2 and Xbox (game didnt come out on GC, well.. sorta, Wii = GC hehe :p) The PC version's story is 100% working and easy to follow so i would like to know what they are talking about.

poieo

01-03-2007, 05:02 AM

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/splintercell4/review.html

eric nintendo

01-03-2007, 08:42 AM

jajaja

01-03-2007, 10:25 AM

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/splintercell4/review.html

Well.. thats one review hehe ;) It goes on personal opinions. But i agree to one thing thats mentioned there, about the rifle Sam uses. Me myself thought about why he was allowed to use that rifle and how he got it considering hes working on the other side.

I actually got my hands on the PS2 version today just to try it and the game seems quite different. You start a different place and the story is alittle different altho it has the same elements i noticed. I now know why the guy i talked about earlier complained about the shadow stuff, there is basicly no shadows, atleast in the PS2 version. The story might be more filling, but i still prefer the PC version, mostly due to the keyboard and mouse controller + more realistic gfx that gives a much better atmosphere. But the PS2 version is definitly playable. If i had a lousy PC i would play through the PS2 version (or possibly Xbox if i had that) instead :)

FantasiaWHT

01-03-2007, 11:18 AM

jajaja

01-03-2007, 11:52 AM

anthony, you're wrong, and stupid to hold onto this.

You have ONE argument that the Wii will fail, and you can't point to ANY evidence that would support the conclusion that the lack of graphical power alone will do the system in. In fact, the evidence supports quite the opposite conclusion- that graphical power is extremely unreliable in predicting system success.

Pathetic.

He didnt use the word "fail" once in the first post. What kinda edvience is he suppose to get and how? This is just wild speculations, its not possible to come with evidence of proof that anything of this will really happend.

I dont want to discuss much more in this thread (getting tired hehe), but i just have to comment about one thing. I saw someone earlier mentioned that all the weakest systems have won. First, SNES was more powerful than Genesis and SNES outsold it and Saturn lost over PSX. But anyway, the situation with Wii is different. The previous consoles were fairly equal to eachother. SMS is fairly equal to NES, Genesis is fairly equal to SNES, PSX is fairly equal to N64 and PS2 is fairly equal to GC and Xbox.

Yes, i know i.e that Xbox is more powerful than PS2, but its not even close to the gap we have between Wii and 360/PS3. Wii is basicly a 6th gen console (hardware) in the 7th generation. This have never happend before. It would be like Sega tried to compete with PSX and N64 with the 32X instead of Saturn. The games are the most imporant thing indeed, but will the Wii controller be enough to replace the gfx part? Thats the real question only time can answer.

le geek

01-03-2007, 12:22 PM

Well, I'll add my two cents...

I finally saw X360 on a kick ass HDTV over xmas. I also saw X360 on a standard TV.

1) Gear of War in HD is pretty sweet. As was Geometry Wars and Neon...
2) Many other X360 games in HD are "almost there" but don't quite have the detail yet...
3) Call of Duty 3 in Standard Def has too much going on to play the game properly...

My conclusion - Xbox 360 is much more worth it if you go high def making the effective price $1000+ dollars

Until the prices of both HDTVs and Xbox 360 (and or PS3) come down in price they will hit sales plateaus...

All I have played of Wii is ExciteTruck at GameStop. But the Zelda reviews have got me wanting one (can't seem to be at the stores at the right time yet).

Anyway the real question is "Will the Wii end up like the Cube or will the Wii end up like the DS?" The DS had a rocky first year and the PSP had a great launch line up. But now the DS is an absolute powerhouse.

1) If the Wii continues to have party mini games and quick downgraded ports with Wii controls slapped on it will eventually fizzle.

2) If compelling multi and single player content is released for Wii it will take off.

3) The graphics will NOT matter in the short term.

Eventually HDTVs (maybe even 3 years from now) will have enough penetration that graphics will matter to some people.

Anyway, I think many people will own both, many people will own a Wii and many people will own a PS3 OR a X360, a few people will own all three.

I see the Wii selling more as the x360 and the PS3 are fighting over the same market.

esquire

01-03-2007, 12:25 PM

It's funny to see people deride the Wii remote as a "gimmick" and then, in the same sentence, splooge over the graphics quality of 360 or PS3. Are graphics not even more of a gimmick? What do graphics change, exactly? I am reminded of the 360 commercial that had two guys playing an NBA game who spent the entire commercial talking about how good the sweat looked! How is that not a gimmick? If anything, the Wii is much less of a gimmick since it actually changes the way you play games. If I had to choose "realtime sweat" over an actual evolution in gaming, I'd pick the evolution every single time.

I do not deride the Wiimote at all. What I was saying is that unless games are designed specifically with the Wii in mind, the Wiimote controls become nothing more than a gimmick, just like the early DS games that did not fully integrate the dual screens and use of the stylus. Case in point - Rampage for the Wii. How is that game any better on the Wii then it is for the other consoles. Frankly I get tired after a while flinging the controller back and forth, and left and right just for basic moves.

How about Marvel Ultimate Alliance or Need for Speed Carbon? How are the Wii versions any better than the 360 or PS3 versions?

There will be other cross-platform games just like this which are not going to be developed specifically for the Wii. Now, a Wii version might be developed seperately by another publisher to fully incorporate the Wii. In fact the Wii version may not even be the same game, like the Spiderman 2 games for both the consoles and the PC. Then it has something more (or in the case of Spiderman 2 for the PC, less) to offer.

Anthony1

01-03-2007, 12:40 PM

Anthony1 i'm just curiouse

are you just rich that you can afford all the systems and HDTV's and all the other crap you have or you just an average guy that spends every cent he has on all the new systems and crap?

I'm in the second camp. Far from rich, I'm actually quite poor from a yearly income standpoint. Fact is, I'm a cheap ass gamer, and the things that I do buy, I buy at the lowest possible prices, and I penny pinch whenever possible. I do own 3 HDTV's, but I bought them many years apart and at the lowest possible price. First HDTV I got was way back in December of 1998. Back in the fall of 1998, HDTV had just been introduced and was a brand spanking new technology, and the only HDTV's that existed cost like 9 grand each. I got really lucky, and found out about a liquidation company that got ahold of a ton of HDTV's from a company that went out of business. They were selling a 5 grand HDTV (5K at that time) for $850, so I snagged one. At the time, way back in December of 1998, it was the steal of the century. The second HDTV I got was in 2003, when we first moved to the house that I'm living in now. Only way I was able to get that one, was because the people that sold us the house gave us a credit for new carpet, and we instead used it on a HDTV for the living room. The final HDTV I got, I just bought this past November for $850. It's a Mitsubishi HD1000u and it's the best $850 I've ever spent. It's a "true" 720p DLP projector, and that combined with a smooth wall and some Behr Ultra Pure White paint, equals a killer 130 inch 16:9 screen. The projector with screen combo was basically just under 1 grand, with tax, shipping, ceiling mount and paint. Most people spend more than 1 grand on a HDTV all the time. Look in any Circuit City or Best Buy ad for a decent HDTV under a grand, not too many available, and if they are, they are usually some cheesy 32 inch LCD from Maxcent or something.

I also have some kick ass audio equipment too, but most of that I bought while I worked at "The Good Guys!". (a now defunct West Coast based audio/video retailer similar to Magnolia Hi-Fi). I bought all my stuff with an employee discount, and on speakers and stuff, it's like getting 70 percent off. Other audio equipment I got used off Craigslist or Ebay for about 80 percent off it's original retail prices.

Nature Boy

01-03-2007, 12:56 PM

What I was saying is that unless games are designed specifically with the Wii in mind, the Wiimote controls become nothing more than a gimmick, just like the early DS games that did not fully integrate the dual screens and use of the stylus.

Fantastic point, and illustrates the question I *have* to have answered before I purchase a Wii: will publishers make Wii specific games, or will they be porting PS3/360 stuff to the Wii with token changes?

They've done good job with the DS, no question. What will they do with the Wii?

The other thing I'd like to see Nintendo do is to get on board with voice overs already. I've got Twilight Princess for the GC, and as much as I'm enjoying it, it's *killing* me that they haven't put VO into the game. We're not talking about limitations of cartridges anymore. I feel like I'm playing the silent movie equivalent of a video game!

Whether or not the machine is 'viable' in 3 years isn't something we can know until we have a few more answers. If all we get are 1st part titles using the Wiimote I think the Wii is doomed. If others do something more than port games I think the Wii will be a huge success.

Anthony1

01-03-2007, 01:04 PM

anthony, you're wrong, and stupid to hold onto this.

You have ONE argument that the Wii will fail, and you can't point to ANY evidence that would support the conclusion that the lack of graphical power alone will do the system in. In fact, the evidence supports quite the opposite conclusion- that graphical power is extremely unreliable in predicting system success.

Pathetic.

Dude, this is just a freaking discussion on a message board, nothing more. I mean come on, this is not the end of the world. We are just trying to have an intelligent discussion about the long term prospects for the Wii. People are making arguments why they think the Wii will be alive and kicking in 2009, and some people are making arguments against that. Either you line up on one side, or the other, or maybe you're not sure and you feel it's way too early to call. Whatever. It's not that big a deal. Isn't this what message boards and forums are all about? To have discussions about things? To make predicitions and speculations about the future and hash things out?

That's all that's going on in this thread. A few people are speculating on what they think is going to happen in 3 years, and the truth of the matter is that we have no idea who is going to be right and who is going to be wrong. It may turn out that I'm absolutely 100 percent off base with this thread, or it may turn out that I was actually 100 percent on the mark. We aren't going to know till 2009. So anything that anybody says in this thread is just their personal opinion on the matter, and everything should be taken with a large grain of salt. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it.

chicnstu

01-03-2007, 01:34 PM

My take?

Some people need to stop being so damn ignorant and realize that presentation is a very important aspect of video gaming. Draw in has always been a problem with gaming but as we get new hardware it becomes less and less prevalent.

Another major falw i've already encountered with the wii is being able to see items of importance off in a distance, there just aren't enough pixels at 480 to draw something distingusihable.

The lack of better presentation is going to hold the Wii back with both the casual and hardcore crowd. I'm not saying it'll kill the Wii, just that it's gonna make things harder for the Wii.

Personally i think adapting traditional genre's the the new control scheme is gonna do more to limit the wii then the graphics.

I was talking about how the people here at DP talk about bad graphics a lot. I never said that presentation isn't important.

So:

Some people need to stop being so damn ignorant and read.

8-bitNesMan

01-03-2007, 03:07 PM

3) Call of Duty 3 in Standard Def has too much going on to play the game properly...

I beg to differ. I've been playing this game on a 27" flat SDTV with component cables and have had no trouble whatsoever. I do own a Wii which has been quietly gathering dust due to the glut of top notch titles for the 360 and the supremacy of Live as an online gaming service. One thing I would like to bring up (and I love Nintendo as much as the next fanboy). Would it have killed them to have put an ethernet jack on the Wii? I know I should probably catch up to the 21st century and break down and buy a wireless router, but it would be so great to have ethernet built in...

Soviet Conscript

01-03-2007, 03:26 PM

Would it have killed them to have put an ethernet jack on the Wii? I know I should probably catch up to the 21st century and break down and buy a wireless router, but it would be so great to have ethernet built in...

your not alone. i have nothing wireless, not even controllers. i dunno i'm just paranoid i think.

FantasiaWHT

01-03-2007, 03:36 PM

bangtango

01-03-2007, 04:42 PM

How can I be a graphics whore when one of my favorite games of all time is Cybermorph for Jaguar? I thought Cybermorph sucked graphically?

That is one of my favorites, too!

I hate to disagree with you here, though. Most gamers want their games to be playable, looking good comes second. I would think that even with the capabilities of the Wii, you are still able to produce a "playable" version of just about anything from the X-Box 360 or Playstation 3 lineup. If it can't be done, then I would blame the developer and not the console. You think EA couldn't produce a respectable or "playable" version of Madden (or any other title) for Wii for the next several years? I bet they could do it for at least 5-6 years.

The graphics and sound may not be up to par and the Wii control could become a problem, but technology has advanced far enough. Sure, the game will likely be "better" on one of the other two consoles but you are still able to get the same great gameplay on the Wii, regardless of the shortcomings that only the message boards, web sites and magazines are going to point out. Many of these same hot titles coming out now are also showing up on an X-Box or PS2. N64 got a "playable" version of Tony Hawk 3 before the console officially died and long after it had already come out on "better" systems. That game was all right.

It isn't like the 8-bit or 16-bit era where games that were done on one system sometimes couldn't be done on another one. Sonic on Super Nintendo, for example.

8-bitNesMan

01-03-2007, 04:55 PM

My point is you don't have anything compelling to back up your speculation, and yet you persist. You haven't said anything new in 6 pages of posts. You give me no reason to take your speculation seriously.

Speculation is all fine and dandy, but if you really want to have an "intelligent" discussion, then do so. I've never seen anybody say as little in so large of a space as you.

He must have done something right... This thread already has six pages of responses. I know Anthony can get long winded, but as someone else pointed out he is passionate about our hobby. Who's to say there's not intelligent discussion going on right now? To Anthony I say keep on keepin on because valid points are being discussed. My 2 cents...

agbulls

01-03-2007, 05:19 PM

8-bitNesMan

01-03-2007, 05:42 PM

Agbulls: You just summed up everything I think and feel about the situation in a nutshell. I really want the Wii to succeed and be great; I just have a bad feeling the big N has painted itself into a corner this time. Here's to hoping they prove me wrong.

Kid Ice

01-03-2007, 05:55 PM

He must have done something right... This thread already has six pages of responses.

Post a provocative title, write a nine paragraph post, argue with everyone who disagrees, voila, six pages of thread.

Try any of the following:

-Sega is on the verge of a huge comeback!
-People who rent games are idiots!
-Microsoft will rule the handheld market in within 20 months!
-Katamari Damacy is more popular than Pac Man!
-Why Capcom should retire the Resident Evil series!

etc. etc.

Everyone will jump in to tell you what an idiot you are and voila...you're now one of DP's most significant contributors.

agbulls

01-03-2007, 05:59 PM

Post a provocative title, write a nine paragraph post, argue with everyone who disagrees, voila, six pages of thread.

Try any of the following:

-Sega is on the verge of a huge comeback!
-People who rent games are idiots!
-Microsoft will rule the handheld market in within 20 months!
-Katamari Damacy is more popular than Pac Man!
-Why Capcom should retire the Resident Evil series!

etc. etc.

Everyone will jump in to tell you what an idiot you are and voila...you're now one of DP's most significant contributors.

I can't disagree that you are right in some regard. Yes, many threads go on for ages because the TP argues like mad. But that isn't what is happening here. I think people want Nintendo to succeed, but just aren't convinced yet that they have enough in their back pocket to make it happen yet.

In short, Nintendo is like the Chicago Bears. I want them to win the Superbowl desperately, but Grossman is gonna kill em.

Online gaming/graphics/lack of AAA games = Rex Grossman. Remember where you heard it first!!!

Aswald

01-03-2007, 06:15 PM

I think this is pretty much the same bullshit i heard about the DS. And 3 years is not a long time in console terms.

As far as graphics, i don't care. Nobody i listen to cares. After being a PC gamer for so long, not only am i immune to the graphical hype of new stuff, but i am completely tired of what that race does to the games themselves. The Wii won't match up to the PS3 or whatever? Fine. Maybe then developers will have something less to bitch about, since it's all this graphical crap that sucks up development time and money. Maybe they'll have to rely on talent again, like they did in the 2D 16-bit days, instead of constantly throwing more and more hardware at the problem and expecting the customer to foot the bill like they do in the PC game industry.

Excellent point, those last lines.

The problem with graphics is that most game companies assume that that is what most people absolutely want.

You have to go further here; you have to ask "on what do they base that statement?" Haven't you ever wondered how, in my day, "experts" ever came to the insane conclusion that video gaming was dead? Is the PS3 and Wii just a big illusion? Hardly.

The problem is that people in marketing research for some time now do their research from a biased point of view- in effect, they are trying to analyze the outcome of rolling dice with loaded dice.

They came to the conclusion that "video gaming was dead," and therefore BASED ALL OBSERVATIONS ON TRYING TO PROVE THAT. They asked computer gamers who hated video gaming, and computer-orientated people. It's like asking if black people are all inferior at a neo-nazi/KKK convention; what do you think the outcome will be?

They concentrate on graphics. Then, they ask people about that. Soon, all they get are people who are mostly into graphics. In the mid-1990s, Chris Crawford pointed this problem out; you can only get skewered results.

A good analogy would be a soda machine. You fill it with many different sodas, and then wait to see what sells. That's how you get an accurate idea of what people want. But if you only fill it with colas, then all you'll find out is "well, people prefer Pepsi." If, of all things video game, you only put out graphics, then you won't find out what people really want.

Clumsy, but...you get the point.

poieo

01-03-2007, 06:51 PM

I'm very happy someone has decided to finally bring up this topic and put it perspective. I'm a 26 year old married guy who has a full time job and jumped on the Wii bandwagon at launch. (I was a DM for EB for quite a while--and still have a few connections left ;))

I have played Zelda for around 15 hours and have enjoyed what I've played---but that was three weeks ago. Why haven't I gone back? Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that I enjoy it--but truly really feel like I've played it before; a la deju vu. Its a great game that feels anything but new. And thats ok, as its exactly what WE wanted. On this title ALONE (and the fact that it has sold 2 million copies already) it is hard to dismiss the future of the Wii. In large part, the "console wars" are all about one thing and one thing only: INSTALL BASE. Nintendo knows it and held Zelda for this very reason. It is undoubtebly selling systems even with the game on the Cube.

Why do I mention Zelda? Probably because I had convinced myself I was likely going to want OTHER titles for the system. I bought Rayman and was extremely disappointed. If I want multiplayer games, I'm going to hop on Xbox Live. If there is one thing that I think Nintendo has yet to fully realize it is that online gaming IS MULTIPLAYER GAMING. Multiplayer and online gaming have been viewed as mutually exclusive modes of play by Nintendo for years now. Microsoft has taken the modern--and polar opposite approach. What does this mean?

It means I despise Rayman because I have no one to play it with. The average age of a gamer is now over 29. Hey Nintendo...your shoes untied..anyone there?!!

I play Texas Hold Em on Live---a game I would NEVER EVER EVER play single player. See the difference? Of course you do. To quote my favorite Genesis commercial--Nintendon't ;)

I hate to rag on Nintendo (I own 100 SNES games and countless other Nintendo related items) and yes yes...I know online gaming "is coming in 2007 to the Wii"---thanks Reggie! But this truthfully is an awful launch lineup. I bought DBZ, thinking it would be fun as well. Is it? Its passable. I just keep going back to the 360. Is it graphics you ask? Well, it sure doesn't look bad on my 50" Sony. Is it the sole reason? Of course not.

Online and off it just can't be beat right now. I want my Wii to be the long-run winner and the catalog to exceed the quality of the DS. But I really don't know if the new Nintendo business model is going to make it in the long run. Their saving grace has got to be dev cost for production houses as long as their liscensing costs are fair. Lower rez games do cost less to make folks. For the short term that should mean more games, even if they are Nick toons titles. Wooopeedeedooo.

The 360 is kicking because of a large group of high quality software released in the last year. There are over 7 (being conservative) must-own titles. Do you really think Nintendo can approach this in 2007? I sure hope so...

Wow! After a whole year, the "must have"s are almost into the double digits! Wowee! Gee, i hope Nintendo can come up with a whole 7 good games in the span of a year, but man, i dunno... that seems like such a huge number.

It's the sort of thing where you compare a system that took this long to FINALLY start showing signs of life with a system that just came out. And as far as that goes, which system, upon release, actually had a system seller? Wasn't the 360. Yeah, that Texas Hold 'em you keep playing? That is literally something people bought because they didn't have anything better to do with their 360s, as were most of the Live offerings. Whee! Geometry Wars! Play a Robotron ripoff so you can help yourself ignore the fact that you have no fiscal sensibilities and just paid half a grand for a system with no games!

Even the multiplayer aspect is bunk. It's the same stuff i've always heard with online PC games, which i've been playing since '96. It's always "Oh, you can't beat multiplayer for gameplay!". Yet, when the issue is really pressed, it's invariably revealed that the majority of people you'd actually play with online are complete nitwits. And if you just want to compare feature sets that one platform does better, the PC trumps all for online multiplayer. Yet it's still nothing to crow about. Multiplayer is not online gaming, because online gaming is largely a miserable experience. A nice alternative for something like your Rayman dilemma might be -- have you tried this? -- inviting a friend over.

As well meaning as it seems, i still can't help but find views like this to be totally ridiculous. I get wanting the Wii to do well, but for someone that used to work at EB, you show a complete lack of perspective.

jajaja

01-04-2007, 11:38 AM

The problem with graphics is that most game companies assume that that is what most people absolutely want.

It is, people want it. Companies would not use millions on millions of dollars researching and developing new and more powerful hardware if people didnt want it. There is a big market for it. In 1995 or so we payed $350 (mind, that was alot more money back then than it is today) for 8MB RAM. Why? So we could play more games hehe :) There was alot of focus on the gfx before too, altho it feels like there its been more since games went 3d, but it makes sence. Now you can make things much more detailed and the goal is to make it looks as real as possible. This wasnt the case back in the 2d days since it was only fiction then.

agbulls

01-04-2007, 11:49 AM

Wow! After a whole year, the "must have"s are almost into the double digits! Wowee! Gee, i hope Nintendo can come up with a whole 7 good games in the span of a year, but man, i dunno... that seems like such a huge number.

It's the sort of thing where you compare a system that took this long to FINALLY start showing signs of life with a system that just came out. And as far as that goes, which system, upon release, actually had a system seller? Wasn't the 360. Yeah, that Texas Hold 'em you keep playing? That is literally something people bought because they didn't have anything better to do with their 360s, as were most of the Live offerings. Whee! Geometry Wars! Play a Robotron ripoff so you can help yourself ignore the fact that you have no fiscal sensibilities and just paid half a grand for a system with no games!

Even the multiplayer aspect is bunk. It's the same stuff i've always heard with online PC games, which i've been playing since '96. It's always "Oh, you can't beat multiplayer for gameplay!". Yet, when the issue is really pressed, it's invariably revealed that the majority of people you'd actually play with online are complete nitwits. And if you just want to compare feature sets that one platform does better, the PC trumps all for online multiplayer. Yet it's still nothing to crow about. Multiplayer is not online gaming, because online gaming is largely a miserable experience. A nice alternative for something like your Rayman dilemma might be -- have you tried this? -- inviting a friend over.

As well meaning as it seems, i still can't help but find views like this to be totally ridiculous. I get wanting the Wii to do well, but for someone that used to work at EB, you show a complete lack of perspective.

Wow, you're a very angry guy. I regards to having "a complete lack of perspective" you couldn't be further from reality. If anything, I have a great deal on actual knowledge on how the industry works. I'm not bragging--its just the facts. Remember where I said that the bottom line was install base? It doesn't matter HOW you get there. Sell crappy live games, Barbie Horse Party or Metroid Prime 3. Do you really think the corporate loonies at Microsoft or Nintendo really care what you play as long as you pay?

My point was that 7 games--whether you want to admit it or not--is A LOT for Nintendo to hit in regards to AAA software in the next 12 months. Do you think they have that in development right now? I do. I really do. Do you think we're going to see all 7 by year's end? Hell no...this IS Nintendo were talking about.

If we are going to talk about perspective we need to look at this as more of a marathon--and not the horse race that everyone has made it out to be. Christmas 06 is over, and Nintendo sold a LOT of consoles as did Microsoft. Now the real race starts.

eric nintendo

01-04-2007, 12:04 PM

Online gaming/graphics/lack of AAA games = Rex Grossman. Remember where you heard it first!!!

Honestly, only hardcore gamers care about online gaming. Casuals do not.

If online gaming was such a huge deal to people, the Xbox would have done much better than it did. As it stands it only sold a couple million more than the Cube did (which had no online gaming and very little 3rd party support even compared to Xbox).

As for AAA titles, the Wii already has more of those at launch than either 360 or PS3 had at their launches.

So we're left with the graphics argument, but honestly, if graphics were such a huge hurdle for people, the PS2 wouldn't have won last generation. Hell, the PS2 is still competing with the "next gen" consoles at this point and selling as well (or better) than they are. So obviously people don't care as much about graphics as anyone thinks they do. The PS2 is six year old hardware that is still "viable," at this point, so there's no real reason to think the Wii couldn't remain viable for more than three years.

All it takes is affordable price, large, varied library, and developer support.