"Wii is a piece of shit"

[ShenmueFan]

1)Hey, I'm not saying the Wii isn't a good system for casual/novice gamers --- but it is hardly the revolution everyone is making it out to be and hardcore gamers will not be impressed with it for years, contrary to popular belief. This Wiimote/Sixaxis crap is a fad, a phase...and it'll die off rather quickly.

And all I'm saying is that these same novice/casual gamers will not be wowed and in awe of the Wii this time next year once the hype has worn down (which is what they make most of their purchases based on - just look at the PS3 launch). These are probably the same folks who buy the latest and greatest iPod just to be cool and chic but are totally oblivious to Creative Zens or any other type of music players available and probably won't buy another one of those products for YEARS. These aren't the kind of consumers (unlike hard-core/serious gamers) who will invest hundreds of dollars annually on their hobby because they "get it and want to play what's truly innovative"...the casual gamers will play Wii Sports to death and maybe buy one or two games a year, probably around the holidays....whoop de frickin' doo.

Oh, and about the classic game library online? In all that rambling you didn't give on good reason that benefits ME as a gamer why I shouldn't have all the games out there available to me immediatly. It benefits NEC because people will be forced to look at TG16 games out of lack of options. It benefits Nintendo who can make people buy Dr. Mario because any Mario game is better than no Mario game right now, right??? (I dunno if Dr. Mario is even available, I'm only using it as an example).

Nintendo just wants to hang the carrot in front of simple-minded gamers so they can hook them into plunking down $249 for the system only to find out YEARS later they'll never have a chance to play the Final Fantasies, Chrono Trigger, Marios, Zelda, or Donkey Kongs they thought because of licensing, legal or "we already released a $29.99 version of that for the GBA/DS and can't sell a cheaper version here!" issues.

2)I'm glad people who aren't the most physically capable can play the Wii...but that still doesn't justify why the Wiimote can't be used to measure movement and speed accurately. Maybe there needs to be an option to turn that on, just to make things fair. Also, keep this in mind - if every Wii game coming out is going to require players to wave their arms about then they better start putting more effort into making the experience more customizable. Just because some goofball in Nintendo R&D thinks moving one's hand is a "cool" way to swing a sword in Zelda doesn't mean I should have to do it hundreds of times while playing when I could map the same action to the A button.

Not to sound like a lazy gamer but I don't like moving a whole lot while playing games. If I wanted to move about and get tired I'd play an actual sport or something (Dance games, Samba de Amigo, Guitar Hero, etc. are exceptions). Until videogames get to the point of the Holodeck off Star Trek I see no need to be forced to move around constantly for every game that gets released, just for the hell of it.

3) Technically, from my perspective, Asteroids isn't really a true game. It's an arcade game, yes, but it just loops and loops. Like Pac-Man. You might try to say there's a story in the cutscenes or the levels serve as chapters but I dunno...those don't really count. They still just loop and are incredibly simple. If I were to compare games to written things, Super Mario Bros. would be a novel while Pac-Man would be an article. There's a beginning and end, of course but there's a big difference in substance.

I see any game who's general concept can serve as a mini-game/section within a more detailed, thought-out and fleshed out title is not really a "complete" game at all, but rather a snippet of gameplay. (A good example is the snowboarding scene in FFVII - that one section played exactly like most snowboarding games ever made and yet the whole basic concept of those games was just a tiny fraction of the FFVII title). Same goes for the fishing parts in Zelda 64. That's why I don't consider most sports and arcade-type titles as 100% true videogames. They are games, yes, but their focus is extremely narrow and rely mostly on looping of gameplay for enjoyment. Even most MMORPGs fall into this category of wannabee-games.

Oh, and believe me, even if your Dad thinks GoW is "over his head" I'm 100% positive he'd be more excited about figuring out and playing THAT game then playing the same damn Wiisports games over and over again for hours on end.

And Shenmue did have an end since each game counts as a mini-story that, when connected w/ the other game(s), completes the larger story. Comparing Shenmue to Asteroids is retarded and is an awful comparison.

3) I never said all casual gamers were idiots. I do think the big companies like Sony & Nintendo act idiotic at times when they blindly market solely to this demographic, however. Like it or not, it's the hard-core/serious gamers who keep this industry alive, not the Moms & Dads who wanna buy little Johnies and Janes something "cool" for their birthday or Christmas.

[GarrettCRW]

3) Technically, from my perspective, Asteroids isn't really a true game.

So games absolutely have to have an ending to be worthwhile? Then explain your screen name and avatar, PLEASE, because Shenmue sure as hell didn't have an ending, and like the first Dark Tower book, wasn't written with a definitive ending in mind.

[Bronty-2]

Indeed. Even going back a generation, I've played plenty of Burnout 3 and Tiger Woods 2004 with my dad. Really the "pick up and play" aspect of gaming is still around in Sports games....but I guess the HARDCORE GAMERS leave stuff like that to "idiot casual gamers" like myself. Who needs NBA Street when you can pop a Square-Enix interactive DVD movie into the PS2 and press the X button for 40 hours?

lol too true!

[ShenmueFan]

So games absolutely have to have an ending to be worthwhile? Then explain your screen name and avatar, PLEASE, because Shenmue sure as hell didn't have an ending, and like the first Dark Tower book, wasn't written with a definitive ending in mind.

No, games don't have to have an "ending" to be worthwhile but you can't deny that you get a completely different and more fulfilling experience for playing through a game that has a defined ending rather than it just looping and score resetting or something. Asteroids, Dig Dug, Pacman, etc. are fun in their own way but I honestly couldn't see myself devoting dozens of hours to those games when I could be playing through a Chrono Trigger or a Yoshi's Island which have so much more to offer.

Concerning Shenmue (I have a feeling people will always attack my game I based my name off while on this messageboard when they lack an argument), it DID have a defined ending figured out. It was planned to be a 16-part, 4 game long series that would be released over the span of a few years. Yu Suzuki always had a definite ending in mind but each "chapter" has a specific beginning and ends to it, even if there is another "sequel" coming down the road. Plus, keep in mind that Shenmue was the most expensive game ever developed and was in development for years, even back on the Saturn...and I highly doubt an ending was never conceived and Yu Suzuki was just "wingin' it"...

If you ever played Shenmue you'd know each game has a definite beginning and end for each game. There isn't just a "To Be Continued" screen thrown up on the screen like The Matrix Reloaded or Deadman's Chest or something.

...so if you wanna argue that the original Shenmue doesn't have an ending and that I shouldn't consider it a "real" game, go ahead and try (you'll never convince me, of course), but don't kid yourself in thinking Shenmue is at the same level as Asteroids. That's just silly.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroogah View Post
Indeed. Even going back a generation, I've played plenty of Burnout 3 and Tiger Woods 2004 with my dad. Really the "pick up and play" aspect of gaming is still around in Sports games....but I guess the HARDCORE GAMERS leave stuff like that to "idiot casual gamers" like myself. Who needs NBA Street when you can pop a Square-Enix interactive DVD movie into the PS2 and press the X button for 40 hours?
lol too true!
You guys are missing the point. I'm not saying all games w/ stories are better than everything else and that you can't enjoy non-story, "looping" games, I'm just saying that they are completely different things and don't confuse them.

For all I know you could be a Madden nut and play Madden '07 for 60 hours and hate Zelda and play it for 10 minutes. Does that mean you didn't have fun playing Madden? No, it just means that apparently you like playing a looping style of game for 60 hours and hated a story-based "get from point A to B" game like Zelda.

But keep in mind that there are many "looping" games out there because they are so easy to develop. Why do you think MMORPGs are everywhere? It's because there's nothing to them. All you do is fight the same monsters for hundreds of hours just to reach the next level. There is no end, just more experience and new weapons. Same with sports and racing and old, old school games like Pacman, Asteroids, etc. These games are aimed at people w/ short attention spans who either don't want to or can't commit to a drawn out beginning, middle and end story-based game.

[Kroogah]

but don't kid yourself in thinking Shenmue is at the same level as Asteroids. That's just silly.

You said it yourself. You can't compare the two.


you get a completely different experience

You can't call Shenmue a better game just because it has QTE, kung fu moves, forklift races, collectible figurines, and sailors. Adding these things to Asteroids would not make Asteroids a better game. Asteroids is perfect. Shenmue is almost perfect (get better voice actors for chrissakes).

Calling one better/more fulfilling/higher level than the other is a matter of opinion.

[GarrettCRW]

.You guys are missing the point. I'm not saying all games w/ stories are better than everything else and that you can't enjoy non-story, "looping" games, I'm just saying that they are completely different things and don't confuse them.

You said that games like Asteroids that don't have a definite end aren't "true games". I'd say that that's claiming superiority of one type of game over another.

[GuyinGA]

There's a lot of developers that have made great games despite technical limitations of the system. Maybe that guy from Maxis needs to realize that.

Not every game has to be graphically superior to previous generation systems.....I still think games on the PlayStation, Dreamcast & N64 have amazing graphics.

He may be mad that he's having to do a lot of work on Spore to get it to work on the Wii.

[GillianSeed]

3) Technically, from my perspective, Asteroids isn't really a true game.


And Shenmue is? I could argue that it's just the reverse. Shenmue you play through once and that's pretty much it, there's very little in terms of replayability. You know the story and you've done pretty much all the game has to offer, there's no incentive to keep replaying it. Especially on the gameplay front, as it's basically composed of a series of watered-down versions of other games. (Virtual Fight-lite combat, Dragon's Lair-lite QTE, Pokemon-lite collecting, etc)

Or something like Resident Evil, great game and I love it. The first time the dog jumped through that window it scared the crap out of me. The fifth or sixth time, though, got a little old.

The nice thing about games like Asteroids (and other classic arcade games) is that there's an element of randomness, no two playthroughs are exactly the same -- and there's always a reason to go back, to beat your high score. Very few people will still be playing Shenmue (or Resident Evil 1 or GoW) ten years from now, but they'll still be playing Asteroids, Galaga, Pac-man, etc. To me, that's the mark of a "true" game if anything is.




Same goes for the fishing parts in Zelda 64. That's why I don't consider most sports and arcade-type titles as 100% true videogames.


Get Bass isn't a game either? Wow, I sure had fun playing that at the arcade and on my Dreamcast. Another great pick up and play game.




Oh, and believe me, even if your Dad thinks GoW is "over his head" I'm 100% positive he'd be more excited about figuring out and playing THAT game then playing the same damn Wiisports games over and over again for hours on end.

Um, no. He would get blown away five or six times in the first 2 minutes because the controller and pacing would completely overwhelm him, would say "this isn't fun" and walk away. With something like Wii Sports there's no heavy learning curve, no button combinations to memorize, just perform the same motion you would if you were playing golf for real.

And who said Wii Sports had to be played for hours on end? It's not designed for people who play video games 10 hours straight, it's designed for casual gamers.



3) I never said all casual gamers were idiots. I do think the big companies like Sony & Nintendo act idiotic at times when they blindly market solely to this demographic. Like it or not, it's the hard-core/serious gamers who keep this industry alive, not the Moms & Dads who wanna buy little Johnies and Janes something "cool" for their birthday or Christmas.

Oh really? Let's take a look at the top 10 PC games for 2006:

1. World of Warcraft
2. The Sims 2
3. The Sims 2 Open for Business Expansion Pack
4. Star Wars: Empire at War
5. The Sims 2 Pets Expansion Pack
6. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
7. MS Age of Empires III
8. The Sims 2 Family Fun Stuff Expansion Pack
9. Civilization IV
10. The Sims 2 Nightlife Expansion Pack

Five of the slots are held by titles that you would consider "mini-games." You probably don't consider CivIV a game either, since it's more like a boardgame.

Now let's look at the top 10 console games for 2006:

PS2--Madden NFL 07, Electronic Arts--2.8 M
NDS--New Super Mario Bros., Nintendo--2.0 M
360--Gears of War, Microsoft--1.8 M
PS2--Kingdom Hearts II, Square Enix--1.7 M
PS2--Guitar Hero II, Activision--1.3 M
PS2--Final Fantasy XII, Square Enix--1.3 M
NDS--Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day, Nintendo--1.1 M
360--Madden NFL 07, Electronic Arts--1.1 M
360--Tom Clancy's GRAW, Ubisoft--1.0 M
PS2--NCAA Football 07, Electronic Arts--1.0 M

A few more hardcore titles here, but still plenty of arcady, sporty, pick up and play games. You'll notice that Mario outsold GoW.

And the top-selling games for Dec. across all platforms:

Madden NFL 07, Electronic Arts--1.9 M
Call of Duty 3, Activision--1.1 M
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Nintendo--1.1 M
Cars, THQ--874.0 K
Need for Speed Carbon, Electronic Arts--871.6 K
Gears of War, Microsoft--815.7 K
Guitar Hero 2, Activision--805.2 K
Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, LucasArts--792.3 K
WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2007, THQ--731.6 K
Tony Hawk's Project 8, Activision--713.9 K
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Activision--642.9 K

Not too many "true" games by your standards either.

[ShenmueFan]

You said it yourself. You can't compare the two.



You can't call Shenmue a better game just because it has QTE, kung fu moves, forklift races, collectible figurines, and sailors. Adding these things to Asteroids would not make Asteroids a better game. Asteroids is perfect. Shenmue is almost perfect (get better voice actors for chrissakes).

Calling one better/more fulfilling/higher level than the other is a matter of opinion.

Like I said, I never said Asteroids wasn't fun. All I said was that it was extremely basic gameplay and visuals and controls - it's like comparing Tic Tac Toe to Chess. Yeah, you can have a grand ol' time playing a super simple game like that but there's a reason why Chess has been around is so popular - more thought went into it, the way the game plays is more interactive and immersing and you usually (if ever!) can't just guess your way to a victory.

Asteroids is the same. It's fun, yeah...and at the time it was released, probably was revolutionary compared to the likes of Pacman & whatnot...but it's just a "basics" game where utter simplicity is stressed over every other aspect. That isn't a putdown, so don't take it as one.

I've heard before that perfection isn't achieved when you can add anything more but rather when you can't take anything else away.

Maybe that's why these games you like have stood the test of time - they are so simple in design anyone and everyone can play them.

*BUT*

If they really were perfect, why would games have kept on evolving and changing once those titles come out? Apparently developers saw a need to put a story and better graphics, sound, etc. to those "simple" gameplay formulas.

[esquire]

About the "fun for the whole family". Of all the people here who have had a Wii for quite some time now, does this still apply? Do the family gather around to play Wii sports even months after its release?

Nope. My Wii was beginning to collect dust, but I just picked up Sonic, so its going to get some play time.

As for the whole "Wii Sports" thing, yes it was at first fun to play, as a novelty. But overall the game is simply not that good, save for Bowling. Tennis: you have no control over your player. Baseball: you can't control your fielders or baserunners. Boxing: gameplay is so inconsistent. The lack of control and simplicity to the games remind me of the early sports games for the 2600, such as Football, Basketball, etc.

Wii Sports to me is nothing more than a tech demo as to what the console can do. Sort of like "Luigi's Mansion" was to the Gamecube. I think Nintendo anticipated people getting tired of Wii Sports, hence the release of "Wii Play" to keep casual gamers interested. I just wonder how many of these type of releases Nintendo will keep on producing.

[ShenmueFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShenmueFan View Post
3) Technically, from my perspective, Asteroids isn't really a true game.
And Shenmue is? I could argue that it's just the reverse. Shenmue you play through once and that's pretty much it, there's very little in terms of replayability. You know the story and you've done pretty much all the game has to offer, there's no incentive to keep replaying it. Especially on the gameplay front, as it's basically composed of a series of watered-down versions of other games. (Virtual Fight-lite combat, Dragon's Lair-lite QTE, Pokemon-lite collecting, etc)

Or something like Resident Evil, great game and I love it. The first time the dog jumped through that window it scared the crap out of me. The fifth or sixth time, though, got a little old.

The nice thing about games like Asteroids (and other classic arcade games) is that there's an element of randomness, no two playthroughs are exactly the same -- and there's always a reason to go back, to beat your high score. Very few people will still be playing Shenmue (or Resident Evil 1 or GoW) ten years from now, but they'll still be playing Asteroids, Galaga, Pac-man, etc. To me, that's the mark of a "true" game if anything is.

Ha! Just because a game has massive or little replayability is of little concern to most people. Unless you can only have one game in the world, I don't see why that should ever be an issue. I mean, sure, if you buy a football game and it sucks so bad you play one game and that's it, you just got ripped off. But if you buy Final Fantasy 3, play it once and then never again, that's okay - you've seen what you were supposed to see. Same goes w/ movies. Remember when you first watched Speed or the Sixth Sense? Pretty cool movies, huh? Exciting til' the end. Now have you ever watched those films multiple times? Not quite as enjoyable as before because you know all the twists and turns. You see, not every film or book or music cd is meant to be listened to multiple times because the experience is meant to me so memorable after your first time through.

Same goes for games. You see replayability as a plus for games wanting bang for their bucks. I see replayability and "looping" gameplay as a cop-out for developers who either couldn't or didn't find a way to end a game properly.




Quote:
Same goes for the fishing parts in Zelda 64. That's why I don't consider most sports and arcade-type titles as 100% true videogames.
Get Bass isn't a game either? Wow, I sure had fun playing that at the arcade and on my Dreamcast. Another great pick up and play game.

Get Bass is an Arcade Game. If the main part has a role-playing/story element built into the home version where there is an actual story that progresses as the gameplay gets harder that's one thing...but from what I recall it's just a straight port of a fishing simulator. That's it.

I didn't say it isn't a great "pick up and play" game. I'm saying it's a one-track minded title that focuses one extremely simple gameplay style who's value is placed solely on replayability and other arcade-like qualities.




Quote:
Oh, and believe me, even if your Dad thinks GoW is "over his head" I'm 100% positive he'd be more excited about figuring out and playing THAT game then playing the same damn Wiisports games over and over again for hours on end.
Um, no. He would get blown away five or six times in the first 2 minutes because the controller and pacing would completely overwhelm him, would say "this isn't fun" and walk away. With something like Wii Sports there's no heavy learning curve, no button combinations to memorize, just perform the same motion you would if you were playing golf for real.

And who said Wii Sports had to be played for hours on end? It's not designed for people who play video games 10 hours straight, it's designed for casual gamers.

With Wiisports there is NO learning curve. You can almost randomly move your hand in any direction and play the game as well (if not better) than someone who is actually trying. It's what makes Mario Party such a crappy game. Everyone can play, no one can master because it's all random to "balance the playing field."

Nintendo's newest system bothers me because it IS designed solely for casual gamers and I have no clue why. Maybe it's because Nintendo has realized that they can't keep up with the serious/hard-core gamer market and have instead chosen to focus on the novice/non-gamer market completely. Good for them and good for grandma's who are playing videogames for the first time. But for everyone else expecting more from Nintendo, a company who KNOWS better and can DO better, it's been a big disappointment.

Also, let's put this whole casual / serious gamers thing into perspective in terms that perhaps people can understand.

If I were to compare this to relationships, this is how I'd see it.

A casual dater (casual gamer) would find a girl who did one thing extremely well, get married and spend the rest of his life with her and could very well be happy. Good for him.

A serious dater (serious gamer) would find a girl who did a variety of things extremely well, some better than others, so that he could have a more fulfilling, richer and memorable experience with the person he is going to devote so much time and energy to.

Both people could have good lives, yes...but in the end, the guy who "settled" and was lazy in his efforts of looking for the more sophisticated/well-rounded girl will probably realize that he spent his whole life devoted to a girl who any Joe-blow off the street could have gotten as well. That girl may have done that one thing he liked well...but that was it...and really, how LONG can that stay appealing???

Now do you get it?

Casual gamers and casual/limited games are in a completely different class than serious/hardcore gamers/games. Below.

If casual games don't like being thought of as "less/inferior" compared to more experienced gamers then they should do something about it. Do your research, try out REAL games (you can still play your Asteroids and NFL Blitz's) and magically, you'll start to discover that Pacman is cool...but Mario 64 soooooo blows it's ass out of the water in terms of enjoyment.


And the top-selling games for Dec. across all platforms:

Madden NFL 07, Electronic Arts--1.9 M
Call of Duty 3, Activision--1.1 M
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Nintendo--1.1 M
Cars, THQ--874.0 K
Need for Speed Carbon, Electronic Arts--871.6 K
Gears of War, Microsoft--815.7 K
Guitar Hero 2, Activision--805.2 K
Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, LucasArts--792.3 K
WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2007, THQ--731.6 K
Tony Hawk's Project 8, Activision--713.9 K
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Activision--642.9 K

Not too many "true" games by your standards either.


Nope, there isn't - and that's a problem. Of course, few game companies are doing anything about it. Instead of coming up with REAL games that would get consumers interested in putting in the time and effort into learning how to play them developers nowadays keep churning out crappy generic this and generic that one afater another because they know mindless casual gamers will just buy them up (because they know no better).

So casual gamers out there, if you don't like your reputation in the gaming world, do something about it. Avoid cookie cutter titles and play REAL games that will give you a REAL sense of what videogames can do and offer in terms of enjoyment and lasting impressions.

...because game companies nowadays (looking at YOU NIntendo!) certainly aren't going to help you!

I blame the PS2 a lot for bringing up this newest generation of casual gamers who actually believe they're hard-core/serious. So many games on that crappy system were complete garbage and Moms and Dads and school kids and college-aged students just bought crappy game after game because of hype, it filled a niche they liked (Oh, a deer hunting sim game! Woo hoo!) or there was nothing better available at the time (Oh, Gran Turismo 3! Wow!...I know this plays exactly like every other racing game ever made but dammit, there isn't a new Resident Evil or Metal Gear or Final Fantasy to play right now....durrr, I'll buy it anyways though!).

[Kroogah]

it's like comparing Tic Tac Toe to Chess.

No it isn't. Tic Tac Toe and Chess are designed to be played over and over again, because the game will end differently each time. I understand the point you're trying to make about Chess being more complex and all of that, but you're missing the point. That analogy does not apply here because Shenmue isn't designed to be played over and over...there is no high score to beat, no unique strategy to use, just trigger the same events and follow the same path to the end of the game every time. With things like arcade games and figurine collecting tacked on to make the game seem more open-ended than it really is.


Asteroids is the same. It's fun, yeah...and at the time it was released, probably was revolutionary compared to the likes of Pacman & whatnot...

Asteroids was released a year before Pac-Man.


If they really were perfect, why would games have kept on evolving and changing once those titles come out? Apparently developers saw a need to put a story and better graphics, sound, etc. to those "simple" gameplay formulas.

If they really needed so much improvement to become "true video games" then how come Namco and Midway have been re-releasing all their old arcade titles on nearly every system since the Playstation, and selling them like crazy? How come the majority of arcades in the USA have one of those Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga Class Of '81 machines? How come so many of these old games are selling on Xbox Live Arcade and Virtual Console?

For the record, I beat Shenmue when it was first released and I liked it, but I have no interest in ever playing it again. I play plenty of games from the years when the only goal was to beat your high score. And this can't be for nostalgia reasons, because I wasn't even born until 1985.

Do I like arcade games more than RPGs? Yeah. Would I try to convince someone that arcade games are better? No. All I'm trying to convince you of is that they're 2 completely different things, so you can't really make a fair comparison as to which is "better". Like comparing Metallica to Robert Johnson.

[Kroogah]

I see replayability and "looping" gameplay as a cop-out for developers who either couldn't or didn't find a way to end a game properly.

How would you properly end Asteroids, Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Berzerk, Burgertime, Joust, Robotron 2084, Defender, Centipede, etc.? Yeah Donkey Kong has that little scene where DK falls and Jumpman and Pauline are reunited after the 4th board. Boy that'd be great if the game ended there. It'd be so much more fulfilling.


Also, let's put this whole casual / serious gamers thing into perspective in terms that perhaps people can understand.

If I were to compare this to relationships, this is how I'd see it.

A casual dater (casual gamer) would find a girl who did one thing extremely well, get married and spend the rest of his life with her and could very well be happy. Good for him.

A serious dater (serious gamer) would find a girl who did a variety of things extremely well, some better than others, so that he could have a more fulfilling, richer and memorable experience with the person he is going to devote so much time and energy to.

Both people could have good lives, yes...but in the end, the guy who "settled" and was lazy in his efforts of looking for the more sophisticated/well-rounded girl will probably realize that he spent his whole life devoted to a girl who any Joe-blow off the street could have gotten as well. That girl may have done that one thing he liked well...but that was it...and really, how LONG can that stay appealing???

Now do you get it?

Ha ha ha, oh wow. We're comparing video games to women now.


If casual games don't like being thought of as "less/inferior" compared to more experienced gamers then they should do something about it.

Do your research, try out REAL games (you can still play your Asteroids and NFL Blitz's)

Instead of coming up with REAL games

mindless casual gamers will just buy them up (because they know no better)

Avoid cookie cutter titles and play REAL games that will give you a REAL sense of what videogames can do and offer in terms of enjoyment and lasting impressions.

I blame the PS2 a lot for bringing up this newest generation of casual gamers who actually believe they're hard-core/serious.

....durrr, I'll buy it anyways though!

Wow. You've completely fallen into the "hardcore gamer" trap. You have a superiority complex that you got from playing video games.

[djbeatmongrel]

OK this whole hardcore/casual gamer arguement is a piss poor comparison for peoples tastes in videogames and next gen console desicions.

Does playing Halo or Gears of War make you a hardcore gamer? Does playing playing a simple game of tetris make you a casual gamers?

Really considering my vast library of games I'd consider myself a "hardcore gamer" if i had to be one side or another but my lack of 360/PS3 and my patienced to get one further along would lump me as "casual gamer". I don't think the choice of console or choice of games defines the gamer, i think the level of passion and purity of the medium is what counts.

Really as an employee of a videogame retailer I would say by customer discussions alone the "casual gamers" buy any systems that seems to catch their attention and fits their need. A hardcore gamer will play any game thats good and not discriminate. Sure someone may like one sytstem over another, thnats called preference, but a hardcore gamer would also be wise enough to cut the fanboy bullshit and atleast be able to recognize the appeal of other systems or games.

im getting confused by ranting, hardcore shouldn't be defined by what you play nor should it be a beacon of ignorance and dismissal just becuase its not your cup of tea.

[TurboGenesis]

Ha! Just because a game has massive or little replayability is of little concern to most people. Unless you can only have one game in the world, I don't see why that should ever be an issue. I mean, sure, if you buy a football game and it sucks so bad you play one game and that's it, you just got ripped off. But if you buy Final Fantasy 3, play it once and then never again, that's okay - you've seen what you were supposed to see. Same goes w/ movies. Remember when you first watched Speed or the Sixth Sense? Pretty cool movies, huh? Exciting til' the end. Now have you ever watched those films multiple times? Not quite as enjoyable as before because you know all the twists and turns. You see, not every film or book or music cd is meant to be listened to multiple times because the experience is meant to me so memorable after your first time through.

Same goes for games. You see replayability as a plus for games wanting bang for their bucks. I see replayability and "looping" gameplay as a cop-out for developers who either couldn't or didn't find a way to end a game properly.


Whats the point of BUYING a game (such as Final Fantasy IIIakaVI) if you only play through once and "saw" everything you are supposed to see?

A game like Asteroids is a game where you play to precision your game play and realize a better score. The game is infinitly replayable because you can always better your score.

So you have a Dreamcast name, avatar, and sig. What exactly are your top 10 games on Dreamcast. If you're hard core DC did you pick up Trigger Heart Exilica or Kuros, or even Under Defeat? Do you like these games or any kind of game like that? The most general game mechanic of the latest Dreamcast titles are simply that of Asteroids - realize a better score everytime you play.

Games that are not "replayable" are the real "cop out" for developers. They would rather make a disposable game and have you buy the next game rather be satisfied with a game for a very long period of time. As a child NES games were great because I could get many months of non stop enjoyment before I could even purchase another game.


As for Wii sports, I still have non gaming friends and their wives come over and play it. Its the only thing they will play. They just look at me with rolled eyes and a shocked look on their face when they want to play Wii and my TV is tate from the last shootie I was playing :D

[miserere01]

Before I start, I'd like to say I am by no means trying to sound boastful or arrogant, I'm simply trying to illustrate an epidemic delusion with "hard-core gamers and casual gamers."

Well lets see. I have more runs than I can count on NUMEROUS different games, particularly speed runs, some are extra/unintended difficulty level runs. At one point, held a world record speed run for a specific game. Went to tournaments and have played with a couple of the worlds greatest Super Smash Brothers Melee players. On the majority of multiplayer games I own, I play fierce, I play competitive, and I play to WIN. Hardcore defined is:

hard-core /ˈhɑrdˈkɔr, -ˈkoʊr/
–adjective
1. unswervingly committed; uncompromising; dedicated: a hard-core segregationist.
2. pruriently explicit; graphically depicted: hard-core pornography.

I'd say you have to be pretty goddamn unswervingly committed to play Super Metroid over and over enough times to beat it in 41 minutes, but you know, thats just me.

I'm so tired of these morons with their hardware pissing contests, crying how they're the "hardcore gamers" and the Wii is for children because it's outdated technology. My entire life has revolved around video games, I remember my lifestyle of video games before things like that shit G4TV or Attack of the Show or sites like Gamespot existed. Before people developed their opinions based on what a bag of tits with a mop of brown hair said on tv, when people really developed opinions from PLAYING GAMES. Nowadays, if i ever hear ANYONE call them self a "hardcore gamer" I can't help but cringe. Also, the comment about the Wii being for "casual gamers", really? Odd, because the Wii is the only one of the three new consoles I own, it's certainly a breath of fresh air to be able to play with my friends or family with a game that develops a field of fun, not a field of skill. If i try to talk a friend into playing Goldeneye 64 with me, they're pissed off after the first match. When we play Wii Sports, we ALL have fun, because we all have a chance, we all get to have fun. Maybe if more people like ShenmueFan thought real hard about it, they'd realize having fun on a video game isn't such a bad idea. Not to mention the moment I'm craving to slaughter someone, Super Smash Brothers Brawl will be out soon, which I'll be practicing and training for VERY thoroughly. So to sum up what I'm trying to say, the term "hardcore gamer" is complete bullshit, and has been for ages now. People that actually are "hardcore" into video games, are people such as myself. The kind of person that doesn't give a shit about hardware limitations, the kind of person that can play a game eighty thousand times without being bored, the kind of person that establishes his opinions of games only from playing the game his/herself.

[TurboGenesis]

Before I start, I'd like to say I am by no means trying to sound boastful or arrogant, I'm simply trying to illustrate an epidemic delusion with "hard-core gamers and casual gamers."

Well lets see. I have more runs than I can count on NUMEROUS different games, particularly speed runs, some are extra/unintended difficulty level runs. At one point, held a world record speed run for a specific game. Went to tournaments and have played with a couple of the worlds greatest Super Smash Brothers Melee players. On the majority of multiplayer games I own, I play fierce, I play competitive, and I play to WIN. Hardcore defined is:

hard-core /ˈhɑrdˈkɔr, -ˈkoʊr/
–adjective
1. unswervingly committed; uncompromising; dedicated: a hard-core segregationist.
2. pruriently explicit; graphically depicted: hard-core pornography.

I'd say you have to be pretty goddamn unswervingly committed to play Super Metroid over and over enough times to beat it in 41 minutes, but you know, thats just me.

I'm so tired of these morons with their hardware pissing contests, crying how they're the "hardcore gamers" and the Wii is for children because it's outdated technology. My entire life has revolved around video games, I remember my lifestyle of video games before things like that shit G4TV or Attack of the Show or sites like Gamespot existed. Before people developed their opinions based on what a bag of tits with a mop of brown hair said on tv, when people really developed opinions from PLAYING GAMES. Nowadays, if i ever hear ANYONE call them self a "hardcore gamer" I can't help but cringe. Also, the comment about the Wii being for "casual gamers", really? Odd, because the Wii is the only one of the three new consoles I own, it's certainly a breath of fresh air to be able to play with my friends or family with a game that develops a field of fun, not a field of skill. If i try to talk a friend into playing Goldeneye 64 with me, they're pissed off after the first match. When we play Wii Sports, we ALL have fun, because we all have a chance, we all get to have fun. Maybe if more people like ShenmueFan thought real hard about it, they'd realize having fun on a video game isn't such a bad idea. Not to mention the moment I'm craving to slaughter someone, Super Smash Brothers Brawl will be out soon, which I'll be practicing and training for VERY thoroughly. So to sum up what I'm trying to say, the term "hardcore gamer" is complete bullshit, and has been for ages now. People that actually are "hardcore" into video games, are people such as myself. The kind of person that doesn't give a shit about hardware limitations, the kind of person that can play a game eighty thousand times without being bored, the kind of person that establishes his opinions of games only from playing the game his/herself.

I'd definitely say you are a "Professional" gamer, like a professional athlete who plays at a high level to win and realize a championship or record. I would consider my self more of a video game fanatic rather than "hardcore".

And I have thought about it, I think having FUN on a video game is in fact a very very good idea!

[chicnstu]

I blame the PS2 a lot for bringing up this newest generation of casual gamers who actually believe they're hard-core/serious. So many games on that crappy system were complete garbage and Moms and Dads and school kids and college-aged students just bought crappy game after game because of hype, it filled a niche they liked (Oh, a deer hunting sim game! Woo hoo!) or there was nothing better available at the time (Oh, Gran Turismo 3! Wow!...I know this plays exactly like every other racing game ever made but dammit, there isn't a new Resident Evil or Metal Gear or Final Fantasy to play right now....durrr, I'll buy it anyways though!).

This is I something I agreed with. I've been in the stores buying games and I'll see some (and I'm not meaning this in an offensive way political correcties, they call themselves this) "rednecks", "playas" and "thugs" there to buy games too. They will say things like "The commercial was good, you wanna get this?" or "Yo man, that's the best graphics I've seen" or "I've got that Stacked game already but this one has Daniel Negraneau in it, I think I'll get that".


Before I start, I'd like to say I am by no means trying to sound boastful or arrogant, I'm simply trying to illustrate an epidemic delusion with "hard-core gamers and casual gamers."

Well lets see. I have more runs than I can count on NUMEROUS different games, particularly speed runs, some are extra/unintended difficulty level runs. At one point, held a world record speed run for a specific game. Went to tournaments and have played with a couple of the worlds greatest Super Smash Brothers Melee players. On the majority of multiplayer games I own, I play fierce, I play competitive, and I play to WIN. Hardcore defined is:

hard-core /ˈhɑrdˈkɔr, -ˈkoʊr/
–adjective
1. unswervingly committed; uncompromising; dedicated: a hard-core segregationist.
2. pruriently explicit; graphically depicted: hard-core pornography.

I'd say you have to be pretty goddamn unswervingly committed to play Super Metroid over and over enough times to beat it in 41 minutes, but you know, thats just me.

I'm so tired of these morons with their hardware pissing contests, crying how they're the "hardcore gamers" and the Wii is for children because it's outdated technology. My entire life has revolved around video games, I remember my lifestyle of video games before things like that shit G4TV or Attack of the Show or sites like Gamespot existed. Before people developed their opinions based on what a bag of tits with a mop of brown hair said on tv, when people really developed opinions from PLAYING GAMES. Nowadays, if i ever hear ANYONE call them self a "hardcore gamer" I can't help but cringe. Also, the comment about the Wii being for "casual gamers", really? Odd, because the Wii is the only one of the three new consoles I own, it's certainly a breath of fresh air to be able to play with my friends or family with a game that develops a field of fun, not a field of skill. If i try to talk a friend into playing Goldeneye 64 with me, they're pissed off after the first match. When we play Wii Sports, we ALL have fun, because we all have a chance, we all get to have fun. Maybe if more people like ShenmueFan thought real hard about it, they'd realize having fun on a video game isn't such a bad idea. Not to mention the moment I'm craving to slaughter someone, Super Smash Brothers Brawl will be out soon, which I'll be practicing and training for VERY thoroughly. So to sum up what I'm trying to say, the term "hardcore gamer" is complete bullshit, and has been for ages now. People that actually are "hardcore" into video games, are people such as myself. The kind of person that doesn't give a shit about hardware limitations, the kind of person that can play a game eighty thousand times without being bored, the kind of person that establishes his opinions of games only from playing the game his/herself.

I believe most of that too but be careful. Some people here will get mad at that because of jealousy and think you are trying to say you are a more important gamer. The stuff I bolded....that was hilarious.

[ShenmueFan]

Well, as a fanboy (I'll admit it) I do have VERY strong opinions on a variety of gaming topics, some of which you just heard about. I know that I'll never be able to convince arcade-game lovers that linear, one-time-through games are more fulfilling or that casual gamers and companies that cater to them are what is stifling creativity in this industry....

...but dammit, I'll try my best to.

And even if, when all is said and done, I don't do anything but cause a few people to get all pissed off and up-in-arms, at least it gets them thinking as to why they truly do think the way they do. Perhaps, in the future, these people who I offended or upset might be more accepting or think more openly about certain topics.

And to miserere01, I'm glad you're like a gaming god. That's good for you. Keep your facts straight though - I never said the Wii was crap because it was aimed at kids. I said the Wii was crap because you're paying tons for a system you already own probably (Gamecube) and the only "innovation" is in the form of a gimmicky motion remote that adds very little to most titles currently available.

Am I totally writing off the Wii forever? No. I'm sure that at some point in its lifespan one or two amazing games will be released for it. But that kinda sucks that that's all you'll get for hundreds of dollars, years of devotion to a certain system and wasted energy trying to find which one or two games truly are modern-day classics.

Also, I'm glad you can have fun w/ your folks/friends by playing the Wii. Good for you. But I don't play to lose either (unless its golf in real life, which I always suck at, but enjoy) and I hate the fact that the Wii brings everyone "down" to the same level "to make things more fun" by using crappy controls and stupid mini-games that change every 10 minutes.

Oh, and about Asteroids coming out before Pacman....who really cares? They all came out pre-NES when ALL games pretty looked and played the same. (Oh, that's gonna piss off some people)

Eh, whatever though...this discussion is goin' in circles.

[chicnstu]

I said the Wii was crap because you're paying tons for a system you already own probably (Gamecube) and the only "innovation" is in the form of a gimmicky motion remote that adds very little to most titles currently available.

Can you please show me the innovations that are in the PS3 and 360?

[GarrettCRW]

Oh, and about Asteroids coming out before Pacman....who really cares? They all came out pre-NES when ALL games pretty looked and played the same.

You are so damn ignorant, it makes me want to cry.

[ShenmueFan]

Can you please show me the innovations that are in the PS3 and 360?

I can't. They aren't that innovative, besides the boost in graphics capabilities. But they (well, at least the 360 anyways) doesn't claim to be revolutionary. It just promises better graphics, that's all. Everything else they do (online play, HDD capabilities, 16:9 viewing, etc.) has already been done one or two generations ago.

The Wii is cocky and constantly gets promoted for being so great because of a dumb controller - one of which the 360 or PS3 (well, I dunno, Sony is pretty bad at making things people want) can add on at any time that provides EXACTLY the same functionality PLUS have better visuals.



You are so damn ignorant, it makes me want to cry.

Why? Because I think playing Asteroids or Pacman or whatever OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER is about as enjoyable as watching grass grow?

Maybe if I had played all those games first instead of starting w/ the NES I'd be thinking different...but I dunno...to me, simple games like those are 10-minute nostalgia play thingees, nothing more.

[Lothars]

Why? Because I think playing Asteroids or Pacman or whatever OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER is about as enjoyable as watching grass grow?

Maybe if I had played all those games first instead of starting w/ the NES I'd be thinking different...but I dunno...to me, simple games like those are 10-minute nostalgia play thingees, nothing more.

Well mainly because you are ignorant and you really are acting really stupid, I don't care if you don't like those games but your posting about games your really clueless about, it's really getting sickening and very very annoying.

it really seems on the point of trolling IMO

[ShenmueFan]

Oh, so it's trolling because you want to immediatly dismiss my opinion and because what, you have 2,000+ posts and I just joined two days ago?

Oh, sorry oh Great One. Sorry to have questioned your immense wisdom.

Grow up. If you can come up w/ a valid argument on why your opinion is so much more correct than mine, then do it. Don't write three sentences, get ticked off when I start saying the truth and say I'm trolling to get moderators involved.

Geez.

Whatever happened for good ol' point-for-point debate/discussion?

Or on this board do I have to constantly agree that Asteroids is perfection and the Wii is the best thing since sliced bread?

[cessnaace]

I agree there


Of course you do. I'm always right. LOL!



Mark

[cessnaace]

Yeah, where's the analogy in that? LOL


I guess some people swing swords with their legs. LOL!


Mark

[cessnaace]

[Just watch folks - you'll see by next Christmas - Wii's steam will begin to run out and when people have their fill of crappy visuals (for the price and what other systems are capable of) and misleading downloadable content, you'll see a big drop-off in consumer interest.]



People were saying the same thing about the DS before it even came out. Two screens. 'It's just a gimmick;' 'it will never catch on;' 'why should people spend money on a DS when the PSP's coming?' 'One company supporting two handheld systems? Can't be done.' It wasn't; it did; the DS outsells the PSP; Nintendo, apparently, can.


Mark

[cessnaace]

Good, because my last question was just a normal question, nothing negative with it :) Just wondering how the whole family playing experience was some months later.


I never have understood how people could hate a console, or console maker (for that matter). I don't 'hate' Sony, I just refuse to pay the price of buying a PS3 now. I don't even have a PS2 yet!!! Oh sure, if I'd bought a 3DO when it first came out, I might have been disappointed with the lack of (enough) good software. But buying when I did I managed to secure a like-new unit, still in the box, with about 60 games for about $80!!! Ain't eBay grand?

I'm old. Well, nearly 49. I've seen a lot of systems come and go. I haven't hated a single one.

Love thy console.


Mark

[SaturnFan]

The question is....

Who really wants to sit inside this spring/summer and imitate playing sports games on the Wii when you can go outside ...get a tan/do real exercise?

Why would anyone want to pay $250 for the Wii, plus spend extra for controllers and nunchucks and imitate playing tennis when you can go outside and do the real thing for much cheaper?

Other than Wii Sports games everything else is just average Gamecube like games with a new controller, which ends up being a pain in the ass rather than fun(SSX/Zelda and others)

Sure blabber on about how the Wii is a much better deal than PS3 360. $250 really isn't a deal for such old technology. Can you imagine the Wii in 2012? The Wii looks old an outdated now , that will be just too much of an eyestrain by then.

[Lothars]

Whatever happened for good ol' point-for-point debate/discussion?

Or on this board do I have to constantly agree that Asteroids is perfection and the Wii is the best thing since sliced bread?

no I don't immediately dismiss your opinion, it's when you act like your opinion is the only valid one,

I am not a fan of the Wii and I don't think it will be anything spectacular when this generation is said and done

I will own a Wii but I don't know I really don't have much faith in the system at this time.

We will see though,

O and btw I don't care that you joined a couple days ago or not, but your last couple posts have seem like a troll and that's why I said that.

[ShenmueFan]

[Just watch folks - you'll see by next Christmas - Wii's steam will begin to run out and when people have their fill of crappy visuals (for the price and what other systems are capable of) and misleading downloadable content, you'll see a big drop-off in consumer interest.]

People were saying the same thing about the DS before it even came out. Two screens. 'It's just a gimmick;' 'it will never catch on;' 'why should people spend money on a DS when the PSP's coming?' 'One company supporting two handheld systems? Can't be done.' It wasn't; it did; the DS outsells the PSP; Nintendo, apparently, can.


Mark

The DS is popular for a couple of major reasons (and I in fact just bought one recently, so I don't hate it, I just know WHY it's popular).

1) The PSP is a crap system. It just is. It could've been much cheaper, had better game support and been MUCH cheaper. People ALL OVER the world have a real hard time paying $200+ for a PORTABLE system, no matter how great the potential might be.

2) Nintendo is phasing out support for the GBA and everyone knows it now...and many knew it back in '04. It made NO SENSE for Nintendo to have two portable systems of its own at the same time and I knew from the start the GBA was the last of the "Game Boy" systems and the DS was its successor despite what the big N said. Nintendo played it smart though by never admitting the DS was replacing the GBA...if it had done that when the DS launched, many consumers would have started to think Nintendo was acting like Sega and dropping system support just a couple years after launching it. BAD for publicity.

3) The DS outsells the PSP because the PSP sales suck and there isn't a good alternative elsewhere. Back in the 90s you had Game Gear but that was it. In the late 90s SNK tried their best to take some market share from Nintendo but couldn't do it. Nintendo just has a stranglehold on the portable market and while that doesn't particularly bother me, I do think Nintendo rushed out a new system - the DS - simply to keep the PSP from even getting a significant foothold in the market (which it would have, had the DS arrived even a year later).

I hope the DS does well because I've invested into it (mainly because the GBA is being quickly killed off by dwindling 3rd party support) but I do hope *eventually* a competitor arrives that can balance out the portable market some just so we don't get another amalgam of strange design and useless features (a 2nd, touch capable screen...wooooooo).

[Eteric Rice]

There are some people here, that I honestly wish would just leave gaming completely and find a new hobby. Their ranting about graphics and power are what is driving companies to build systems that cost $600. People like myself (younger generation) can't afford to buy a game system, and have to wait years for price drops.

The Wii is about four months old, yet people are bashing it due to developers making games that don't quite take advantage of it's controller. I suppose they expect people to learn this in a week? It seemed to me that Zelda, Trauma Center, Elebits, etc, worked just fine with the motion controls, and I expect it to get better as time passes.

As for graphics, myself and many people really don't care. If Super Mario Galaxy proves anything, it's that the Wii is far more capable then most developers make it seem. Hell, the Star Wars games and Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube proved that.

Not everyone is going to sit around and cry about the Wii's graphics. I personally think the Wii will get it's share of VERY unique games in the future. Hell, Cing announced a game a few days ago called "Project O," due out in 2008. Here's some informatio on it.


March 9, 2007 - The makers of Wish Room, Harvest Moon, Chulip, Final Fantasy XII and Dragon Quest VIII are teaming up for a new super project for the Wii. Project O (a tentative name, of course) has just started development at two southern Japanese development studios, Cing and Town Factory, to be published in Japan by Marvelous Interactive.

This title is already getting attention due to its growing list of development talent. Serving as producer is Marvelous Interactive's Yasuhiro Wada, general producer of the Harvest Moon series. The game's designer is Yoshiro Kimura, who worked on moon (PlayStation) and Chulip (PS2), and has signed on as a contractor for Marvelous in order to do this title. Another key member of the Harvest Moon series is also reportedly working on the game. Kimura also brought in Kazuyuki Kurashima, another staff member from the moon days.

Not enough for you? Well here are a couple of guys who's past games you'll definitely recognize. Project O's main programmer is Youichi Kawaguchi, the main programmer of Dragon Quest VIII. Serving as art director is Hideo Minaba, the art director of Final Fantsay XII. Minaba, incidentally, now works at Town Factory.

Wada and Kimura shared a handful of first details on the new project with Japan's Famitsu magazine. And by "handful," we really mean just a few! In fact, even after reading a three page interview, we're not 100% sure what the game is going to be like.

Wada revealed that his inspiration for Project O originally came from a Doraemon toy set. Similar to the "secret tools" that appear in the popular children's animation series, Wada imagined a tool that allows players to create a world, give it life, and observe the subsequent happenings. He likens this to the game Sim Earth. But in addition to a distant view of the world, he wanted to let players experience the world from the first person perspective of one of its residents. He likens this to Sim People.

Project O started with the idea of being a combination of Sim People and Sim Earth. But it's since become something a bit different, thanks to the influences Kimura took from Norikazu Yasunagano, who created World Neverland for the PlayStation back in 1997. That title was a "life simulation," where players could experience the relationships between artificial intelligence driven characters.

Which at long last brings us to a vague statement describing the kind of game we'll be getting with Project O. The game will combine the life simulation elements of World Neverland with the presentation of Kimura's own Chulip. On top of all that are simulation elements from Harvest Moon. The game will feature simulation, adventure and even a few real time action elements.

The simulation elements will push the Wii to the limit, promised Wada. When in the god's perspective, the game will display dozens of characters simultaneously, each moving using unique AI routines.

Another big point, mentioned Wada, is that on top of the simulation elements, the game will deliver the feeling of being part of a storyline. In the interview, he promised something different from any previous game. Kimura chimed in and noted that there's one exception: the Harvest Moon series. Kimura feels that Project O will be similar to Harvest Moon in that it will feature a loose storyline surrounding the simulation gameplay.

If all this seems conceptual, that's because it may just be. The game is currently being worked on by just the six staffers mentioned here, with the hunt currently on for the seventh staff member, a musician. Marvelous has also started seeking designers, programmers, planners and assistant directors for the game proper, and has placed a big two page advertisement in this week's Famitsu.

We're going to have to wait until 2008 to play this potential dream project for the Wii.

Anyway, I don't buy this whole graphics debate. World of Warcraft, THE most popular MMORPG, has graphics that could be done by some of the lowest end PCs. It's graphical style is what makes it bearable.

Apparently, not many developers can make something with "style."

[ShenmueFan]

Eteric Rice, I don't have a problem with the Wii's graphics. Not a big deal for me. I do, however, have a problem with the price tag and the fact that Nintendo had FIVE years to develop a NEW system and this is the best they could come up with.

That's crappy.

I was genuinely hoping Nintendo would come along w/ this generation and either wipe Microsoft or Sony (preferably Sony) off the map with a powerhouse system that featured Nintendo franchises.

Now the good news is that I think ultimately the Wii will put Sony in 3rd this generation. Unfortunately, Nintendo will do nothing to develop its library of games more except to add Wiimote support to new titles. That's it.

Until 2010 you'll be playing the same Gamecube games you've been staring at since 2001 but instead of a controller you'll be using a motion controller. That's it. That's the BIG difference.

Heck, Nintendo could have just sold a Wiimote, a 512MB Memory Card and a Ethernet Add-on for $79-99 and used the same damn Gamecube hardware for what gamers are gonna get out of it.

Gamers should feel cheated and not impressed with Nintendo - that's what bothers ME about the Wii.

[ShenmueFan]

Hey, for anyone on this thread that I may have offended or upset...sorry about that.

I sometimes get caught up in my own rants & raves and I blast people who don't agree with me. My opinion is my opinion and I should respect all of yours, even if they differ. So if I did tick off any of you in a jerky way (or even unintentionally), I am sorry.

I'll try to work on my cockiness as I'm positive there ARE thousands of gamers on this site who know far more than me and afterall, I joined this board to talk about our mutual hobby and to learn things I didn't know.


So once again, to anyone I upset...sorry.

I'm working on my attitude.

[Bronty-2]

Eteric Rice, I don't have a problem with the Wii's graphics. Not a big deal for me. I do, however, have a problem with the price tag and the fact that Nintendo had FIVE years to develop a NEW system and this is the best they could come up with.

That's crappy.

I was genuinely hoping Nintendo would come along w/ this generation and either wipe Microsoft or Sony (preferably Sony) off the map with a powerhouse system that featured Nintendo franchises.

Now the good news is that I think ultimately the Wii will put Sony in 3rd this generation. Unfortunately, Nintendo will do nothing to develop its library of games more except to add Wiimote support to new titles. That's it.

Until 2010 you'll be playing the same Gamecube games you've been staring at since 2001 but instead of a controller you'll be using a motion controller. That's it. That's the BIG difference.

Heck, Nintendo could have just sold a Wiimote, a 512MB Memory Card and a Ethernet Add-on for $79-99 and used the same damn Gamecube hardware for what gamers are gonna get out of it.

Gamers should feel cheated and not impressed with Nintendo - that's what bothers ME about the Wii.

If you don't think a motion controller was a big deal then you need to rethink. Do you have any idea what a monstrous risk management took when they went with that? These are big corporations that have shareholders and debtholders to answer to. There is no way they could have gone any further out there even if they wanted to because it would have meant even more risk. Sure, the DS controls worked but that was no guarantee it would work on a home console. It's quite potentially an industry changing move and if you can't see that then you really need to look at the big picture. You're right in that its maybe not *that* wildly different from regular controls *now* but its significance is not just from where its at now, but for where it could be 20 years from now. And the testament to that is that I guarantee you sony and microsoft are seriously looking at copying the idea (well, sony's already tried, sort of..).

[Vinnysdad]

I used to think the WII was something I didnt want until I heard my brothers wife talk about it. She works at Sams Club in the jewelery department and its right next to the TV section. So they set up a WII and put her in charge of the WIImote and nunchuk. All she could talk about was how her and her co-workers played WIIsports all day and how much fun they had. This is suprising because she HATES videogames. She is always unhappy when my brother turns on his PS2. She also mentioned how customers instantly decided to buy a WII after a couple of minutes of trying it out. Some even purchasing two.

[Eteric Rice]

Eteric Rice, I don't have a problem with the Wii's graphics. Not a big deal for me. I do, however, have a problem with the price tag and the fact that Nintendo had FIVE years to develop a NEW system and this is the best they could come up with.

That's crappy.

I was genuinely hoping Nintendo would come along w/ this generation and either wipe Microsoft or Sony (preferably Sony) off the map with a powerhouse system that featured Nintendo franchises.

Now the good news is that I think ultimately the Wii will put Sony in 3rd this generation. Unfortunately, Nintendo will do nothing to develop its library of games more except to add Wiimote support to new titles. That's it.

Until 2010 you'll be playing the same Gamecube games you've been staring at since 2001 but instead of a controller you'll be using a motion controller. That's it. That's the BIG difference.

Heck, Nintendo could have just sold a Wiimote, a 512MB Memory Card and a Ethernet Add-on for $79-99 and used the same damn Gamecube hardware for what gamers are gonna get out of it.

Gamers should feel cheated and not impressed with Nintendo - that's what bothers ME about the Wii.

I know what you're saying, but doing this was a huge risk. If it had failed, making a console that they lose money on could have been disasterous to the company as a whole.

And, if Nintendo hadn't done this, they'd be in the same situation they've been in for the last 10 years.

They really didn't have much of a choice.

I personally don't feel cheated. I think the Wii has the ability to open up the RTS genre to consoles (or the Wii itself). Also, it may inspire more developers to make games like Trauma Center, Elebits, etc. To be more creative.

Right now, I think developers need to find the right balance of Wii-mote and button controlling. Some games use the motions to much, and it's tacked on. Some, not so much.

[jajaja]

Of course you do. I'm always right. LOL!



Mark

Hehe well, i agreed to what the Spore guy said was unproffsional/very fanboy like, but the article isnt written by a fanboy, it mostly contains the quote what the Spore guy said. Afterall, N-Europe.com is a Nintendo site (altho not official i think) so i doubt they will write shit about "their" product hehe ;)

About the hate of consoles, i think its like football teams. I mean, you bind yourself to a team and want it to win and the competition sux. Or people want to protect their buying, if people talk shit about the product that they bought, they must defend it. In some cases i can understand this, but people shouldnt really care about it. Just be happy with the product instead :)

[Kroogah]

Maybe if I had played all those games first instead of starting w/ the NES I'd be thinking different...but I dunno...to me, simple games like those are 10-minute nostalgia play thingees, nothing more.

I started with the NES too, so I know that ain't no excuse. To be fair it wasn't until I found MAME, this site, and some neat garage sale finds that I really learned what made the classics so great. But it wasn't because I read an article on this site or a post on this forum, it was because I played all the old games with an open mind. The Colecovision, Intellivision, and Atari 7800 are right up there with the PS2, Dreamcast, NES, SNES, etc. in my mind.


Hey, for anyone on this thread that I may have offended or upset...sorry about that.

I sometimes get caught up in my own rants & raves and I blast people who don't agree with me. My opinion is my opinion and I should respect all of yours, even if they differ. So if I did tick off any of you in a jerky way (or even unintentionally), I am sorry.

I'll try to work on my cockiness as I'm positive there ARE thousands of gamers on this site who know far more than me and afterall, I joined this board to talk about our mutual hobby and to learn things I didn't know.


So once again, to anyone I upset...sorry.

I'm working on my attitude.

Apology accepted. Massive arguments like this aren't really the norm around here. Fanboy arguments are generally frowned upon, and reserved for other corners of the internet. Here, we're a large community of mostly-sane people that like to talk about the games we love.

[GillianSeed]

The DS is popular for a couple of major reasons.

They've also made a conscious effort to expand their market by releasing non-traditional games (Brain Age, Nintendogs, Hotel Dusk, Electroplankton, Clubhouse Games, etc). My dad would never have dreamed of owning a Game Boy, but titles like Clubhouse games and Virtual Casino appeal to him. And again, with built-in wireless, multiplayer is a breeze.

Lack of competition doesn't necessarily cause sales to skyrocket in and of itself. Look at the 360, it was the only next-generation game in town but it didn't exactly do gangbuster sales until late last year. (and I think some of those were driven by those who couldn't find a Wii/PS3) Microsoft predicted that 10 million units would make for an insurmountable lead, but the Wii is already halfway there in a matter of months.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want the Wii to be the only system around. But the industry has been stuck in a "hardcore" rut for years, progress has been measured in terms of increased polygon count and the amount of buttons they can cram into a controller. In the process they've left a significant portion of their potential audience in the dust.

It's just nice to see Nintendo making games that everyone can enjoy.

[TurboGenesis]

Hey, for anyone on this thread that I may have offended or upset...sorry about that.

I sometimes get caught up in my own rants & raves and I blast people who don't agree with me. My opinion is my opinion and I should respect all of yours, even if they differ. So if I did tick off any of you in a jerky way (or even unintentionally), I am sorry.

I'll try to work on my cockiness as I'm positive there ARE thousands of gamers on this site who know far more than me and afterall, I joined this board to talk about our mutual hobby and to learn things I didn't know.


So once again, to anyone I upset...sorry.

I'm working on my attitude.

I accept your appology, as you are able to recognize that you may have done something to upset folks around here.

The thing is folks around here sometimes find "fanboys" offensive, and will act more aggressive toward such posts.

(also I should be nice since you ARE located in Michigan, and there could be a slim chance that you could be at a gathering that we host, if your into that kind of thing, where I will have to extend my hospitality. Know that at such gatherings though, the Wii may be played, though game play generally centers around shoot them ups :) )

[slip81]

I hope the DS does well because I've invested into it (mainly because the GBA is being quickly killed off by dwindling 3rd party support)

Just wondering, if you're not to crazy about te DS, why did you get one? You are aware that you can still buy a brand new GBA or GBA mini with a screen that's about as good as the DS's, right?

If all you care about is being able to play GBA games, there are much cheaper ways to do that than a $129.99 investemnt.


Until 2010 you'll be playing the same Gamecube games you've been staring at since 2001 but instead of a controller you'll be using a motion controller. That's it. That's the BIG difference.

That may be true, but in 2010 you'll also be playing the same GTA Clone or sci-fi FPS on the 360 or PS3, just with better graphics, and sound.

The more and more I look at gaming nowadays the more and more I think that games don't really change, just the technology that drives them.

[miserere01]

Fanboy arguments are generally frowned upon, and reserved for other corners of the internet. Here, we're a large community of mostly-sane people that like to talk about the games we love.

It's like I stumbled into heaven. :) DP forum simply rocks.

[cessnaace]

To whom it may concern,

1. The Wii ISN'T an expensive system. In fact, it's a bargin compared to a PS3, or an Xbox 360.

2. I don't own a Wii, so I can't comment on how fun it is to play with the Wiimote. There's an interesting feature in Nintendo Power on a new Sonic game which will be a Wii exclusive. Controlling Sonic with the Wiimote will either be a blast, or a frustrating mess. We will have to see.

3. I've heard all the comments about the Wii's apparent lack of graphical power, and in all honesty I don't care. The GameCube has awesome graphics, so the Wii (GameCube 2.0) doesn't have to be able to surpass the PS3's power as far as I'm concerned.

4. I would have preferred that Nintendo stick with the GameCube, perhaps selling the Wiimote seperately, with special games to go along with it. Games that would still be playable with a standard controller. Back in the days of the Atari 2600 there were all kinds of specialty controllers. Some games required a trackball controller, for example.

5. The Wii already outsells the PS3. Come to think on it, so does the PS2. This past Christmas the Wii and the PS2 each outsold the PS3. I know that I won't be buying one until the price comes way down.

6. Handhelds. Well, the Game Boy Advance is still selling strong. It certainly outsells the PSP. Games will continue to come out for it as long as systems continue to sell. That's my opinion anyway.

7. The Game Gear and the NEC handhelds weren't the only systems to go up angainst the Game Boy Mono (my name for the b/w GB). There was a little color handheld (ok, not so little) called the Lynx. You know this I'm sure. The fact that all three color handhelds were vastly superior to the GBM, with the GBM coming out on top, just goes to show that the herd mentality applies to video games. Otherwise, one of those color systems should have beat out Nintendo.

8. Sega does what Nintendon't. Lose money. Sadly. I like Sega.


Mark

[esquire]

To whom it may concern,

1. The Wii ISN'T an expensive system. In fact, it's a bargin compared to a PS3, or an Ebox 360.

Of course the Wii is less expensive than the 360 or PS3 so in strict dollars sense, so one might consider it a bargain. I think the prior poster was indicating that it's expensive considering the fact that its just a souped-up Gamecube with the Wiimote novelty added on. In that case one might consider it expensive. Everything is relative after all.

Consider this: If back in the day, Sony had re-released the PS1 with slightly upgraded graphics, adding the rumble and dual analog control to the controller (back before they actually did) and charging 2 1/2 times what the current PS1 was selling for, would you consider that a bargain? I think that was where he was going.

[cessnaace]

Of course the Wii is less expensive than the 360 or PS3 so in strict dollars sense, so one might consider it a bargain. I think the prior poster was indicating that it's expensive considering the fact that its just a souped-up Gamecube with the Wiimote novelty added on. In that case one might consider it expensive. Everything is relative after all.

Consider this: If back in the day, Sony had re-released the PS1 with slightly upgraded graphics, adding the rumble and dual analog control to the controller (back before they actually did) and charging 2 1/2 times what the current PS1 was selling for, would you consider that a bargain? I think that was where he was going.



Well, if it was a mistake on Nintendo's part they sure haven't been suffering for it. People are buying it in large numbers. We will have to see if they can keep it up.

Except for the Virtual Boy, Nintendo seems to make money hand over fist on every system they make. Sega usually had the opposite (mis)fortune. Too bad they didn't parly their succes with the Geneis into another succesful system. Oh, the Dreamcast started out very strong, but Sega just had too much debt and too many competitors with deep pockets.


Mark