The double- edged Wii – Economic Success and Game Quality

[Rob2600]

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...014#post166014

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

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

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

[blissfulnoise]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That could easily be argued for every system ever released.

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

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

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

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

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

This thread is fucking epic.

[blue lander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob2600]

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

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

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

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

See what I mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Atari 2600.

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

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

My former video game collection: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...87#post1296087

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

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

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

This thread is fucking epic.

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

[blissfulnoise]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wirestone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[esquire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blissfulnoise]

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

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

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

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

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

[mezrabad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CartCollector]

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

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

Oh yeah, and check this out. Pretty close to what the Lost Gardens guy said (page I linked to on the first page) but 7 years earlier. And by Chris Crawford, no less.

[blissfulnoise]

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

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

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

[lendelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lendelin]

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/show...014#post166014



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Daria]

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

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

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

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

[lendelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lendelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wirestone]

And I'm drawn back in.

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

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

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

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

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

[Wirestone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil Koch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*plink plink*