And hell, Nintendo themselves managed to completely reinvent themselves between the GameCube and the Wii.
What? Back that up, because they haven't really changed their approach on the Wii from the GameCube much at all as far as I can see.
The Wii was designed and marketed as a "GAMES FOR EVERYBODY!" console, whereas the Gamecube was very much a "Games for people that play videogames" console.
And hell, Nintendo themselves managed to completely reinvent themselves between the GameCube and the Wii.
What? Back that up, because they haven't really changed their approach on the Wii from the GameCube much at all as far as I can see.
The Wii was designed and marketed as a "GAMES FOR EVERYBODY!" console, whereas the Gamecube was very much a "Games for people that play videogames" console.
That's not reinventing yourself, that's turning third-parties off of developing for your console in a number of ways and then spinning it as a positive.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
And hell, Nintendo themselves managed to completely reinvent themselves between the GameCube and the Wii.
What? Back that up, because they haven't really changed their approach on the Wii from the GameCube much at all as far as I can see.
They appealed to casuals and sold bazillions. The Cube wasn't really a "casual" system in terms of what we generally think of as casual games, if you get right down to it.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
Opinions, opinions, lol. But the Wii is a great system because it has a great library of great games, as Nintendo systems generally tend to have.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
People also go crazy over Just Dance and shit like that, and that's a pretty fun game. Also Warioware.
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
Wait... everyone in this thread agreed that Wii Sports was the only good game on the Wii? When did that happen?
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
You...you do realize that there were more games than what came on the pack-in disc, right?
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
I think your point is that Wii Sports is not the system, but just a game. The Wii is the system, and most people have accepted the new controls for the common flagship games, rather than been floored by them. I think Nintendo ran into the same problem as everyone else -- to exploit the Wii's motion controls, you need to make new games, and that doesn't lend itself well to Mario & friends, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and other games that have established worlds and features over the past 20 years.
It's much harder to innovate within a franchise, and I personally wished that Nintendo spent more effort on full-fledged new games that completely exploited the Wii's features, rather than focusing on shoehorning motion into their existing franchises and releasing minigame oriented peripherals.
I'm happy that Nintendo is doing so well, but if Nintendo is a Nintendo-only shop, they need more than 2 games per year.
Sorry, but Blu-Ray was a superior format to HD-DVD. The only notable technical differences between the two were data capacity and read speed, both of which are things Blu-Ray is better at. I agree with the rest of this, though.
Yes, a slight technical edge that would never mean anything significant to at least 99.999% of consumers, on a completely unfinished standard that for years would be plagued with firmware updates and discs that won't play. The industry had already decided on HD-DVD, and the war was basically over. Primarily because it was already clear that blu-ray players on the market couldn't even play blu-ray discs being released, whereas HD-DVD had no such problem. And then Sony realized the implications of this to their (at the time also very disappointing) PlayStation 3, and so they threw hundreds of millions of dollars in straight-up cash payments to make the film industry adopt the broken standard. Off-topic, sorry, but it was a damn shame.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The case for being first as an advantage: PS2, Xbox 360.
The case against: Dreamcast.
Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.
I would agree to a lot of that. The 360 is a vastly inferior machine to the PS3, but it hit when the market demand was so high that consumers literally didn't care that they were paying for a machine that could possibly explode and die within just a few months of purchase.
The console sales for the two are almost even these days, but the 360 had a large lead for a long period of time that even comparable price points, free online service, better specs, and BRD capability were barely enough to allow the PS3 to keep afloat.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
Wait... everyone in this thread agreed that Wii Sports was the only good game on the Wii? When did that happen?
I think he's saying it's really the only good game that necessitated the motion controls.
The case for being first as an advantage: PS2, Xbox 360.
The case against: Dreamcast.
Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.
I would agree to a lot of that. The 360 is a vastly inferior machine to the PS3, but it hit when the market demand was so high that consumers literally didn't care that they were paying for a machine that could possibly explode and die within just a few months of purchase.
The console sales for the two are almost even these days, but the 360 had a large lead for a long period of time that even comparable price points, free online service, better specs, and BRD capability were barely enough to allow the PS3 to keep afloat.
....man, I promise I'm not trying to point out contradictions every single time you post, especially when you're agreeing with me.
But it's probably constructive for this discussion to note that, while sales of the 360 and PS3 finally became neck and neck around 2010, the release of Kinect actually pushed the 360's monthly sales well ahead of the PS3 (and Wii for that matter). For December, the last month for which we have reasonably trustworthy leaks (the NPD doesn't release actual numbers anymore, which reduces us to trolling for leaks amidst all the crapola in GAF), the figures were 1.7 million for the 360, with 1.05 million for the Wii and 950,000 for the PS3.
What's really amazing is that 360 sales are still turbo-charged even though sales of the Kinect itself appear to have cooled off.
I also wouldn't really say the PS3 is vastly better than the 360. It may have more raw potential, but I can't say I've seen it utilized.
I might just have bad eyes or something, but PS3 exclusives like God of War 3, the Uncharted series, and the InFamous games don't strike me as having vastly superior graphics to similar exclusive 360 games. If they really are doing things that aren't possible on the 360, then I'm going to be more convinced than ever that we're topping out on how noticeable graphical improvements can be.
In any case, whatever benefits the PS3 seems to have over the 360 were more than offset in its first couple years by high prices, lack of quality exclusives (remember Lair? Of course you don't), and muddled marketing.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
You...you do realize that there were more games than what came on the pack-in disc, right?
I know that the games were overwhelmingly remakes that did not implement motion controls in anything remotely resembling a compelling fashion. The only Wii games that really demonstrated what could be done were Wii Sports, Kirby, and maybe Mario Kart (and that's stretching it.) The rest were either bullshit minigames fests or better suited to a traditional controller. It was an interesting experiment, but a failed one by any objective measure.
Yes, Nintendo made a lot of money. They sold an underpowered console at a profit and a lot of people bought that console and Mario Kart and damn near nothing else. Woo-hoo. Now Sony and Microsoft are trying to shoehorn that shit in, too, and surprise surprise, there still aren't any decent games for Move or Kinect besides dance games that require me to rearrange my fucking furniture.
Motion control is a joke. It's a fad. In six years, it's been done well maybe four times. It doesn't work. Sorry.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The case for being first as an advantage: PS2, Xbox 360.
The case against: Dreamcast.
Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.
I would agree to a lot of that. The 360 is a vastly inferior machine to the PS3, but it hit when the market demand was so high that consumers literally didn't care that they were paying for a machine that could possibly explode and die within just a few months of purchase.
The console sales for the two are almost even these days, but the 360 had a large lead for a long period of time that even comparable price points, free online service, better specs, and BRD capability were barely enough to allow the PS3 to keep afloat.
....man, I promise I'm not trying to point out contradictions every single time you post, especially when you're agreeing with me.
But it's probably constructive for this discussion to note that, while sales of the 360 and PS3 finally became neck and neck around 2010, the release of Kinect actually pushed the 360's monthly sales well ahead of the PS3 (and Wii for that matter). For December, the last month for which we have reasonably trustworthy leaks (the NPD doesn't release actual numbers anymore, which reduces us to trolling for leaks amidst all the crapola in GAF), the figures were 1.7 million for the 360, with 1.05 million for the Wii and 950,000 for the PS3.
What's really amazing is that 360 sales are still turbo-charged even though sales of the Kinect itself appear to have cooled off.
What part of my argument are you contradicting?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also wouldn't really say the PS3 is vastly better than the 360. It may have more raw potential, but I can't say I've seen it utilized.
I might just have bad eyes or something, but PS3 exclusives like God of War 3, the Uncharted series, and the InFamous games don't strike me as having vastly superior graphics to similar exclusive 360 games. If they really are doing things that aren't possible on the 360, then I'm going to be more convinced than ever that we're topping out on how noticeable graphical improvements can be.
In any case, whatever benefits the PS3 seems to have over the 360 were more than offset in its first couple years by high prices, lack of quality exclusives (remember Lair? Of course you don't), and muddled marketing.
For me personally, I find the PS3 wins on utility while still offering comparable (and a smidge better) gameplay. Like I said: free online service, BRD player, media streaming, sleek form-factor, all at around the same price.
The case for being first as an advantage: PS2, Xbox 360.
The case against: Dreamcast.
Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.
I would agree to a lot of that. The 360 is a vastly inferior machine to the PS3, but it hit when the market demand was so high that consumers literally didn't care that they were paying for a machine that could possibly explode and die within just a few months of purchase.
The console sales for the two are almost even these days, but the 360 had a large lead for a long period of time that even comparable price points, free online service, better specs, and BRD capability were barely enough to allow the PS3 to keep afloat.
....man, I promise I'm not trying to point out contradictions every single time you post, especially when you're agreeing with me.
But it's probably constructive for this discussion to note that, while sales of the 360 and PS3 finally became neck and neck around 2010, the release of Kinect actually pushed the 360's monthly sales well ahead of the PS3 (and Wii for that matter). For December, the last month for which we have reasonably trustworthy leaks (the NPD doesn't release actual numbers anymore, which reduces us to trolling for leaks amidst all the crapola in GAF), the figures were 1.7 million for the 360, with 1.05 million for the Wii and 950,000 for the PS3.
What's really amazing is that 360 sales are still turbo-charged even though sales of the Kinect itself appear to have cooled off.
What part of my argument are you contradicting?
Not really your argument, just the note that console sales for the PS3 and 360 are about even these days.
And I really do feel a little sheepish bringing it up, I'm just fascinated by the video game industry in general and follow this crap waaaaaaay too closely.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Not really your argument, just the note that console sales for the PS3 and 360 are about even these days.
And I really do feel a little sheepish bringing it up, I'm just fascinated by the video game industry in general and follow this crap waaaaaaay too closely.
Oh. Google tells me it's about 65 million 360s vs. 62 million PS3s. That seems fairly neck and neck.
I have no idea if that accounts for all the 360s that were bought after the owner's first one got the RRo'D.
I also wouldn't really say the PS3 is vastly better than the 360. It may have more raw potential, but I can't say I've seen it utilized.
I might just have bad eyes or something, but PS3 exclusives like God of War 3, the Uncharted series, and the InFamous games don't strike me as having vastly superior graphics to similar exclusive 360 games. If they really are doing things that aren't possible on the 360, then I'm going to be more convinced than ever that we're topping out on how noticeable graphical improvements can be.
In any case, whatever benefits the PS3 seems to have over the 360 were more than offset in its first couple years by high prices, lack of quality exclusives (remember Lair? Of course you don't), and muddled marketing.
For me personally, I find the PS3 wins on utility while still offering comparable (and a smidge better) gameplay. Like I said: free online service, BRD player, media streaming, sleek form-factor, all at around the same price.
It's the winner I feel, but not by a lot.
That's a highly subjective determination though and I think many would argue that PSN is worth what you pay for it and shit like that.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
You...you do realize that there were more games than what came on the pack-in disc, right?
I know that the games were overwhelmingly remakes that did not implement motion controls in anything remotely resembling a compelling fashion. The only Wii games that really demonstrated what could be done were Wii Sports, Kirby, and maybe Mario Kart (and that's stretching it.) The rest were either bullshit minigames fests or better suited to a traditional controller. It was an interesting experiment, but a failed one by any objective measure.
Yes, Nintendo made a lot of money. They sold an underpowered console at a profit and a lot of people bought that console and Mario Kart and damn near nothing else. Woo-hoo. Now Sony and Microsoft are trying to shoehorn that shit in, too, and surprise surprise, there still aren't any decent games for Move or Kinect besides dance games that require me to rearrange my fucking furniture.
Motion control is a joke. It's a fad. In six years, it's been done well maybe four times. It doesn't work. Sorry.
man u mad bro. While I do have mario kart wii, I actually don't have wii sports (late buyer of the system), and I have several third party titles (granted you could probably consider them all re-makes). I haven't found any of the games I own to be frustrating beyond the initial learning curve, and I would say that is because i'm ingrained with using a traditional console controller. Also I thought silent hill shattered memories was a good, low key, demonstration of using motion controls. You move the remote around to shine your flashlight on areas, and when running away from monsters you swing the controllers in a direction either to throw them away, move objects, or sometimes shove a monster away - things which I think are reasonably intuitive and make a case for motion controls. Also I liked the structure of the game - it evoked the old school point and click adventure games with it's own small innovations. I'm sure this game is considered crap though and i'm just a sucker who bought into a fad or whatever.
Oh, also this was a third party game built from the ground up for wii, and honestly I think it's a pretty solid game! You could say this title was an exception to the norm however.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Nintendo was laughing all the way back to the bank, apparently.
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Nintendo was laughing all the way back to the bank, apparently.
I'm sure they were. Having one of the premiere game developers in the world spend an entire console generation remaking GameCube games with shittier controls is a net negative for the consumer, though!
I mean, Nintendo makes $texas charging $20 for Super Mario Brothers 1 for every platform they've released for the last thirty years, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
For me personally, I find the PS3 wins on utility while still offering comparable (and a smidge better) gameplay. Like I said: free online service, BRD player, media streaming, sleek form-factor, all at around the same price.
It's the winner I feel, but not by a lot.
No console warz intended, more power to you (I'd probably lean PS3 myself if I didn't dislike Sony for other reasons). Just responding to the notion that the 360 topped it due to the earlier release - it was a major factor for sure (in fact, interestingly enough, MS rushed the current generation to market because the original Xbox was really hurting their bottom line) but lots of Sony's difficulties this time around were self-inflicted.
Not really your argument, just the note that console sales for the PS3 and 360 are about even these days.
And I really do feel a little sheepish bringing it up, I'm just fascinated by the video game industry in general and follow this crap waaaaaaay too closely.
Oh. Google tells me it's about 65 million 360s vs. 62 million PS3s. That seems fairly neck and neck.
I have no idea if that accounts for all the 360s that were bought after the owner's first one got the RRo'D.
Oh right, worldwide. That takes into account that the PS3 sells a little better in Europe, and that the 360 doesn't really sell at all in Japan.
I mean, Nintendo makes $texas charging $20 for Super Mario Brothers 1 for every platform they've released for the last thirty years, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
Somehow i doubt Nintendo is the only one guilty of milking franchises, and only making minor, incremental, changes to justify paying for full price..
...and of those, which make up a fucking tiny portion of Wii game, almost all of them make excellent use of the IR pointer, not motion controls, a feature so important....it's not being incorporated into the WiiU's basic control interface at all (the wii pad does have morn control of some kind right, or am I making that up?).
Zack and Wiki had pretty great motion controls (not even pointer focused), and I had lots of fun with the different versions of Tiger Woods (both before and after the Motion Plus). And of course, Wii Sports and Sports Resort were good times.
But really, list wars aren't necessary. If you didn't find something unique to like on the Wii, either you will likely never enjoy any sort of motion gaming (fair enough), or you weren't paying enough attention to what was available.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't think many shooters can be thrown into a debate in good faith as "innovative use of the hardware" since gun peripherals have literally been available since day one.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I think your point is that Wii Sports is not the system, but just a game. The Wii is the system, and most people have accepted the new controls for the common flagship games, rather than been floored by them. I think Nintendo ran into the same problem as everyone else -- to exploit the Wii's motion controls, you need to make new games, and that doesn't lend itself well to Mario & friends, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and other games that have established worlds and features over the past 20 years.
It's much harder to innovate within a franchise, and I personally wished that Nintendo spent more effort on full-fledged new games that completely exploited the Wii's features, rather than focusing on shoehorning motion into their existing franchises and releasing minigame oriented peripherals.
EggyToast wins the thread again, and also makes an excellent case against the Wii's bold emphasis of motion control. Nintendo's new direction was nothing less than an attempt to re-write several decades of accumulated test-and-true methods of game mechanics. In itself, not a bad thing, but it would've been more effective had Nintendo found a way to include the standardized input conventions. The Nunchuck is really the culprit here.
I can see part of Nintendo's rationale for the Nunchuck design was a plug-in addition that wouldn't require batteries of its own. Four batteries in a completed controller would've broken the conversation or been just a bit too much to swallow. But what do we get for that discretionary choice?
Two buttons, and analog thumbstick and an accelerometer. Now, let's be real here. That thumbstick probably could've been on the wiimote itself to begin with. The 1 2 buttons could've been replaced with the traditional joypad. The two buttons, which I always thought of as 'circle' and 'oval' because they were only ever mapped to do things by themselves, not that important. They were only ever important because they were there. Those two buttons ended up being developer's lifejackets and little else.
What do we have then, hmm? The vaunted accelerometer? In the Nunchuck? Did that ever do dick? Not enough to count in my book. Now I'll grant you the Nunchuck looked pretty cool unless you were actually using it. The Z(?) button was almost a memory of the Gamecube's excellent L and R shoulder pads. The C(?) button was...there. Why is there a C button on a Nintendo controller anyway? I'll tell you why: Because if they made it an X, they'd have needed to also have a Y. So they called it a C to avoid the discussion. Same reason it's a Z button, and not an L button. Granted, there's a little discussion to be had for the ambidextrous design of the Wiimote so anyone can use their dominant hand with it...but whatever.
Had Nintendo just done the honorable thing and made the Nunchuck a larger device that could accomodate a spread of 4 buttons for your free thumb, plus a second analog thumbstick, who knows what games might've made it to the Wii after all. And who knows what sort of waggle effects may have never occurred in the games that did. Nintendo sure as hell made 'wave the wiimote' and 'wave the nunchuck' as desperation button presses anyway.
Linespider5 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Nintendo's new direction was nothing less than an attempt to re-write several decades of accumulated test-and-true methods of game mechanics. In itself, not a bad thing, but it would've been more effective had Nintendo found a way to include the standardized input conventions.
I took issue in a small way with the way the whole existence of the console was justified by the notion that somehow 25 years of gaming had completely evolved input controls in an way that was neither apparent or intuitive.
That's like a company as popular and ubiquitous as McDonalds telling their customers they can only eat their food with a wooden ice cream spoon because hey look how awesome it works for ice cream
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.
"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."
This is not a positive.
For you maybe.
No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.
Nintendo was laughing all the way back to the bank, apparently.
I'm sure they were. Having one of the premiere game developers in the world spend an entire console generation remaking GameCube games with shittier controls is a net negative for the consumer, though!
How the fuck were they remaking GameCube games? What the fuck? Did you even play any Wii-games? Do you even own a Wii?
Are you sure that you're not talking about the transition from the N64 to the GameCube?
Except controllers are unintuitive. If you're picking up a controller for the first time in your life and the game says "press the A button to continue" then you'll be looking down at the controller to try and figure out which one it is.
The reason why the NES reached more people culturally than the SNES and subsequent generations did is simplicity. Two (action) buttons--each one does one thing and only that thing--and a Dpad: easy to wrap your head around. Compare that to 6 action buttons with each doing different things based on context, 2 analog triggers, 2 analog sticks both with an unmarked clicky button, and a Dpad that is sometimes used as extra action buttons and the learning curve is blatantly exponential.
Opty on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Except controllers are unintuitive. If you're picking up a controller for the first time in your life and the game says "press the A button to continue" then you'll be looking down at the controller to try and figure out which one it is.
The reason why the NES reached more people culturally than the SNES and subsequent generations did is simplicity. Two (action) buttons--each one does one thing and only that thing--and a Dpad: easy to wrap your head around. Compare that to 6 action buttons with each doing different things based on context, 2 analog triggers, 2 analog sticks both with an unmarked clicky button, and a Dpad that is sometimes used as extra action buttons and the learning curve is blatantly exponential.
I'd argue that a bit, but only a bit. The Playstation controller design has been around for a good fifteen years now. There certainly was a time where a company would feel bold and do something weird with the controller they entire gaming future was tied into (Jaguar, Amiga CD32, 3D0, many others), but between the SNES and the PSX we've gotten it down pat. This is how controllers are gonna be, with the exception of Kinect-like non-control options and touchscreen finagling. And really, five minutes of committing the face button layout into your muscle memory is not such a bad investment compared to the potential years of play after that minor stumbling block.
The Super Nintendo controller is unequivocally the father of modern gaming. Every successful controller since then has basically had a SNES sitting inside of the shell plus some thumbsticks after 2001.
I'd argue that a bit, but only a bit. The Playstation controller design has been around for a good fifteen years now.
That something has been used for very long time doesn't make intuitive or ergonomic at all. By that definition QWERTY should be really intuitive, except that in reality it one of the worst possible keyboard layouts that you can have.
I don't think many shooters can be thrown into a debate in good faith as "innovative use of the hardware" since gun peripherals have literally been available since day one.
Can I play Halo with a lightgun on the Xbox? Not as far as I know. The inclusion of the Wiimote as a base feature completely advances the baseline quality of any first person game.
EDIT:
And even as a standard controller, Wiimote + nunchuck is far more ergonomic than any controller before it.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'd argue that a bit, but only a bit. The Playstation controller design has been around for a good fifteen years now.
That something has been used for very long time doesn't make intuitive or ergonomic at all. By that definition QWERTY should be really intuitive, except that in reality it one of the worst possible keyboard layouts that you can have.
I always wanted to try a Dvorak keyboard, but I realized I've been typing for two-thirds of my life now with the traditional layout, so odds are slim to none I'd be able to adapt to it proper.
In comparison, the Playstation controller is, well. Let's take a look.
It's not bad. It's symmetrical, for one thing, nearly to a fault. Your thumbs just naturally gravitate onto the thumbsticks. The joypad helps communicate itself with the cardinal directions beyond the dominant edge of each of the four input keys. I'd disagree on the Playstation pictogram ethos, if only because having red and magenta on the pad is bad, and also being the two most similar buttons (circle and square, both with large negative space and a colour perimeter) should be nearly unforgivable. Yet at the same time I do understand Sony wanted to avoid a 'rainbow' or chromatic array of buttons, simply because such a thing is dangerously arbitrary. And yet I almost would believe that the colour choices for the buttons might be specifically chosen to be most easily visible onscreen when one thing or another compels you to press a button to open a door or pick up an object or whatever.
There are certainly a number of games that are better suited to introducing someone with zero gaming experience to a system. I wouldn't expect every game to be this approachable.
Honestly I'd rather prefer a mandated rating system for complexity rather than 'content' but that's probably madness to ever try to enforce.
Posts
The Wii was designed and marketed as a "GAMES FOR EVERYBODY!" console, whereas the Gamecube was very much a "Games for people that play videogames" console.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
That's not reinventing yourself, that's turning third-parties off of developing for your console in a number of ways and then spinning it as a positive.
Wait... it's not a positive for anybody? I actually liked Wii Sports... so I'm not actually a person? Am I really a morlock?
They appealed to casuals and sold bazillions. The Cube wasn't really a "casual" system in terms of what we generally think of as casual games, if you get right down to it.
No, but it is pretty fucking laughable that people keep trying to claim the Wii is totally innovative guys because they made, like, three good games for it that utilized the motion controls well.
Wii Sports is a good game, for what it is. That does not mean the Wii is a good system. If Wii Sports is all that the Wii has really done (and it really, really is) then that isn't something to be crowing about.
Opinions, opinions, lol. But the Wii is a great system because it has a great library of great games, as Nintendo systems generally tend to have.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
People also go crazy over Just Dance and shit like that, and that's a pretty fun game. Also Warioware.
Wait... everyone in this thread agreed that Wii Sports was the only good game on the Wii? When did that happen?
You...you do realize that there were more games than what came on the pack-in disc, right?
I think your point is that Wii Sports is not the system, but just a game. The Wii is the system, and most people have accepted the new controls for the common flagship games, rather than been floored by them. I think Nintendo ran into the same problem as everyone else -- to exploit the Wii's motion controls, you need to make new games, and that doesn't lend itself well to Mario & friends, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and other games that have established worlds and features over the past 20 years.
It's much harder to innovate within a franchise, and I personally wished that Nintendo spent more effort on full-fledged new games that completely exploited the Wii's features, rather than focusing on shoehorning motion into their existing franchises and releasing minigame oriented peripherals.
I'm happy that Nintendo is doing so well, but if Nintendo is a Nintendo-only shop, they need more than 2 games per year.
Yes, a slight technical edge that would never mean anything significant to at least 99.999% of consumers, on a completely unfinished standard that for years would be plagued with firmware updates and discs that won't play. The industry had already decided on HD-DVD, and the war was basically over. Primarily because it was already clear that blu-ray players on the market couldn't even play blu-ray discs being released, whereas HD-DVD had no such problem. And then Sony realized the implications of this to their (at the time also very disappointing) PlayStation 3, and so they threw hundreds of millions of dollars in straight-up cash payments to make the film industry adopt the broken standard. Off-topic, sorry, but it was a damn shame.
I would agree to a lot of that. The 360 is a vastly inferior machine to the PS3, but it hit when the market demand was so high that consumers literally didn't care that they were paying for a machine that could possibly explode and die within just a few months of purchase.
The console sales for the two are almost even these days, but the 360 had a large lead for a long period of time that even comparable price points, free online service, better specs, and BRD capability were barely enough to allow the PS3 to keep afloat.
I think he's saying it's really the only good game that necessitated the motion controls.
....man, I promise I'm not trying to point out contradictions every single time you post, especially when you're agreeing with me.
But it's probably constructive for this discussion to note that, while sales of the 360 and PS3 finally became neck and neck around 2010, the release of Kinect actually pushed the 360's monthly sales well ahead of the PS3 (and Wii for that matter). For December, the last month for which we have reasonably trustworthy leaks (the NPD doesn't release actual numbers anymore, which reduces us to trolling for leaks amidst all the crapola in GAF), the figures were 1.7 million for the 360, with 1.05 million for the Wii and 950,000 for the PS3.
What's really amazing is that 360 sales are still turbo-charged even though sales of the Kinect itself appear to have cooled off.
I might just have bad eyes or something, but PS3 exclusives like God of War 3, the Uncharted series, and the InFamous games don't strike me as having vastly superior graphics to similar exclusive 360 games. If they really are doing things that aren't possible on the 360, then I'm going to be more convinced than ever that we're topping out on how noticeable graphical improvements can be.
In any case, whatever benefits the PS3 seems to have over the 360 were more than offset in its first couple years by high prices, lack of quality exclusives (remember Lair? Of course you don't), and muddled marketing.
I know that the games were overwhelmingly remakes that did not implement motion controls in anything remotely resembling a compelling fashion. The only Wii games that really demonstrated what could be done were Wii Sports, Kirby, and maybe Mario Kart (and that's stretching it.) The rest were either bullshit minigames fests or better suited to a traditional controller. It was an interesting experiment, but a failed one by any objective measure.
Yes, Nintendo made a lot of money. They sold an underpowered console at a profit and a lot of people bought that console and Mario Kart and damn near nothing else. Woo-hoo. Now Sony and Microsoft are trying to shoehorn that shit in, too, and surprise surprise, there still aren't any decent games for Move or Kinect besides dance games that require me to rearrange my fucking furniture.
Motion control is a joke. It's a fad. In six years, it's been done well maybe four times. It doesn't work. Sorry.
What part of my argument are you contradicting?
For me personally, I find the PS3 wins on utility while still offering comparable (and a smidge better) gameplay. Like I said: free online service, BRD player, media streaming, sleek form-factor, all at around the same price.
It's the winner I feel, but not by a lot.
Not really your argument, just the note that console sales for the PS3 and 360 are about even these days.
And I really do feel a little sheepish bringing it up, I'm just fascinated by the video game industry in general and follow this crap waaaaaaay too closely.
Oh. Google tells me it's about 65 million 360s vs. 62 million PS3s. That seems fairly neck and neck.
I have no idea if that accounts for all the 360s that were bought after the owner's first one got the RRo'D.
That's a highly subjective determination though and I think many would argue that PSN is worth what you pay for it and shit like that.
man u mad bro. While I do have mario kart wii, I actually don't have wii sports (late buyer of the system), and I have several third party titles (granted you could probably consider them all re-makes). I haven't found any of the games I own to be frustrating beyond the initial learning curve, and I would say that is because i'm ingrained with using a traditional console controller. Also I thought silent hill shattered memories was a good, low key, demonstration of using motion controls. You move the remote around to shine your flashlight on areas, and when running away from monsters you swing the controllers in a direction either to throw them away, move objects, or sometimes shove a monster away - things which I think are reasonably intuitive and make a case for motion controls. Also I liked the structure of the game - it evoked the old school point and click adventure games with it's own small innovations. I'm sure this game is considered crap though and i'm just a sucker who bought into a fad or whatever.
Oh, also this was a third party game built from the ground up for wii, and honestly I think it's a pretty solid game! You could say this title was an exception to the norm however.
Nintendo was laughing all the way back to the bank, apparently.
I'm sure they were. Having one of the premiere game developers in the world spend an entire console generation remaking GameCube games with shittier controls is a net negative for the consumer, though!
No console warz intended, more power to you (I'd probably lean PS3 myself if I didn't dislike Sony for other reasons). Just responding to the notion that the 360 topped it due to the earlier release - it was a major factor for sure (in fact, interestingly enough, MS rushed the current generation to market because the original Xbox was really hurting their bottom line) but lots of Sony's difficulties this time around were self-inflicted.
Oh right, worldwide. That takes into account that the PS3 sells a little better in Europe, and that the 360 doesn't really sell at all in Japan.
Wii Sports
Wii Sports Resort
Metroid Prime 3
Zelda Twilight Princess
DBZ Boudukai Tenakichi 3
Link's Crossbow Training
Medal of Honor whatever
Somehow i doubt Nintendo is the only one guilty of milking franchises, and only making minor, incremental, changes to justify paying for full price..
But really, list wars aren't necessary. If you didn't find something unique to like on the Wii, either you will likely never enjoy any sort of motion gaming (fair enough), or you weren't paying enough attention to what was available.
EggyToast wins the thread again, and also makes an excellent case against the Wii's bold emphasis of motion control. Nintendo's new direction was nothing less than an attempt to re-write several decades of accumulated test-and-true methods of game mechanics. In itself, not a bad thing, but it would've been more effective had Nintendo found a way to include the standardized input conventions. The Nunchuck is really the culprit here.
I can see part of Nintendo's rationale for the Nunchuck design was a plug-in addition that wouldn't require batteries of its own. Four batteries in a completed controller would've broken the conversation or been just a bit too much to swallow. But what do we get for that discretionary choice?
Two buttons, and analog thumbstick and an accelerometer. Now, let's be real here. That thumbstick probably could've been on the wiimote itself to begin with. The 1 2 buttons could've been replaced with the traditional joypad. The two buttons, which I always thought of as 'circle' and 'oval' because they were only ever mapped to do things by themselves, not that important. They were only ever important because they were there. Those two buttons ended up being developer's lifejackets and little else.
What do we have then, hmm? The vaunted accelerometer? In the Nunchuck? Did that ever do dick? Not enough to count in my book. Now I'll grant you the Nunchuck looked pretty cool unless you were actually using it. The Z(?) button was almost a memory of the Gamecube's excellent L and R shoulder pads. The C(?) button was...there. Why is there a C button on a Nintendo controller anyway? I'll tell you why: Because if they made it an X, they'd have needed to also have a Y. So they called it a C to avoid the discussion. Same reason it's a Z button, and not an L button. Granted, there's a little discussion to be had for the ambidextrous design of the Wiimote so anyone can use their dominant hand with it...but whatever.
Had Nintendo just done the honorable thing and made the Nunchuck a larger device that could accomodate a spread of 4 buttons for your free thumb, plus a second analog thumbstick, who knows what games might've made it to the Wii after all. And who knows what sort of waggle effects may have never occurred in the games that did. Nintendo sure as hell made 'wave the wiimote' and 'wave the nunchuck' as desperation button presses anyway.
I took issue in a small way with the way the whole existence of the console was justified by the notion that somehow 25 years of gaming had completely evolved input controls in an way that was neither apparent or intuitive.
That's like a company as popular and ubiquitous as McDonalds telling their customers they can only eat their food with a wooden ice cream spoon because hey look how awesome it works for ice cream
How the fuck were they remaking GameCube games? What the fuck? Did you even play any Wii-games? Do you even own a Wii?
Are you sure that you're not talking about the transition from the N64 to the GameCube?
Warioware! seriously, those games are awesome. (though you have to not imagine a penis)
Just Dance (I don't care you guys, I am entertained.)
The reason why the NES reached more people culturally than the SNES and subsequent generations did is simplicity. Two (action) buttons--each one does one thing and only that thing--and a Dpad: easy to wrap your head around. Compare that to 6 action buttons with each doing different things based on context, 2 analog triggers, 2 analog sticks both with an unmarked clicky button, and a Dpad that is sometimes used as extra action buttons and the learning curve is blatantly exponential.
I'd argue that a bit, but only a bit. The Playstation controller design has been around for a good fifteen years now. There certainly was a time where a company would feel bold and do something weird with the controller they entire gaming future was tied into (Jaguar, Amiga CD32, 3D0, many others), but between the SNES and the PSX we've gotten it down pat. This is how controllers are gonna be, with the exception of Kinect-like non-control options and touchscreen finagling. And really, five minutes of committing the face button layout into your muscle memory is not such a bad investment compared to the potential years of play after that minor stumbling block.
The Super Nintendo controller is unequivocally the father of modern gaming. Every successful controller since then has basically had a SNES sitting inside of the shell plus some thumbsticks after 2001.
That something has been used for very long time doesn't make intuitive or ergonomic at all. By that definition QWERTY should be really intuitive, except that in reality it one of the worst possible keyboard layouts that you can have.
Can I play Halo with a lightgun on the Xbox? Not as far as I know. The inclusion of the Wiimote as a base feature completely advances the baseline quality of any first person game.
EDIT:
And even as a standard controller, Wiimote + nunchuck is far more ergonomic than any controller before it.
An arguable point, even if I'm being generous, and even then only within the same generation, which the Wii wasn't choosing to compete within.
I think we can probably all agree that the Wii muddied the waters of console speculation in brand-new, fascinating ways.
I always wanted to try a Dvorak keyboard, but I realized I've been typing for two-thirds of my life now with the traditional layout, so odds are slim to none I'd be able to adapt to it proper.
In comparison, the Playstation controller is, well. Let's take a look.
It's not bad. It's symmetrical, for one thing, nearly to a fault. Your thumbs just naturally gravitate onto the thumbsticks. The joypad helps communicate itself with the cardinal directions beyond the dominant edge of each of the four input keys. I'd disagree on the Playstation pictogram ethos, if only because having red and magenta on the pad is bad, and also being the two most similar buttons (circle and square, both with large negative space and a colour perimeter) should be nearly unforgivable. Yet at the same time I do understand Sony wanted to avoid a 'rainbow' or chromatic array of buttons, simply because such a thing is dangerously arbitrary. And yet I almost would believe that the colour choices for the buttons might be specifically chosen to be most easily visible onscreen when one thing or another compels you to press a button to open a door or pick up an object or whatever.
There are certainly a number of games that are better suited to introducing someone with zero gaming experience to a system. I wouldn't expect every game to be this approachable.
Honestly I'd rather prefer a mandated rating system for complexity rather than 'content' but that's probably madness to ever try to enforce.