but then you get someone new playing and it takes them an hour to choose their first character and they want to switch every 2 minutes and jesus christ just pick sheik and mash buttons you whore
King Dedede would be pretty awesome, but he would just be another big slow character that no one really uses. Also, I was so psyched when I heard Gannondorf would be there in Melee, but then totally disappointed when he was just Captain Falon in disguise.
Defender stays, because I like my Wii threads covered in shit
Because I'm pretty bored with that white thing now.
This is the effect I've been predicting for a while. It gets boring because at first it was so awesome to have a new control scheme, but then people get over the novelty, and the games that use gesture controls start to get stupid. Why? Because gesture controls are the same as button controls, only they take more effort and are slower and less reliable. They're inferior, and you will pick up on this, at least subconsciously, pretty fast. Nintendo's been talking about how gameplay's more important than graphics for a long time. And that's great and all...but look at their gameplay recently. It's so watered-down that there's no challenge, and thus no depth, left. So now the graphics are subpar and the gameplay is running dry. All that's left is the gimmick, and once that wears off, well, it's just boring.
no system, at this point in its life, had a gaming library significantly better than the Wii.
Yeah I know that systems tend to have butt for games in the first six to twelve months. However, I also know that the last two consoles that they put out never got big libraries, and they've had a rocky relationship with third-party developers in general for about the last ten years.
This is true, but I don't think it impacts their current situation too drastically. They have a different philosophy this time around and the only way to see if it'll be any different is with time. Developers (or more specifically, publishers) support systems with strong hardware and software sales. Right now, Wii has both, far more than the Gamecube and N64 did, and it grows every month.
You're also only looking at the evidence that supports what you think. there are plenty of original games for the Wii, already. Most of them are not very good, but that is irrelevant - as I mentioned, other systems also suffered from only having a handful of games worth buying at this point, and the market leader is always the shovelware king.
Additionally, game development takes time. Most titles take anywhere from a year to two years, or more for major titles. It took Jaffe and his crew over a year to make a small downloadable title for the Playstation Network. At this point, most developers have only been working on their Wii games for, at most, if they hopped on right at the start, a year and a half. This is why these periods are slow.
I can understand someone who bought the Wii being disappointed with it, because I am right now, but I've also been disappointed with every other system I've been an early adopter of.
You're basing everything on "what games are out right now," which is funny because I'm not. I know I mentioned it one time, but the crux of my position is this: The hardware's weak in MANY ways. The gameplay's watered-down (referring to first-party here). The control scheme is being treated as a gimmick. There's no online strategy. There is nothing going for the Wii except that it can move a lot of units by being cheap.
I am basing everything on "what games are out right now" because you're using bad Wii reviews to justify your arguments. Of course the reviews are bad, because the games are shit, because the games are always shit at this time. The bad reviews have nothing to do with the system itself. What gameplay is watered down? Wii Sports? Because that was a pack-in game to demonstrate the controller. Wii Play? $10 piece of shit bundled with controllers. Zelda, Wario Ware, Super Paper Mario? Christ, no, definitely not.
You are here. You want to be here, possibly here, or preferably in the forums here.
woah hey go fuck yourself he can debate in here if he wants
Didn't say he couldn't, it just won't have the impact he's looking for.
Really? And since you know my heart and my mind and my motives, why don't you let me in on the secret? What impact am I looking for it to have?
Intellectual satisfaction knowing that your opponents are as passionate about defending their opinions as you are?
Without agreeing or disagreeing, why would you link GameFAQs if I'm looking for "intellectual satisfaction"? You know I'm smart enough to tie my own shoes, right?
I like that list of characters there Meissnerd. I'm really hoping to see Bomberman and maybe something crazy like Viewtiful Joe myself. (That last one is unlikely, but Bomberman is from Hudson so its possible)
Also Defender, I would argue back at you but I think we both already made are points and you have a lot of other stuff to respond to anyway from the looks of it. I just think that the control itself takes away from it being art really.
The vast majority of Wii games are ports. Either VC stuff or ports from more current systems. So it's not doing anything new there, just consolidating.
Welcome to the first year of every new console launch ever. There are always a bunch of early ports.
You're really going to tell me that the first year of say, the 360, wasn't filled with ports?
The vast majority of Wii games are ports. Either VC stuff or ports from more current systems. So it's not doing anything new there, just consolidating.
The hardware's weak as shit. Sometimes, new things require better hardware. For example, being able to do realtime 3D graphics is a big deal, and many games rely on that. Also, faster processing speeds enable games like Warcraft and Starcraft to have big battles going on. Under older systems, that may not have worked.
Last I checked the Wii can do realtime 3D graphics Defender. And using Warcraft and Starcraft as examples? How old are those games? Really, come on, that's weak.
The gesture-based controls seem to be awkward and tacked-on in most games, according to reviews. I don't have stats here, but look around at non-fanboy sites and you'll see it. Also, a lot of what I'm seeing are minigame collections like WarioWare and Cooking Mama. Cool use of the controller? Yeah. But...that's all there is to it. It's just a minigame collection. Only so many times you can play "roll the Wiimote sideways" before it's like "hey, I've done this already." Having an actual plot might help.
The DS had a lot of tacked on touch controls early in the consoles lifespan as developers worked with the system. Guess what, they got over it, and now they're used appropriately.
Also, how come we haven't all gotten bored of moving a stick around and pressing buttons? We've done that already. Oh that's right. Because the controls have different context in different games.
You say how it hasn't "already" changed the face of gaming? Well it better hurry the fuck up, because with each passing month, developers are learning how to do bigger and better things with the other two consoles, and they're finding more and more roadblocks and weaknesses with the Wii. In three years, 360 and PS3 games are going to be way bigger and better-looking than they are now, whereas the Wii really doesn't have much room left for improvement.
This is the most retarded argument ever.
The Xbox didn't crush the PS2 instantly dispite superior hardware.
The Game Gear, Lynx, Wonderswan, and PSP all failed to beat Gameboys and DS's even though they had superior hardware.
Why? Because they didn't become the market leader Defender.
Technology dosn't drive what games are made and what system is supported. Sales does. And the Wii is selling like hotcakes and is showing no sign of slowing down.
Sure, the PS3 and 360 can do some things the Wii can't. So what? It won't matter if the Wii is market leader. And all signs of that happening point to yes. Also, the Wii can do things the other two systems can't either. It's just that the full potental of the system has yet to be realized, same as with the other two. But in different ways.
And waving your arms is gonna seem retarded. Also, all those "non-gamers" it was going to attract? 90% gamer girlfriends, I'm sure of it. The four of you whose mom and dad have played? They'll likely tire of it. They're non-gamers. They'll play casually, once or twice, but they're not gonna get INTO it.
Sales don't lie Defender. The Wii is popular and people are buying software. You really think anyone would spend $250 on a system and then, just months later, stop caring about it? "Non-gamers" as you call them, will have their interests catered too. Just as your interests are catered to.
You don't have to buy a Wii. But to call it a fad an gimmick is stupid. Just acknowledge that you're in a niche that Nintendo isn't targeting.
Though, I suspect you'll end up getting a Wii anyways because so many games for it will be made that it'll be impossible to ignore, the exact same reason people are still buying PS2s.
You are here. You want to be here, possibly here, or preferably in the forums here.
woah hey go fuck yourself he can debate in here if he wants
Didn't say he couldn't, it just won't have the impact he's looking for.
Really? And since you know my heart and my mind and my motives, why don't you let me in on the secret? What impact am I looking for it to have?
Intellectual satisfaction knowing that your opponents are as passionate about defending their opinions as you are?
Without agreeing or disagreeing, why would you link GameFAQs if I'm looking for "intellectual satisfaction"? You know I'm smart enough to tie my own shoes, right?
Cause you're allowed to be an ass in SE++ and get away with it most of the time?
In Toukoken, the portion on the Japanese site chronicling character and music suggestion updates, Sakurai has stated that some of the characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee may not return. He also states that he may not want to put much emphasis on Japan-only characters, but is not opposed to them entirely, noting the success that the Fire Emblem characters enjoyed internationally thanks to their inclusion in Melee. He also said that third party characters will amount to one or two, excluding Snake. Also, each of the guest characters (including Snake) will be unlockable.
Basicly Defender you seem to think that all the video game companies will ignore the huge Wii sales.
Hardware Sales becomes Software Sales becomes Hardware Sales... and it goes on and on in a self-sustaining cycle. The fact that the Wii is selling well now means that more games will be made for it. And because there will be more games then there will be more reasons for people to buy a Wii... and you get the picture I hope.
I can understand someone who bought the Wii being disappointed with it, because I am right now, but I've also been disappointed with every other system I've been an early adopter of.
You're basing everything on "what games are out right now," which is funny because I'm not. I know I mentioned it one time, but the crux of my position is this: The hardware's weak in MANY ways. The gameplay's watered-down (referring to first-party here). The control scheme is being treated as a gimmick. There's no online strategy. There is nothing going for the Wii except that it can move a lot of units by being cheap.[/QUOTE]I am basing everything on "what games are out right now" because you're using bad Wii reviews to justify your arguments. Of course the reviews are bad, because the games are shit, because the games are always shit at this time. The bad reviews have nothing to do with the system itself. What gameplay is watered down? Wii Sports? Because that was a pack-in game to demonstrate the controller. Wii Play? $10 piece of shit bundled with controllers. Zelda, Wario Ware, Super Paper Mario? Christ, no, definitely not.[/QUOTE]
Wii Sports is something that I think of as a tech demo/tutorial. It's a fun little way to get you used to moving the controller around.
Watered down gameplay? Zelda? Very yes. If a game is so easy that you can ignore all the skills it tries to teach you, then it has no gameplay depth. I've been over this so many times that I feel like I've proven it mathematically or something, but here's the basic concept:
Gameplay depth comes from two elements. You have a variety of choices to make (actions), and those choices have advantages and disadvantages (balance). RTS games, for example, have choices like "tech vs rush," or "build many cheap units vs build a few expensive units" or "build a bigger/better army or spend that money on expanding your income." In smaller-scale games, like beat-em-ups (think God Of War), you make choices like "what spell should I use" or "should I hit with the big attack for damage, or the small one so I can stop and parry more quickly."
If the game is made well, those choices are difficult to make and they have a big impact on how well you do. If a game is ass-easy, then, the depth starts to vanish; what choices you make are less important because you're not going to lose if you make the wrong one.
Basicly Defender you seem to think that all the video game companies will ignore the huge Wii sales.
Hardware Sales becomes Software Sales becomes Hardware Sales... and it goes on and on in a self-sustaining cycle. The fact that the Wii is selling well now means that more games will be made for it. And because there will be more games then there will be more reasons for people to buy a Wii... and you get the picture I hope.
No, I'm not sure that I agree here. I understand that there are a lot of Wiis out there, and I know what that means. However, it's not leading the market, and the other two have great games coming that will sell systems. I know I'll have a hard time not buying a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, and that says a lot; I don't generally run out and dump hundreds of dollars into entertainment.
Developers are likely to start ignoring the Wii because it's just an inferior system. Being "already out there" matters, but it isn't overridingly important, otherwise everyone would just keep making PS2 games and nobody would bother making new consoles because the PS2 is already out there.
they should just ask me to submit a list of games for them to make and make them
I'm all for that just as long as that list includes the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Battletoads, Earthworm Jim, and more Street Fighter. More fighting games in general.
I like that list of characters there Meissnerd. I'm really hoping to see Bomberman and maybe something crazy like Viewtiful Joe myself. (That last one is unlikely, but Bomberman is from Hudson so its possible)
Also Defender, I would argue back at you but I think we both already made are points and you have a lot of other stuff to respond to anyway from the looks of it. I just think that the control itself takes away from it being art really.
That's not part of the definition. Why do you feel that it's good to make up that the audience has to have zero control over the medium for it to be art? You made that up; it's not in any dictionary anywhere.
Further, what about sculpture? If I look at a sculpture under different lighting and from different angles, I can seriously alter how that sculpture appears and how it affects me emotionally. The artist doesn't control that. Does that make it not art?
Defender I haven't read all of the words you've typed, but its almost like you don't realize how many people like Potatoe and me there actually are out there. We are those fanboys who don't give a shit what they do with the rest of the system, as long as we get the next installment of our favorite first party titles. If I want stupid awesome graphics, or awesome online play, I will play 360, or PC. We won't contest that its capabilities are crappy, but as long as mario doesn't look like he did in Mario 64 or Mario RPG, we don't care, and we will always buy their systems.
So basicly what you're saying is that developers will suddenly deside they don't want to make lots of money.
Got that.
Stop doing that. :P
Anyway, with that last comment about difficulty I think it's pretty clear Defender and I just completely and totally disagree in a fundamental way, so I'm gonna go to bed. Defender, you really need to stop using such ridiculous sources of evidence, though, because your arguments are legitimate on their own without grasping at bullshit straws, like with the "bad Wii reviews" and "people are already growing tired of it" crap. If that's apparent, it will be down the line .. not four months after launch. Not right now, where it just isn't true. Nighto.
The vast majority of Wii games are ports. Either VC stuff or ports from more current systems. So it's not doing anything new there, just consolidating.
Welcome to the first year of every new console launch ever. There are always a bunch of early ports.
You're really going to tell me that the first year of say, the 360, wasn't filled with ports?
The vast majority of Wii games are ports. Either VC stuff or ports from more current systems. So it's not doing anything new there, just consolidating.
The hardware's weak as shit. Sometimes, new things require better hardware. For example, being able to do realtime 3D graphics is a big deal, and many games rely on that. Also, faster processing speeds enable games like Warcraft and Starcraft to have big battles going on. Under older systems, that may not have worked.
Last I checked the Wii can do realtime 3D graphics Defender. And using Warcraft and Starcraft as examples? How old are those games? Really, come on, that's weak.
It's an EXAMPLE of a technology that was, at some point, new. The point is that technology often opens doors for new gameplay that couldn't happen otherwise. I was not saying that the Wii can't run Starcraft because of technical limitations.
The gesture-based controls seem to be awkward and tacked-on in most games, according to reviews. I don't have stats here, but look around at non-fanboy sites and you'll see it. Also, a lot of what I'm seeing are minigame collections like WarioWare and Cooking Mama. Cool use of the controller? Yeah. But...that's all there is to it. It's just a minigame collection. Only so many times you can play "roll the Wiimote sideways" before it's like "hey, I've done this already." Having an actual plot might help.
The DS had a lot of tacked on touch controls early in the consoles lifespan as developers worked with the system. Guess what, they got over it, and now they're used appropriately.
Also, how come we haven't all gotten bored of moving a stick around and pressing buttons? We've done that already. Oh that's right. Because the controls have different context in different games.
So far, though, the controls are basically all just button-surrogates. That's really what a gesture-based system asks for.
You say how it hasn't "already" changed the face of gaming? Well it better hurry the fuck up, because with each passing month, developers are learning how to do bigger and better things with the other two consoles, and they're finding more and more roadblocks and weaknesses with the Wii. In three years, 360 and PS3 games are going to be way bigger and better-looking than they are now, whereas the Wii really doesn't have much room left for improvement.
This is the most retarded argument ever.
The Xbox didn't crush the PS2 instantly dispite superior hardware.
The Game Gear, Lynx, Wonderswan, and PSP all failed to beat Gameboys and DS's even though they had superior hardware.
Why? Because they didn't become the market leader Defender.
Technology dosn't drive what games are made and what system is supported. Sales does. And the Wii is selling like hotcakes and is showing no sign of slowing down.
Sure, the PS3 and 360 can do some things the Wii can't. So what? It won't matter if the Wii is market leader. And all signs of that happening point to yes. Also, the Wii can do things the other two systems can't either. It's just that the full potental of the system has yet to be realized, same as with the other two. But in different ways.
And waving your arms is gonna seem retarded. Also, all those "non-gamers" it was going to attract? 90% gamer girlfriends, I'm sure of it. The four of you whose mom and dad have played? They'll likely tire of it. They're non-gamers. They'll play casually, once or twice, but they're not gonna get INTO it.
Sales don't lie Defender. The Wii is popular and people are buying software. You really think anyone would spend $250 on a system and then, just months later, stop caring about it? "Non-gamers" as you call them, will have their interests catered too. Just as your interests are catered to.
You don't have to buy a Wii. But to call it a fad an gimmick is stupid. Just acknowledge that you're in a niche that Nintendo isn't targeting.
Though, I suspect you'll end up getting a Wii anyways because so many games for it will be made that it'll be impossible to ignore, the exact same reason people are still buying PS2s.
Nah, I probably won't get a Wii. I'm disappointed in Miyamoto's recent work, and it looks like the PS3 is going to be seriously awesome. I suspect that it'll win this round just like it won the last two.
And yes, I think people bought it as an impulse or a gimmick or a party toy, and they'll move on from it.
Defender I haven't read all of the words you've typed, but its almost like you don't realize how many people like Potatoe and me there actually are out there. We are those fanboys who don't give a shit what they do with the rest of the system, as long as we get the next installment of our favorite first party titles. If I want stupid awesome graphics, or awesome online play, I will play 360, or PC. We won't contest that its capabilities are crappy, but as long as mario doesn't look like he did in Mario 64 or Mario RPG, we don't care, and we will always buy their systems.
OK. No.
Nintendo aimed for its hardcore audience for the past two generations.
It got them nowhere.
You may be happy, but Nintendo is sure as heck not. Everything they're trying with the Wii is an attempt to grow not just their audience, but the video game market as a whole.
The fact that they've got people like you is just a bonus, and a drop in the bucket as far as Nintendo's concerned.
So basicly what you're saying is that developers will suddenly deside they don't want to make lots of money.
Got that.
Stop doing that. :P
Anyway, with that last comment about difficulty I think it's pretty clear Defender and I just completely and totally disagree in a fundamental way, so I'm gonna go to bed. Defender, you really need to stop using such ridiculous sources of evidence, though, because your arguments are legitimate on their own without grasping at bullshit straws, like with the "bad Wii reviews" and "people are already growing tired of it" crap. If that's apparent, it will be down the line .. not four months after launch. Not right now, where it just isn't true. Nighto.
It's becoming apparent. There are people in this thread saying it, and not just me. A month or two ago, if I said anything bad about the Wii, I'd have 500 people telling me I hate fun in seconds. Now there are fewer. Are they all just tired of me? Maybe some are, but there are also other people saying "yeah, I am kind of bored of the Wii" now. That didn't happen before.
I'm not grasping at bullshit straws, I've been saying this for months; it's a gimmick, and people are going to start noticing just as soon as the novelty wears off.
I like that list of characters there Meissnerd. I'm really hoping to see Bomberman and maybe something crazy like Viewtiful Joe myself. (That last one is unlikely, but Bomberman is from Hudson so its possible)
Also Defender, I would argue back at you but I think we both already made are points and you have a lot of other stuff to respond to anyway from the looks of it. I just think that the control itself takes away from it being art really.
That's not part of the definition. Why do you feel that it's good to make up that the audience has to have zero control over the medium for it to be art? You made that up; it's not in any dictionary anywhere.
Further, what about sculpture? If I look at a sculpture under different lighting and from different angles, I can seriously alter how that sculpture appears and how it affects me emotionally. The artist doesn't control that. Does that make it not art?
Man, you are efficient.
Anyway, art is traditionally something where everyone has the same experience because the artist is trying to convey something and has to have a certain amount of control to make said point. You can look at something from different angles sure, but it is still the same picture that the artist wants you to see. As you said, everyone arrives at the same ending in something like Metal Gear Solid but leading up to that point, you can do whatever you want. The person who made the game would want you to go advance the story as intended but you don't have to do that. If you get stuck you never even see then ending at all. I just think these things keep it from being art because giving the player control takes away control from the "artist."
Posts
It'll be awesome, like Marvel vs Capcom
right back at ya
Intellectual satisfaction knowing that your opponents are as passionate about defending their opinions as you are?
but then you get someone new playing and it takes them an hour to choose their first character and they want to switch every 2 minutes and jesus christ just pick sheik and mash buttons you whore
King Dedede would be pretty awesome, but he would just be another big slow character that no one really uses. Also, I was so psyched when I heard Gannondorf would be there in Melee, but then totally disappointed when he was just Captain Falon in disguise.
twitterfacebooksteamsomemusicofminetoomuchgunshegeekshow
They are taking some of the Melee characters out
This is the effect I've been predicting for a while. It gets boring because at first it was so awesome to have a new control scheme, but then people get over the novelty, and the games that use gesture controls start to get stupid. Why? Because gesture controls are the same as button controls, only they take more effort and are slower and less reliable. They're inferior, and you will pick up on this, at least subconsciously, pretty fast. Nintendo's been talking about how gameplay's more important than graphics for a long time. And that's great and all...but look at their gameplay recently. It's so watered-down that there's no challenge, and thus no depth, left. So now the graphics are subpar and the gameplay is running dry. All that's left is the gimmick, and once that wears off, well, it's just boring.
There we go. That was like taco night!
This is true, but I don't think it impacts their current situation too drastically. They have a different philosophy this time around and the only way to see if it'll be any different is with time. Developers (or more specifically, publishers) support systems with strong hardware and software sales. Right now, Wii has both, far more than the Gamecube and N64 did, and it grows every month.
I am basing everything on "what games are out right now" because you're using bad Wii reviews to justify your arguments. Of course the reviews are bad, because the games are shit, because the games are always shit at this time. The bad reviews have nothing to do with the system itself. What gameplay is watered down? Wii Sports? Because that was a pack-in game to demonstrate the controller. Wii Play? $10 piece of shit bundled with controllers. Zelda, Wario Ware, Super Paper Mario? Christ, no, definitely not.
Without agreeing or disagreeing, why would you link GameFAQs if I'm looking for "intellectual satisfaction"? You know I'm smart enough to tie my own shoes, right?
Also Defender, I would argue back at you but I think we both already made are points and you have a lot of other stuff to respond to anyway from the looks of it. I just think that the control itself takes away from it being art really.
Classy.
Welcome to the first year of every new console launch ever. There are always a bunch of early ports.
You're really going to tell me that the first year of say, the 360, wasn't filled with ports?
Last I checked the Wii can do realtime 3D graphics Defender. And using Warcraft and Starcraft as examples? How old are those games? Really, come on, that's weak.
The DS had a lot of tacked on touch controls early in the consoles lifespan as developers worked with the system. Guess what, they got over it, and now they're used appropriately.
Also, how come we haven't all gotten bored of moving a stick around and pressing buttons? We've done that already. Oh that's right. Because the controls have different context in different games.
Nintendo does have an online stratagy.
Wii News.
Wii Forecast
Everybody Votes.
The online stratagy may not be for you. But that dosn't mean it's not there.
This is the most retarded argument ever.
The Xbox didn't crush the PS2 instantly dispite superior hardware.
The Game Gear, Lynx, Wonderswan, and PSP all failed to beat Gameboys and DS's even though they had superior hardware.
Why? Because they didn't become the market leader Defender.
Technology dosn't drive what games are made and what system is supported. Sales does. And the Wii is selling like hotcakes and is showing no sign of slowing down.
Sure, the PS3 and 360 can do some things the Wii can't. So what? It won't matter if the Wii is market leader. And all signs of that happening point to yes. Also, the Wii can do things the other two systems can't either. It's just that the full potental of the system has yet to be realized, same as with the other two. But in different ways.
Sales don't lie Defender. The Wii is popular and people are buying software. You really think anyone would spend $250 on a system and then, just months later, stop caring about it? "Non-gamers" as you call them, will have their interests catered too. Just as your interests are catered to.
You don't have to buy a Wii. But to call it a fad an gimmick is stupid. Just acknowledge that you're in a niche that Nintendo isn't targeting.
Though, I suspect you'll end up getting a Wii anyways because so many games for it will be made that it'll be impossible to ignore, the exact same reason people are still buying PS2s.
5..
4..
3..
Also, I think they should lay off the pokemon for at least one edition
I DEMAND IT
Cause you're allowed to be an ass in SE++ and get away with it most of the time?
We're all pretty much assholes in SE
HELL YES, I FUCKING LOVED THAT GAME!
STAR FOX 64 IS COMING SOON THOUGH FOR SURE.
Indeed. I also think Defender isn't really shitting on the thread so much as he is just giving his viewpoint, which is fine.
not me
i am a beautiful ray of sunshine and happiness
they should just ask me to submit a list of games for them to make and make them
Until someone tries to steal your man, that is
gotta protect my interests
Hardware Sales becomes Software Sales becomes Hardware Sales... and it goes on and on in a self-sustaining cycle. The fact that the Wii is selling well now means that more games will be made for it. And because there will be more games then there will be more reasons for people to buy a Wii... and you get the picture I hope.
Wii Sports is something that I think of as a tech demo/tutorial. It's a fun little way to get you used to moving the controller around.
Watered down gameplay? Zelda? Very yes. If a game is so easy that you can ignore all the skills it tries to teach you, then it has no gameplay depth. I've been over this so many times that I feel like I've proven it mathematically or something, but here's the basic concept:
Gameplay depth comes from two elements. You have a variety of choices to make (actions), and those choices have advantages and disadvantages (balance). RTS games, for example, have choices like "tech vs rush," or "build many cheap units vs build a few expensive units" or "build a bigger/better army or spend that money on expanding your income." In smaller-scale games, like beat-em-ups (think God Of War), you make choices like "what spell should I use" or "should I hit with the big attack for damage, or the small one so I can stop and parry more quickly."
If the game is made well, those choices are difficult to make and they have a big impact on how well you do. If a game is ass-easy, then, the depth starts to vanish; what choices you make are less important because you're not going to lose if you make the wrong one.
No, I'm not sure that I agree here. I understand that there are a lot of Wiis out there, and I know what that means. However, it's not leading the market, and the other two have great games coming that will sell systems. I know I'll have a hard time not buying a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, and that says a lot; I don't generally run out and dump hundreds of dollars into entertainment.
Developers are likely to start ignoring the Wii because it's just an inferior system. Being "already out there" matters, but it isn't overridingly important, otherwise everyone would just keep making PS2 games and nobody would bother making new consoles because the PS2 is already out there.
Got that.
I'm all for that just as long as that list includes the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Battletoads, Earthworm Jim, and more Street Fighter. More fighting games in general.
Mooorrrrrrttttttaaaaallllllll Kooommmbbbbaaaatttttt!
or, you know, they want the easy money
It's not even funny how identical they are.
That's not part of the definition. Why do you feel that it's good to make up that the audience has to have zero control over the medium for it to be art? You made that up; it's not in any dictionary anywhere.
Further, what about sculpture? If I look at a sculpture under different lighting and from different angles, I can seriously alter how that sculpture appears and how it affects me emotionally. The artist doesn't control that. Does that make it not art?
twitterfacebooksteamsomemusicofminetoomuchgunshegeekshow
Anyway, with that last comment about difficulty I think it's pretty clear Defender and I just completely and totally disagree in a fundamental way, so I'm gonna go to bed. Defender, you really need to stop using such ridiculous sources of evidence, though, because your arguments are legitimate on their own without grasping at bullshit straws, like with the "bad Wii reviews" and "people are already growing tired of it" crap. If that's apparent, it will be down the line .. not four months after launch. Not right now, where it just isn't true. Nighto.
It's an EXAMPLE of a technology that was, at some point, new. The point is that technology often opens doors for new gameplay that couldn't happen otherwise. I was not saying that the Wii can't run Starcraft because of technical limitations.
So far, though, the controls are basically all just button-surrogates. That's really what a gesture-based system asks for.
Oh, sorry, I was talking about GAMES.
Nah, I probably won't get a Wii. I'm disappointed in Miyamoto's recent work, and it looks like the PS3 is going to be seriously awesome. I suspect that it'll win this round just like it won the last two.
And yes, I think people bought it as an impulse or a gimmick or a party toy, and they'll move on from it.
The Wii is also not the market leader.
OK. No.
Nintendo aimed for its hardcore audience for the past two generations.
It got them nowhere.
You may be happy, but Nintendo is sure as heck not. Everything they're trying with the Wii is an attempt to grow not just their audience, but the video game market as a whole.
The fact that they've got people like you is just a bonus, and a drop in the bucket as far as Nintendo's concerned.
It's becoming apparent. There are people in this thread saying it, and not just me. A month or two ago, if I said anything bad about the Wii, I'd have 500 people telling me I hate fun in seconds. Now there are fewer. Are they all just tired of me? Maybe some are, but there are also other people saying "yeah, I am kind of bored of the Wii" now. That didn't happen before.
I'm not grasping at bullshit straws, I've been saying this for months; it's a gimmick, and people are going to start noticing just as soon as the novelty wears off.
Man, you are efficient.
Anyway, art is traditionally something where everyone has the same experience because the artist is trying to convey something and has to have a certain amount of control to make said point. You can look at something from different angles sure, but it is still the same picture that the artist wants you to see. As you said, everyone arrives at the same ending in something like Metal Gear Solid but leading up to that point, you can do whatever you want. The person who made the game would want you to go advance the story as intended but you don't have to do that. If you get stuck you never even see then ending at all. I just think these things keep it from being art because giving the player control takes away control from the "artist."