The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Wii Thread : Metroid! Lock this thread and make a new one
Posts
Smaller and cooler aren't really important. I didn't have some huge problem with my PS2 being too big or too hot. So yeah, that's neat, but you know what? They now make "slim" PS2s anyway. I'm really more interested in what the machine can do than in how small/cool it is. Same thing for energy efficiency, my last-gen console wasn't causing brownouts or anything, and didn't double my electric bill, so I don't really care.
As for more powerful, yes, it is, but not by much. It's been more than five years. Consoles should have BIG jumps between generations, not tiny jumps. Look at the other two consoles; they're huge technological advances.
While gaming isn't all about technology, consoles are merely the technical platform on which games must run; consoles ARE all about technology. The other two consoles are sufficiently advanced that newer and better games can be created on them. The Wii isn't very far ahead of the last generation, and the addition of gesture-recognition and pointing controls really doesn't add too much.
Because the consoles themselves don't offer "different kinds of fun." Nintendo's marketing draws uncreative casual games, largely mini-game collections, to the Wii, but that's not the console itself. That's the marketing. The actual console is a piece of shit that doesn't have sufficiently advanced technology to do interesting things with new games. That's why you see a lot of "360 & PS3" titles...those titles are all games which require advanced technology that the Wii doesn't offer. As a platform, this is pretty much a failure; new ideas that push the boundaries of gaming simply cannot run on the Wii in many cases.
Also, anyone who says graphics don't matter can choke on a cock. Good graphics don't make up for shitty gameplay, but graphics absolutely do matter. Graphics are a tool that a game designer can use to communicate an idea. Better graphics allow those ideas to be communicated better, and allow ideas that couldn't quite be expressed adequately in previous generations to be expressed at all. It's like saying that audio doesn't matter. Yes, yes it does matter. And if it didn't matter, people wouldn't come out with new technology for it, or if they did, the new tech would simply be the same as the old tech, but smaller. Anyone who says that graphics don't matter is ignorant of game design on a profound level.
Yeah, being visual creatures, the most obvious differences are the visual ones. There are audio differences, basically you just get higher bit-rate sound and more simultaneous sound effects on higher-end machines, but most games have pretty OK audio design so it doesn't just right out at you.
Improved AI is a big fuckin' deal, though. Look at the AI in MGS1 and MGS2, if you've played those games. It's not a small difference. More than three guards on screen, more than one type of guard per screen, squad-based "clearing" patterns, tranquilizer weapons, guards that don't have to vanish immediately upon dying (which also means that guards react to seeing tranqed, KOed, and dead guards), hold-up mode, breaking allies out of hold-up mode, calling for backup when the player is sighted, calling for backup when injured or seeing an ally get injured, partial-sighting of the player at longer distances, and probably a few more features. I'd say that those are a pretty goddamn big deal.
And that's just talking about the AI for predictable enemies in a stealth-action game. What about other applications for memory and processor usage? For example, the progressive-load systems that made games like Shadow of the Colossus, GTA, and Spider-Man 2 possible? Huge, seamless 3D worlds like that weren't really possible on the PS1 or N64.
There are a ton of things that increased memory, disc read speed, the presence of a hard drive, and more processing power can offer than just prettier polygons, as you've already noted, but it's important to understand that these upgrades aren't just trivial bullshit; they actually enable designers to create new games, games that could not have been made before.
Yeah, except that they haven't had very many games. Their first-party games do tend to be good, but there are only a few of them. Hell, when I had the N64, they didn't even MAKE a Metroid game. I felt really shorted there, since I had somewhere around 5 to 10 times as many games for my PS1. A good developer makes a game that makes good use of the system on which it runs. By making a low-tech system, you inherently limit the developers. Please separate out Nintendo as hardware manufacturer and Nintendo as game developer.
You're such an idiot. God, it's like you just say whatever Nintendo's PR department says without even thinking about it.
Games have been CONSTANTLY INCREASING in popularity since, let's say, 1990. Games were not "getting too complex" for anybody, that's more Nintendo bullshit.
Your whole statement is just so full of shit it's stunning. Look at the dumbass frat boys who play Halo; is it too intricate or complex for a person to pick up and play? No, obviously not. Is it so intensely difficult that only "hardcore gaming neckbeards" can manage it? No, obviously not. You're basically making bullshit arguments here that show a profound disconnect with reality and sound extremely similar to Nintendo's marketing campaign.
Unless I'm reading this wrong or the information is false, the Wii is about as powerful as an Xbox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox#Technical_specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications
XBox
CPU: 32-bit 733 MHz Coppermine-based Mobile Celeron in Micro-PGA2 package. 180 nm process.
64 MB DDR SDRAM at 200 MHz. 6.4 GB/s
Graphics processing unit (GPU) and system chipset: 233 MHz "NV2A" ASIC. Co-developed by Microsoft and NVIDIA.
Wii:
CPU: PowerPC based "Broadway" processor, made with a 90 nm SOI CMOS process, reportedly clocked at 729 MHz[44]
88 MiB main memory (24 MiB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MiB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM)[46]
3 MiB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer.
GPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU made with a 90 nm CMOS process,[45] reportedly clocked at 243 MHz[44]
The reason why the Wii CPU and GPU are "reportedly" clocked at those times is because Nintendo is not releaing the official specs to their system.
Not really more powerful than an X-Box.
h5
Hint: not the current one
The advance in technology in the Wii compared to the technology in the PS3 and 360 pretty weak.
But the Nintendo guys are doing something that neither Sony or Microsoft are doing at the moment.
Making fun games.
It doesnt matter if your console isnt as far advanced as the others. In the race between the three there was always going to be one who would be the lowest graphics and speed wise. But if you can make that console more fun to play than the other two you win the race.
And before people come screaming saying that the Wii isnt fun to play you are in a minority. (For every PS3 sold 6 Wii's are sold. Even Sony's bad marketing cant be totally blamed for that.) And considering the huge lead they had with their early launch date the 360 really should be miles ahead of the Wii. Right now there is only around a million units difference.
But as I said Defender is right.
Right now the Wii is pulling in the buyers. In 2-3 years time when the graphics on the Wii look a lot more dated, will they still be there to buy the games?
Regardless of what site you're on, you're still on the internet. There will always be retards - ThisGuy
Yes, as bizarre as it may seem, there are. In this very thread, even:
So yeah, I know what I'm saying is painfully obvious, but there are some people who don't get it. Hell, I recently (and this isn't about that hobbes guy) had to explain that games actually need good CPUs to do complex AI. I even had someone say that games "don't have AI." Like pathing and fighting and reacting to the player are all trivial tasks that require no code and no CPU power.
The Wii's remote and pointer functionality gives it a level of interface precision never seen on a console before. These abilities will allow it to do many things that are new for a home console because of the limitations of the traditional gamepad as a control implement. Games could include real-time strategy games, lightgun-style shooters, and precision games that already exist as a proof of concept, like Trauma Center.
The Wii lacks cpu and gpu muscle, which will impede some of the realistic effects it can produce. But it compensates with its interface, which has opened up never-before-seen ways of interacting with games. This is going to take some time until it's fully implemented, with Nintendo leading the way with its first party games. I do urge you to give it some time, until the end of this year at least to see if motion control really is a gimmick. As the Wii's market share increases, more third party developers will begin development for Wii first. Right now the games the Wii is getting are largely ports and quick tries that make dodgy use of the Wii's motion control, developed in the style of an Xbox 360 game, with waggle tacked on in the end. We've already seen this happen with the DS, where for about a year after release developers had little to no idea what to do with the second screen or the stylus/touch interface. This trend will likely stop as the Wii eclipses the 360 as this generation's console with the biggest install base.
There are already two consoles that from a gamer's standpoint do nearly the same thing. Gameplay and library-wise, the PS3 and 360 are more alike than the PS2 and Xbox were. Each game will have a few exclusives from their first party developers, but given that games nowadays are far more expensive than they ever were, with a triple-A title costing in the tens of millions of dollars to produce art assets for, most games are going to be ported around to ensure market penetration. Given that there are two consoles that are already going to share 80% of their games, and the games will look and play nearly identically, do you really need a third?
I think there's more room in the art of videogames than to just push cpu and gpu power in the pursuit of realism and immersion. Games have been getting increasingly 'realistic' as time goes on as hardware gets more powerful, but that's only one avenue they can take. It's like realism in painting, which is a valid style, and one of the easiest ones to critique. But there are other styles of art out there, abstract, impressionistic, installation, which are just as well respected and recognized as legitimate forms of art. They are neither worse nor better, they have their own value set and appeal on different merits.
Nintendo's individual games tend to be fun, but that has nothing to do with the platform. There also aren't very many games, because Nintendo simply does not make a hundred games every year. It doesn't matter if Sony or Microsoft have good first-party titles. What matters is how many good titles the SYSTEM has...who actually makes the game is not important. So, for example, if BethSoft makes an awesome RPG for the 360/PS3, does it matter that it was a third-party game? No, it matters that it's good and you can play it.
In short, yeah they make good games. But they don't make ENOUGH good games. That's been an issue since the N64.
It absolutely does matter that it isn't even in the same ballpark as the others. Being "slightly worse" is like comparing the PS2 to the GC. The two are SO close that they can basically play all the same games. The PS2 may take a slight graphical hit, but that's all; the two systems are very close in terms of actual capabilities.
The Wii costs HALF of what the others cost, and it was marketed way, way better. That's the reason. The Wii doesn't have a lot of games, which is understandable because it's in its first year; however, the fact that it doesn't have a lot of games is still important. It means that people aren't buying the Wii for its huge library of awesome titles. So given that they're not buying it for that, what are they buying it for? Zelda? Strikers? Pokemon? I think that "hype" is a big factor, especially if it's actually being bought by non-gamers.
No, they probably won't, because people are buying it based on hype. People who are non-gamers are gonna buy it as a hyped-up fad and then forget about it in a year and let it collect dust. They're not going to be purchasing 6-12 games per year.
Bullshit. There are fun games coming out on all current systems. There are also shitty games being released on all current systems. This is not a credible argument you can use...
Seriously if you have nothing better to do than try and abuse a system that doesn't even cater to the hardcore gamer groups that you obviously belong in then you should just get an ass kissing job at company of choice.
Simple fact. Wii was not made for your bullshit ideas of gaming. It was made for family entertainment that young and old could enjoy at a reasonable price. More parents(grandparents even) will buy the console because they have simple easy to play games that don't cost an arm and a leg.
Oh and I haven't bought a new system yet because all the good games are already on the PC or will be on the PC soon. Even Xbox's precious little Gears of War.
I don't think I see it out of balance. I think that I just see the developer's side better than the average gamer.
RTS games are better with the mouse. Trauma Center originated as a mouse-based game, and the Stylus actually makes the most sense. Shooting games, yes, as long as you don't have to turn, the pointer is the best.
Also, I'm not sure about the "precision" that you're talking about. Gesture recognition is actually slower and less precise than button-pushing. And the VAST majority of current Wii games would work as well or better with a standard gamepad than with the Wiimote.
No, it hasn't. Waving my arm to activate the "swing my sword" command is not significantly different from pushing a button to activate the "swing my sword" command, except that it's slower and more likely to be misinterpreted.
So far, all of Nintendo's first-party stuff has been shit made for the GC and ported over with tacked-on controls. Nintendo has failed to lead the way. And Metroid Prime's "you can aim at the screen" thing is an improvement, sure, but it's not some new level of gaming awesomeness that compensates for last-generation-level hardware.
Only if that market share is actually buying games. People who bought the Wii as a fad will not keep up with buying games, and that's really where the money comes from. Also, what kind of games are they buying? Shitty mini-game collections? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. That's not the innovative "new ways to play" that you referred to a minute ago.
Actually it looks like Miyamoto's plan is to start selling plastic casings like the steering wheel and the zapper, and new input devices like the scale thingy for WiiFit. In other words, to extend the gimmick.
Are you seriously saying that it's GOOD that the Wii can't play modern games? You know, if the Wii had better hardware, it could play all these Wiimote-based games AND new cool stuff like Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, Ratchet & Clank, Final Fantasy, MGS, whatever. Now some of those may be exclusives, but the Wii would actually GET some share of those exclusives and also get multi-system versions of the non-exclusives ON TOP OF its own Wiimote-based library. And the Wiimote-based library would be bigger if the console were capable of doing more.
No. Wrong.
The "art of video games" has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING BETTER HARDWARE. Video games are software. Consoles and graphics cards are hardware. Please separate the two in your mind. Making a good CONSOLE and making a good GAME are not the same thing. A carpenter with good tools can do better work than a carpenter with shitty tools. The console is the toolset. There is absolutely no benefit to having a shitty console. Just because your console CAN do real-time dynamic shadows and multipass lights doesn't mean it HAS to do it in every game. It simply means that, if you want to, the option is there.
Defender, you are contradicting yourself. If it is understandable that the wii being in its first year would have a low amount of games, then you cant just say its a problem. All systems go through this.
Therefore all early buyers of any systems ever are only bought for hype/good marketing. particularly because none in their right mind said "There's a playstation 2?! WITH FANTAVISION?! Holy shit I gotta get that."
Also, its not that the wii is half the price of anything. Nintendo's systems have launched around the same pricepoint for their last few systems.
Sony has just made a console which costs too goddamn much for the guy in the street to pick up. Kinda like when the xbox launched. My exact word were "Its good, but not 500 bucks good"
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
The only fanboy stuff that's been said in here has been Nintendo fanboy crap like "it doesn't matter how strong the hardware is because hardware strength is unrelated to capacity for good games."
Simple fact. The Wii was made to make money, not to make games. Further, it was actually designed in a way (perhaps not purposely) that makes it a very poor candidate for new games. That's why the 360 and PS3 share a lot of titles, but the Wii doesn't. The grandparents that buy it will, by and large, forget about it. It's a fad, it's hype, and those people don't buy new games frequently or understand gaming as an art form.
No, what I'm saying is that I understand that it's new and doesn't have great games, and that's normal. But because of that, you can't use the argument that people are buying it to play the games that are out for it, because there aren't a lot of games. Therefore, people must be buying for some other reason.
Yes, unless there's a great launch title (I think Soul Calibur was a launch title for the Dreamcast), then they are buying it for hype. Any time you buy the system BEFORE there are good games for it, you are obviously buying for hype, because the system itself is useless without the games.
Yeah, and the Wii costs $250, which is half of $500...so the fact that it's way cheaper than the others is a big deal...which is what I said.
I'm not here to piss on your parade or anything, but do you really think MS and SONY are in this for the games and not the money? Given that Nintendo revived the market in the 80's under Yamauchi, purposely making affordable systems everytime and making their first party titles to a high enough standard that 3rd parties fight a losing battle when their games are on Nintendo systems?
My point with the price is that Sony went too high with the price, bot that nintendo was too low. You make it sound like nintendo lowballed sony instead of using the same pricepoint they have been doing for years.
As far as no games go, Theres a couple of must buys. The 360 had a COUPLE of must buys in its first year. The PS3 has a COUPLE of must buys. You can't make a point of hype being a Nintendo advantage if the other two systems on the market have done the exact same thing.
Its like watching a tennis game and complaining the winner had the serve for half the games, when the loser would too.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Wait. So it's got Zelda, plus the Virtual Console which allows access to older games that people buying the Wii might not have played before, plus Trauma Center, plus Cooking Mama, plus Wii Sports, all of which are either fun, or fun AND short, but people can't be buying it for good games because there aren't that many? Lord! And here I thought I bought it because I liked the games that were out for it, and more were coming in the future. I'm such a fool!
Yeah, because I think that MS and Sony suddenly hate money. That's very clear from what I said.
Yeah, I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about because you extrapolated a statement I made to a ridiculous degree so that you could put stupid words into my mouth. That's just as good as if I had actually said it, right?
Also, Nintendo has been very unfriendly with third-party developers over its history. That's why they started losing them, not because the handful of games they made ate up all the sales and nobody else could get a game in edgewise.
Steam
I bought the Wii the day it came out, and so far aside from a few amazingly entertaining nights with family and friends, it goes mostly unused. The control scheme is more often than not just a pain in the ass. Zelda, for example, has been a lot easier to play when you use the joystick instead of pointing at the screen.
Super Paper Mario is amazing, it is original, fun, and a long game well worth the money. Zelda is as well. But everything else is pretty copy and paste and beaten in a day. Wario Ware, Raving Rabids, FUN GAMES, lasted a day before they were beated, and that was not even putting a lot of time into them.
So I bought a 360 Elite, and play it almost every day. To me the graphics are not the reason, the Wii can do some impressive stuff and is actually a lot easier to play visually (Super Paper Mario) than some of the 360 games. But at the same time, Zelda would be so, SO much better with some 360 power because the environments need that detail to not be a pain in the ass to navigate at times.
Anyway, just play what you like. My 10 year old cousin plays his Wii every damn day, so obviously its working for him. I don't get the same thing from it, I think the 360 offers a more complete gameplay experience.
In the end we are all the winners because there is a system out there for everyone, or in some cases two systems.
Cocks, dicks, etc.
SE++ has always been like a verbal old west gunfight to me. Blather first, then two weeks later read the thread and go "Oh... fuck, I wish I'd read that properly the first time."
The VC is the worst point you can possibly make while defending the Wii. I purposely DIDN'T bring it up because it casts the Wii in an extremely negative light. "We're innovating games by bringing you...games you played 10+ years ago!"
Furthermore, the VC's selection is very limited. Is Zelda 2 out on the VC? That's one of the old games I want to replay more than any other. How about Konami's Prince of Persia, that's one of my all-time favorites. Out Of This World was great. I don't know if Super Mario Brothers 3 is out, but it damn well should be. Zelda 1 and 3 are out, I'm pretty sure, so that's good. How about Castlevania 2? The point here is that the VC didn't just open the flood gates on all old games (that wouldn't have been a good business move), so it's really not delivering on the promise of "play ANY old game you want!" and it's definitely not delivering on "Innovative new titles!"
"Short" is not a good feature. If I buy a game, I'd rather than 40 hours of content than 20. I'd rather have 80 hours than 40. One of my best game purchases ever was Warcraft III and its expansion pack; I still play that game! Hell, I have played WC3 within the last 24 hours. Blizzard goes above and beyond in terms of earning the money I pay them, and I don't expect everyone to be that good, but giving me a minigame collection that's not fun unless I have friends over and we're drinking? That's shit. Giving me something I get bored of after 10 hours? No, fuck you.
Also, if you're buying for games that come out "in the future" as you just said, then guess what, dumbass? You're buying for hype! You just admitted to buying a machine that plays games that AREN'T EVEN OUT YET. That is practically the definition of buying something for hype. I love MGS, but I'm not buying a PS3 in anticipation of MGS4. I'm going to wait until after it's out and see if it's good. I'm sure it will be, mainly based on previous MGS games and what I see of the current hype, but I'm not putting money down just because Konami made an unreleased product look like it'll be good.
You must be new to Wii threads.
I say things that are obviously true and then back them up with walls of text that put China to shame. Then people don't read them, or misread them (accidentally or deliberately), and attack. Sometimes they just repeat Nintendo's marketing, like "graphics don't matter at all" or "pointing = innovation."
I edited out the 12 year old part, seemed a bit much after I wrote it first.
Seriously though, you said the wii is there for money, not games. That is what I responded to there.
I countered with a question asking if you thought the other 2 are the other way around. Have I read this wrong? Explain. Dont just spout off how I'm just wrong.
As for third parties, I know this may blow your mind but, BOTH of us are correct. Crazy, eh?
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Hype is a HUGE Nintendo advantage, because they have really excellent hype. MS is...whatever, it's MS. Sony, I think, actively scans monster.com for marketing/PR people who got fired for gross incompetence, then puts them in high places in their own organization.
Nintendo has used hype FAR more effectively than its competitors in this generation.
In fairness, the nintendo hype was generated by them demonstarting what the system did, as opposed to trying to be cool. They were cheesy, and childlike and enthusiastic about their new toy, and everyone got caught up in it because it looked awesome.
Also, they remembered not to do stupid things in their advertising.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
the wii is pretty crappy when compared in terms of hardware to the Playstation 3 or XBox 360
it is however, $250. I believe that you're getting a pretty rad machine when you consider how little it costs.
I always poke my head into the wii thread but don't say anything. I bought the wii when it first came out along with Zelda and Trauma Center. I have beat Zelda and not trauma center.
I agree with a lot of your points about the Wii and how it is being sold and such. I agreed with your points when you made them way back before the Wii was being sold as well. I bought it none the less and am kinda wishing I would have waited. I figured Nintendo could make some awesome games for it but right now, yes it's early, I don't see much promise. So far I haven't touched my Wii in months also. I just bought RE4 in hopes that it's slightly more fun being able to aim with the wiimote then it was using a ps2 controller.
Other than that, I try to avoid the threads about wii, cause of all the hate you get if you didn't like something about it(especially in G&T).
Steam
YOUR COCKSUCKING PRODUCT HAS REDUCED ME TO A GIBBERING MAN-APE WHOSE ONLY RESORT TO DEALING WITH THE ALMIGHTY FUCKING GRIEF IT'S BESTOWED UPON ME IS TO SCREAM AND HURT MYSELF.
Seriously, I am jumping up and down and throwing my shit in handfuls at the fucking television in some impotent primal effort to get the thing to work. I have been sitting here trying to enjoy your product - YOUR PRODUCT, YOUR GAME, YOUR CONTRACT BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND CONSUMER THAT THE CONSUMER WILL ENJOY YOUR PRODUCT - but instead the damn thing's been crawling out of the console and taking warm shits in my gaping mouth. Swear to god, you should have just added a little door to the console through which a hand pops out and flips me off, because I am insulted that your QA or testers or whatever brainless shitstove three genes short of a monkey FAGNUT signs your games through thought that a person with more than a single fucking digit IQ could enjoy Story Mode Chapter 7. INSULTED.
WORK WITH ME HERE: The goal's simple enough! Come in first! Hey, that's fine, it's just like playing the grand fucking prix; not a problem! Only deal is your cross-eyed team of tongue-slapping wunderkind decided to give the game every single fucking advantage possible TO THE GAME rather than me.
How in the fuck does Black Shadow - whose car is the heaviest and lamest piece of shit next to the Crazy Bear - suddenly become SO FUCKING GOOD that he can stay in first without using a drop of boost? Huh!? Why!? You never see this shithead anywhere near the top fucking 20 in a normal race. BUT HO HO HO THIS TIME HE'S MEGA-COCK, THE FASTEST FAGGOT IN THE WORLD. 1.21 GIGAWATTS MARTY, LET'S GO BACK TO THE FUCKING FUTURE.
But it's not just Black Shadow with the magical powers, it's the entire fucking lineup of racers! THEY'RE ALL FASTER THAN YOU. AND DON'T REQUIRE ANY BOOST.
But but but I of course, am still driving some piece of shit hamster-powered jalopy who guzzles it's entire energy bar in no less than four fucking boosts! Add to this the entire course just got shitted on by some retarded space tiki volacano god and you've got a course full of hazards that'll drain at least 1/4 of your energy bar JUST BECAUSE IT CAN. WHOOPIE.
HURRR, you say. THAT'S JUST THE CHALLENGE. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EASY. Well fuck that noise, you lopsided frankenfaced fuckfurter.
Tell me, please, why does the GAME have to win? Huh? What happens when the game wins and I lose? Is there some huge fucking kegger waiting for it when it gets done? Is there money involved? Or perhaps the motives are more sinister. Maybe the game's family is being held hostage by another game and that game has it's cock in F-Zero's wife's mouth and he's holding a cell phone up to her and F-Zero can hear her pained moans and cries for help and the asshole game then says, "You beat that cock-sucking human, or I'll blow her brains out." I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. I CAN BE SYMPATHETIC.
It's not any fun if I can't win, you faggots. I want to move on. I want to unlock whatever piece of shit clown car you have hidden away from me so I can start racing and get pissed off with that too. When your game prevents me from fully enjoying the product I have bought you have failed in your fucking mission to deliver a game. You lose! You break the contract! You contract the gay and fucking DIE DIE DIE.
That said, though, they also took a big page out of Apple's book and used the all-white scheme in their device and their commericals. The Wii basically looks like an Apple product.
And they made some promises about innovating gaming that they have failed to keep.
And they also said that certain titles would be ready at launch, like MP3, and they weren't. And their first Zelda game and Paper Mario were GC ports with tacked-on controls, which goes back to breaking the "innovative" promise; if you're doing something that was actually DESIGNED FOR the old system, then obviously the new system isn't even needed, let alone innovative.
We just had a post showing that the Wii is roughly the same level of hardware power as the original X-Box. I would not pay $250 for an X-Box today. Maybe like $100 or $150. What's the going price on that, anyway? I think the PS2 is like $150, isn't it?
I'll start!
Smash Brothers will be fan-damn-tastic, and hopefully the two other third party characters will end up being Simon Belmont and Mega Man.
FFBE: 838,975,107
Dokkan: 1668363315
You should be the head of the Santiation Department for the city of SE++ with ideas like that. We could save millions!
Yeah, let's talk about the games.
Oh wait. This is all in the future tense. Because the games aren't out. All you're saying is "X will be so good!" There's really no substance to that statement, you're just being a fanboy and saying nothing.