Great controls don't make for a great game either.
Metroid Prime 3 is the last game i will buy for my wii. I'm selling the damn thing.
I bought a lot of the hype despite being skeptical. I got the wii, I got 3 games, and that's been it. But you know what?
the waggle is being held back. yeah, it's fun and all, but I don't think it provides anything incredibly new due to the hardware limitations of the wii. Aside from the casual games, all it's doing is replacing button presses with waggle moves.........and that's about as anticlimatic as they come. It doesn't "feel" like I'm doing anything aside from shaking my controller instead of pressing A, and then getting pissed that shaking took longer than pressing and then feeling like the game (inaccurately) is laggy.
Case in point: MP3. yeah, it controlled well. But it doesn't look much better than MP1. The story is embarrassing. The AI is non existant (great, I can point at the guys head........too bad he either stands there or just flips all over the place randomly). Physics aren't there aside from gravity, and we've had that since the begining of gaming. The only thing that works well that I couldn't do really in another game was all the switches and levers that I had to twist................and big fucking deal. the wii lets me turn a key in a new way. The metroid series could've gone in a new way but instead it's still holding onto functionality, AI, and storytelling that it perfected back in super metroid.
The wii needs physics. this gen physics, not less-than-last-gen physics. It needs the horsepower to become more intuitive. This ain't the ds.
the wii has sold like mad because it's cheap, and looking at game sales aside from nintendo games the attach rate is pretty abysmal. that means people are buying the console and playing wii sports, and that's about it.
Good for nintendo, they're making bank. Bravo. I'm glad the wii is selling well. But 3rd party developers aren't flocking to the wii like people are saying they are. That says something to me. the wii *is* in a different market, and that market consists of the following people: nintendo believers, and the same people who buy up millions of those games that come with the baseball bat.
I'm not going to say sales are going to take a dive, but I doubt software sales are going to soar aside from what nintendo puts out. And that's not expanding the market, that's just creating a completely different one.
Also I don't care that you don't care about good graphics, the vast majority of people I'd wager do.
Then why is the Wii outselling everything else?
Because it's fucking cheap. I never said it was the sole factor in choosing a game console did I?
Then why is the DS outselling everything else?
I would say that on a handheld graphics are far less important, also the previous its fucking cheap.
The DS isn't that much cheaper than the PSP. Why are graphics less important with handhelds than consoles? The Gamecube was also fucking cheap, and I don't remember it selling over 130 million units and counting. Same with the N64 and the Atari 7800.
The wii needs physics. this gen physics, not less-than-last-gen physics. It needs the horsepower to become more intuitive. This ain't the ds.
Both Sonic and the Secret Rings and Elebits use the Ageia PhysX engine, one of the premiere middle-ware physics engines on the market. It's hard to fault the hardware or its horsepower (especially when you see how much Elebits can handle) simply because you don't like how the engine's being employed. The hardware is capable if the developers are willing.
the wii has sold like mad because it's cheap, and looking at game sales aside from nintendo games the attach rate is pretty abysmal. that means people are buying the console and playing wii sports, and that's about it.
... and those Nintendo games you mentioned that don't have abysmal attach rates? 'Cause if they're being bought then somebody's playing them.
Good for nintendo, they're making bank. Bravo. I'm glad the wii is selling well. But 3rd party developers aren't flocking to the wii like people are saying they are. That says something to me. the wii *is* in a different market, and that market consists of the following people: nintendo believers, and the same people who buy up millions of those games that come with the baseball bat.
I'm not going to say sales are going to take a dive, but I doubt software sales are going to soar aside from what nintendo puts out. And that's not expanding the market, that's just creating a completely different one.
While I'm not going to argue with you about the Wii's demographic, it's because I don't have anything to back it up with. What's frustrating about that though is I know that you don't either and you're just saying it because that's your assumption. It doesn't appeal to you, and you consider yourself a hardcore gamer, therefore it's not for hardcore gamers ... that just doesn't fly. To be honest none of us knows precisely what the Wii demographic looks like or whether those people will buy more or less games than the people who buy 360s or PS3s.
Every hardcore gamer I know in real life also has a Wii. Every single one. I can't say the same for the 360 and I definitely can't say the same for the PS3. My anecdotal experience doesn't mesh at all with your assertions.
I love the Wii, but I'd be lying if I said it had met my expectations. I love the Wii mostly because of its potential, and for Virtual Console. It just doesn't have a good catalogue.
I still only have Zelda and Wii Sports, and only now has Super Paper Mario been released in Europe, so that's going to be my next game along with MP3. Before the end of the year, I'll be getting SSBB and Galaxy, so that brings me up to 5 games over a year, not counting Wii Sports. Compare this to my 13 games on the 360, which I've had since September last year - and add at least 5 more to that before the end of christmas.
It's not just about graphics. It's about developer incentive and the ability to utilize new technologies. The 360 and the PS3, graphics aside, have numerous features and capabilities that we haven't seen before due to the advances of new technologies. Many newer engines offer gameplay possibilites that go beyond simple aesthetics. The Wii's innovations are entirely limited to controls, which can only go so far. It's not that the Wii can't deliver outstanding gameplay experiences, but the developers generally have to be a lot more creative and put more effort into the games than they currently are. I can only think of about 2 3rd party games I'm at all interested in right now, and this has never happened to me before with a console.
"Quality over quantity" is all well and good, but the Wii isn't delivering as much quality as I had hoped for. Realistically, with the massive success of the thing, we should see great games popping up over the next year, and while I still have tremendous amounts of faith in Nintendo's own offerings, I'm still not convinced about 3rd parties - honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
If you want good looking games, you shouldn't blame the console - blame the production studio.
RE4 was fantastic on the GameCube. It took advantage of everything it could. If the GC could output those sorts of graphics, we should never have been subjected to anything less.
I honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
Oh, pffft. The N64 had months after launch when absolutely nothing came out. I'm not talking nothing that's playable, I mean nothing. Compared to the first year of the N64 the Wii is an embarrassment of riches.
Edit: Leitner, the price difference between a Cube and an oXbox at launch ($100) was greater than the $50 difference between a 360 Core and a Wii, The Wii came out at exactly the same point in this gen as it did last gen, and replace "teh kiddy" with "teh casual" for the Wii when it comes to drooling internet posters.
I love the Wii, but I'd be lying if I said it had met my expectations. I love the Wii mostly because of its potential, and for Virtual Console. It just doesn't have a good catalogue.
I still only have Zelda and Wii Sports, and only now has Super Paper Mario been released in Europe, so that's going to be my next game along with MP3. Before the end of the year, I'll be getting SSBB and Galaxy, so that brings me up to 5 games over a year, not counting Wii Sports. Compare this to my 13 games on the 360, which I've had since September last year - and add at least 5 more to that before the end of christmas.
It's not just about graphics. It's about developer incentive and the ability to utilize new technologies. The 360 and the PS3, graphics aside, have numerous features and capabilities that we haven't seen before due to the advances of new technologies. Many newer engines offer gameplay possibilites that go beyond simple aesthetics. The Wii's innovations are entirely limited to controls, which can only go so far. It's not that the Wii can't deliver outstanding gameplay experiences, but the developers generally have to be a lot more creative and put more effort into the games than they currently are. I can only think of about 2 3rd party games I'm at all interested in right now, and this has never happened to me before with a console.
"Quality over quantity" is all well and good, but the Wii isn't delivering as much quality as I had hoped for. Realistically, with the massive success of the thing, we should see great games popping up over the next year, and while I still have tremendous amounts of faith in Nintendo's own offerings, I'm still not convinced about 3rd parties - honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
See, I'd argue that the interface innovation is far more important than engine innovation, due to the way the human brain processes interaction, as interaction is going to have a much more potent effect on immersion than audio-visual cues will. (There are some aspects to engine innovation that do address this, though - mostly things like physics and other world-world interactions.)
I agree with the premise that right now we're mostly waiting for a lot of potential to be realized, though - but I see this tracking the same course as the DS. There really wasn't much to play for the DS for the first year - and look at it now. It takes devs a while to adjust to new interface methods.
The thing with the wii, is that they are doing it just like they did on the cube. The first several months I had it, there was nothing worthwhile besides rogue leader and smash bros. Then mario zelda and metroid came out (and I was disappointed in each of them but thats a different story).
They still have their massive software droughts, eased a bit now with the virtual console and casual games.
I guess my major problem with most of Nintendo's franchises is that they claim innovation over the looks. That's fine and all, but with stuff like Mario Kart and Mario Party, they are stagnating a bit, while I enjoy them, its hard to call them anything but the same old thing with only a couple gimmicks added. They sure dont look any better than they used to, I know that isnt the point, but I'm not "upgrading" just for waggle.
Brawl and Galaxy look to make up for it though, and once games that are being worked on now start to trickle in, I think there will be a lot more quality content rather than all the shovelware.
I love the Wii, but I'd be lying if I said it had met my expectations. I love the Wii mostly because of its potential, and for Virtual Console. It just doesn't have a good catalogue.
I still only have Zelda and Wii Sports, and only now has Super Paper Mario been released in Europe, so that's going to be my next game along with MP3. Before the end of the year, I'll be getting SSBB and Galaxy, so that brings me up to 5 games over a year, not counting Wii Sports. Compare this to my 13 games on the 360, which I've had since September last year - and add at least 5 more to that before the end of christmas.
It's not just about graphics. It's about developer incentive and the ability to utilize new technologies. The 360 and the PS3, graphics aside, have numerous features and capabilities that we haven't seen before due to the advances of new technologies. Many newer engines offer gameplay possibilites that go beyond simple aesthetics. The Wii's innovations are entirely limited to controls, which can only go so far. It's not that the Wii can't deliver outstanding gameplay experiences, but the developers generally have to be a lot more creative and put more effort into the games than they currently are. I can only think of about 2 3rd party games I'm at all interested in right now, and this has never happened to me before with a console.
"Quality over quantity" is all well and good, but the Wii isn't delivering as much quality as I had hoped for. Realistically, with the massive success of the thing, we should see great games popping up over the next year, and while I still have tremendous amounts of faith in Nintendo's own offerings, I'm still not convinced about 3rd parties - honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
I remember the N64 was the classic case of great games with horrendous droughts in between. For the first 2.5 year the only games i can recall worth owning was Mario64, Zelda OoT and Golden Eye.
I honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
Oh, pffft. The N64 had months after launch when absolutely nothing came out. I'm not talking nothing that's playable, I mean nothing. Compared to the first year of the N64 the Wii is an embarrassment of riches.
Edit: Leitner, the price difference between a Cube and an oXbox at launch ($100) was greater than the $50 difference between a 360 Core and a Wii, The Wii came out at exactly the same point in this gen as it did last gen, and replace "teh kiddy" with "teh casual" for the Wii when it comes to drooling internet posters.
Also I don't care that you don't care about good graphics, the vast majority of people I'd wager do.
Then why is the Wii outselling everything else?
Because it's fucking cheap. I never said it was the sole factor in choosing a game console did I?
Then why is the DS outselling everything else?
I would say that on a handheld graphics are far less important, also the previous its fucking cheap.
The DS isn't that much cheaper than the PSP. Why are graphics less important with handhelds than consoles? The Gamecube was also fucking cheap, and I don't remember it selling over 130 million units and counting. Same with the N64 and the Atari 7800.
I would say graphics are less important on a handheld because having better graphics is a trade off of size and battery life with the second one being probably the most important thing for a handheld.
The GC wasn't that cheap in comparison though. The PS2 had a year lead and the GC was just $100 cheaper and withing 5 months of the GCs release it hit the $200 price point and and closed within $50 of the GC. The PS2 had a better library and was relatively close in price. I don't have numbers for a PS to N64 comparison, but the PS did release a year and a half earlier.
I would say graphics are less important on a handheld because having better graphics is a trade off of size and battery life with the second one being probably the most important thing for a handheld.
Graphics are a trade off in all consoles. You can't have better graphical capabilities than the competition without a trade off in price and profitability.
The GC wasn't that cheap in comparison though. The PS2 had a year lead and the GC was just $100 cheaper and withing 5 months of the GCs release it hit the $200 price point and and closed within $50 of the GC. The PS2 had a better library and was relatively close in price. I don't have numbers for a PS to N64 comparison, but the PS did release a year and a half earlier.
You are basically saying that price is only one of a myriad of factors such a graphics, size, design, etc. that influence a console's sales.
The GC was that cheap in comparison. The price was a third less than that of the PS2.
I really don't think people buy the Wii for it's graphical abilities. And if you do, you're stupid. People buy it because they can play past games on it, it has the wii remote, and the party games.
I think the Wii is perfect for people who have a lot of friends who are close by (not saying people who don't... don't have friends), because almost every game that comes out on it has a 4 player co-op available. I love being able to play Mario Party with all my friends, or Wii Sports with all my friends.
It's more of a social machine than anything else to me. The Virtual Console is just another selling point for me for my single player goodness.
What I always find funny is that people bitch at Sony for shoving Blue ray down people's throat...making people pay more for something. Nintendo did the SAME thing. They said: "let's upclock our system, add 20 bucks of storage, and a cool peripheral, and charge them for like 4-5 gamecubes" And you guys bought into it. Very little that the Wii does couldn't have been accomplished on the Cube, and them simply add the waggle as a 60 dollar peripheral.
And I disaggree with the Wii offers something different. It does right now, but MS or Sony could EASILY make a Wiimote of their own. And they would also still have HD and a ton of storage.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming. It's the same as every other silly thing Nintendo tried on us (Virtual boy, power glove, that stupid bazooka gun thing)...just this time it worked. But, if MS and/or Sony weren't worried about people saying they were copying, they could have it in a flash.
And I disaggree with the Wii offers something different. It does right now, but MS or Sony could EASILY make a Wiimote of their own. And they would also still have HD and a ton of storage.
All of five games might use their wiimote unless they made it the standard controller.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming. It's the same as every other silly thing Nintendo tried on us (Virtual boy, power glove, that stupid bazooka gun thing)...just this time it worked. But, if MS and/or Sony weren't worried about people saying they were copying, they could have it in a flash.
The power glove wasn't made by Nintendo. The Wii is also differen't from the bazooka light gun and the virtual boy in that most people find the Wii really fun to play.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming.
It's funny because I've observed that the only ones who keep referring to it in any way, shape or form as "the second coming" are those who deride it, like yourself.
What I always find funny is that people bitch at Sony for shoving Blue ray down people's throat...making people pay more for something. Nintendo did the SAME thing. They said: "let's upclock our system, add 20 bucks of storage, and a cool peripheral, and charge them for like 4-5 gamecubes" And you guys bought into it. Very little that the Wii does couldn't have been accomplished on the Cube, and them simply add the waggle as a 60 dollar peripheral.
And I disaggree with the Wii offers something different. It does right now, but MS or Sony could EASILY make a Wiimote of their own. And they would also still have HD and a ton of storage.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming. It's the same as every other silly thing Nintendo tried on us (Virtual boy, power glove, that stupid bazooka gun thing)...just this time it worked. But, if MS and/or Sony weren't worried about people saying they were copying, they could have it in a flash.
What I always find funny is that people bitch at Sony for shoving Blue ray down people's throat...making people pay more for something. Nintendo did the SAME thing. They said: "let's upclock our system, add 20 bucks of storage, and a cool peripheral, and charge them for like 4-5 gamecubes" And you guys bought into it. Very little that the Wii does couldn't have been accomplished on the Cube, and them simply add the waggle as a 60 dollar peripheral.
Shit, you're right. I in no way bought into it because I like the games that have come out for it, find waggle to be extremely fun, and won't afford a 360 or PS3 right now. They fooled me! Especially with how they added built-in wifi support, standard, wireless controllers, system stand-by, and an online marketplace with free downloads for web browsing, news, weather, and other stuff! It's exactly like a Gamecube.
Seriously, there's a lot more new tech, software, and features in a Wii over a Gamecube aside from a remote that wiggles. It might still be over-priced at $250, but not any more than every other tech gadget is when it first comes out.
I'll give you the CPU, but the GPU was just licensed out from ATI, which was just derived from their regular GPU R&D (and what was that about development for PCs being irrelevant for consoles?)
off-topic, but:
The R600 (Radeon HD series) was based on the 360's graphics chip, not the other way around. I'd say that development for consoles is as relevant to PCs as vice versa.
Hell, the R300 (Radeon 9700, the chip that made ATi a serious competitor instead of another SiS/Via/Matrox-like producer of cheap crap) was based on the work they did for the Gamecube.
And R&D money is at least as important as R&D time. Nintendo licensed a bunch of stuff from Gyronics or Gyrotronics or whatever the name of that company is that has that gyroscopic mouse.
Also I don't care that you don't care about good graphics, the vast majority of people I'd wager do.
Then why is the Wii outselling everything else?
Because it's fucking cheap. I never said it was the sole factor in choosing a game console did I?
Then why did the Gamecube, which was vastly cheaper than the PS2 and oXbox through its lifetime, get creamed last gen?
Because the Gamecube was a really bad system that really only survived because of Nintendo's first party games but Gamecube was just a bad system.
If by survived you mean sold slightly less than the XBOX worldwide and made Nintendo a profit almost every step of the way, then yes, it was a bad system that got creamed.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming.
"No offense, but *OFFENSIVE COMMENT*"
I don't know that an attempt to temper what might be over-enthusiasm is really offensive.
No, it wasn't. What he was saying just kinda seemed like what people do when they say, "No offense, but...". Like saying that automatically makes what you're saying unoffensive.
So saying, "I'm not bashing the Wii, but..." just reminded me.
Also I don't care that you don't care about good graphics, the vast majority of people I'd wager do.
Then why is the Wii outselling everything else?
Because it's fucking cheap. I never said it was the sole factor in choosing a game console did I?
Then why did the Gamecube, which was vastly cheaper than the PS2 and oXbox through its lifetime, get creamed last gen?
Because the Gamecube was a really bad system that really only survived because of Nintendo's first party games but Gamecube was just a bad system.
The Gamecube was significantly more powerful than the PS2. It had bad PR and ended up with a mediocre third-party library, but I don't see how you could say it was "just a bad system" when if anything, the hardware end was what they did right.
The wii needs physics. this gen physics, not less-than-last-gen physics.
I have always wondered how that guy flies in wonky positions makes games better. In fact, about 99 percent of X360 / PS3 games used additional horsepower for that.
the wii has sold like mad because it's cheap, and looking at game sales aside from nintendo games the attach rate is pretty abysmal.
Certainly. Nintedo's official fiscal statement shows that attach rate is 5.2 games without Wii Sports or VC games.... And that also explains why Gamecube was number one console during last generation.
I thought we went over in the sales thread why attach rate is a very poor indicator of a console's health?
Yeah, it is because if console is selling constantly, attach rate actually goes down, because new owners haven't bought that many games. But I just wanted call on devolve's bullshit.
Number on the parenthesis is the last year. But hey, tell me more your incredible facts.
Off topic, but... the Gaijinbox had significantly more games than the PS3? At a Japanese game show? Um, ack. The PS3's really struggling if that's true.
Off topic, but... the Gaijinbox had significantly more games than the PS3? At a Japanese game show? Um, ack. The PS3's really struggling if that's true.?
Anyone who follows gaming news very closely knows that there hasn't been that many new exclusive games announced for PS3 during last six months. But yeah, this list doesn't, of course, tell whole truth, as most western companies didn't have stand on TGS. But japanese support is ramping up quickly.
I love the argument "Look at the current games library, Third Parties aren't flocking to the Wii".
It works so well, since games all have less than 1 year development cycles, and 3rd parties totally predicted that the Wii would sell this well, and totally didn't wait at all to see which console would take off.
I know it's really easy to say "SSBB and SMG, what else?" But if you actually look at some of the stuff in development, you'll see Project O, No More Heroes, the game by Vanillaware, Force Unleashed, that game with the 32 person multiplayer... just to name a few that I'm excited for. The devs are starting to come around to seeing the Wii as a real platform.
The wii needs physics. this gen physics, not less-than-last-gen physics. It needs the horsepower to become more intuitive. This ain't the ds.
Both Sonic and the Secret Rings and Elebits use the Ageia PhysX engine, one of the premiere middle-ware physics engines on the market. It's hard to fault the hardware or its horsepower (especially when you see how much Elebits can handle) simply because you don't like how the engine's being employed. The hardware is capable if the developers are willing.
And just because they're using ageia doesn't mean that they're using it to even remotely the same degree as say the 360 or ps3 would. Shit can get scaled down.
Mind you, I've played neither, but two games aren't the rule, they're the exception.
the wii has sold like mad because it's cheap, and looking at game sales aside from nintendo games the attach rate is pretty abysmal. that means people are buying the console and playing wii sports, and that's about it.
... and those Nintendo games you mentioned that don't have abysmal attach rates? 'Cause if they're being bought then somebody's playing them.
You misunderstand. I'm saying ASIDE from nintendo created games, the attach rate is abysmal. Hell, the attach rate isn't even that good WITH them.
The wii has sold, without the pack-in game and only counting million + sellers, 14 million games. How many are 3rd party? TWO MILLION. between two games.
Compared to the 360: 18 million or so (not including xbl games). How many are 3rd party? Nearly all of it.
The fact is, nintendo has, and always will, be the dominate software seller on its systems, to the detriment of the 3rd party. It's a bit of a catch 22, for sure (developers don't make games for nintendo systems anymore because they don't sell, 3rd party games don't sell on nintendo systems anymore because developers don't make them), but I don't see nintendo trying their hardest to get people on board. They know they butter their own bread, and they're getting back to the way they used to be, where they want to dictate the rules.
the 360 team has so far given stellar support to 3rd parties, sony is desperately trying to do so and......well, how much have we heard in the way of developers talking about how cool nintendo is to work with?
Nobody cares so much that a game costs them 3 times as much to develop if they can make 3-5 times as much.
Good for nintendo, they're making bank. Bravo. I'm glad the wii is selling well. But 3rd party developers aren't flocking to the wii like people are saying they are. That says something to me. the wii *is* in a different market, and that market consists of the following people: nintendo believers, and the same people who buy up millions of those games that come with the baseball bat.
I'm not going to say sales are going to take a dive, but I doubt software sales are going to soar aside from what nintendo puts out. And that's not expanding the market, that's just creating a completely different one.
While I'm not going to argue with you about the Wii's demographic, it's because I don't have anything to back it up with. What's frustrating about that though is I know that you don't either and you're just saying it because that's your assumption.
Look at the games above. it may not be 100% accurate, but you going to tell me you can't get some demographic information from those? that's not anecdotal. It may not be completely accurate, but it tells a tale.
Posts
Metroid Prime 3 is the last game i will buy for my wii. I'm selling the damn thing.
I bought a lot of the hype despite being skeptical. I got the wii, I got 3 games, and that's been it. But you know what?
the waggle is being held back. yeah, it's fun and all, but I don't think it provides anything incredibly new due to the hardware limitations of the wii. Aside from the casual games, all it's doing is replacing button presses with waggle moves.........and that's about as anticlimatic as they come. It doesn't "feel" like I'm doing anything aside from shaking my controller instead of pressing A, and then getting pissed that shaking took longer than pressing and then feeling like the game (inaccurately) is laggy.
Case in point: MP3. yeah, it controlled well. But it doesn't look much better than MP1. The story is embarrassing. The AI is non existant (great, I can point at the guys head........too bad he either stands there or just flips all over the place randomly). Physics aren't there aside from gravity, and we've had that since the begining of gaming. The only thing that works well that I couldn't do really in another game was all the switches and levers that I had to twist................and big fucking deal. the wii lets me turn a key in a new way. The metroid series could've gone in a new way but instead it's still holding onto functionality, AI, and storytelling that it perfected back in super metroid.
The wii needs physics. this gen physics, not less-than-last-gen physics. It needs the horsepower to become more intuitive. This ain't the ds.
the wii has sold like mad because it's cheap, and looking at game sales aside from nintendo games the attach rate is pretty abysmal. that means people are buying the console and playing wii sports, and that's about it.
Good for nintendo, they're making bank. Bravo. I'm glad the wii is selling well. But 3rd party developers aren't flocking to the wii like people are saying they are. That says something to me. the wii *is* in a different market, and that market consists of the following people: nintendo believers, and the same people who buy up millions of those games that come with the baseball bat.
I'm not going to say sales are going to take a dive, but I doubt software sales are going to soar aside from what nintendo puts out. And that's not expanding the market, that's just creating a completely different one.
Then why is the DS outselling everything else?
I would say that on a handheld graphics are far less important, also the previous its fucking cheap.
The DS isn't that much cheaper than the PSP. Why are graphics less important with handhelds than consoles? The Gamecube was also fucking cheap, and I don't remember it selling over 130 million units and counting. Same with the N64 and the Atari 7800.
Both Sonic and the Secret Rings and Elebits use the Ageia PhysX engine, one of the premiere middle-ware physics engines on the market. It's hard to fault the hardware or its horsepower (especially when you see how much Elebits can handle) simply because you don't like how the engine's being employed. The hardware is capable if the developers are willing.
... and those Nintendo games you mentioned that don't have abysmal attach rates? 'Cause if they're being bought then somebody's playing them.
While I'm not going to argue with you about the Wii's demographic, it's because I don't have anything to back it up with. What's frustrating about that though is I know that you don't either and you're just saying it because that's your assumption. It doesn't appeal to you, and you consider yourself a hardcore gamer, therefore it's not for hardcore gamers ... that just doesn't fly. To be honest none of us knows precisely what the Wii demographic looks like or whether those people will buy more or less games than the people who buy 360s or PS3s.
Every hardcore gamer I know in real life also has a Wii. Every single one. I can't say the same for the 360 and I definitely can't say the same for the PS3. My anecdotal experience doesn't mesh at all with your assertions.
Then why did the Gamecube, which was vastly cheaper than the PS2 and oXbox through its lifetime, get creamed last gen?
I still only have Zelda and Wii Sports, and only now has Super Paper Mario been released in Europe, so that's going to be my next game along with MP3. Before the end of the year, I'll be getting SSBB and Galaxy, so that brings me up to 5 games over a year, not counting Wii Sports. Compare this to my 13 games on the 360, which I've had since September last year - and add at least 5 more to that before the end of christmas.
It's not just about graphics. It's about developer incentive and the ability to utilize new technologies. The 360 and the PS3, graphics aside, have numerous features and capabilities that we haven't seen before due to the advances of new technologies. Many newer engines offer gameplay possibilites that go beyond simple aesthetics. The Wii's innovations are entirely limited to controls, which can only go so far. It's not that the Wii can't deliver outstanding gameplay experiences, but the developers generally have to be a lot more creative and put more effort into the games than they currently are. I can only think of about 2 3rd party games I'm at all interested in right now, and this has never happened to me before with a console.
"Quality over quantity" is all well and good, but the Wii isn't delivering as much quality as I had hoped for. Realistically, with the massive success of the thing, we should see great games popping up over the next year, and while I still have tremendous amounts of faith in Nintendo's own offerings, I'm still not convinced about 3rd parties - honestly, right now, it's looking a lot worse than the N64 to me.
RE4 was fantastic on the GameCube. It took advantage of everything it could. If the GC could output those sorts of graphics, we should never have been subjected to anything less.
Price difference wasn't nearly as great, it came out later and was seen as "teh kiddy".
Oh, pffft. The N64 had months after launch when absolutely nothing came out. I'm not talking nothing that's playable, I mean nothing. Compared to the first year of the N64 the Wii is an embarrassment of riches.
Edit: Leitner, the price difference between a Cube and an oXbox at launch ($100) was greater than the $50 difference between a 360 Core and a Wii, The Wii came out at exactly the same point in this gen as it did last gen, and replace "teh kiddy" with "teh casual" for the Wii when it comes to drooling internet posters.
See, I'd argue that the interface innovation is far more important than engine innovation, due to the way the human brain processes interaction, as interaction is going to have a much more potent effect on immersion than audio-visual cues will. (There are some aspects to engine innovation that do address this, though - mostly things like physics and other world-world interactions.)
I agree with the premise that right now we're mostly waiting for a lot of potential to be realized, though - but I see this tracking the same course as the DS. There really wasn't much to play for the DS for the first year - and look at it now. It takes devs a while to adjust to new interface methods.
You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake
Shiren FC: 3093-6912-1542
They still have their massive software droughts, eased a bit now with the virtual console and casual games.
I guess my major problem with most of Nintendo's franchises is that they claim innovation over the looks. That's fine and all, but with stuff like Mario Kart and Mario Party, they are stagnating a bit, while I enjoy them, its hard to call them anything but the same old thing with only a couple gimmicks added. They sure dont look any better than they used to, I know that isnt the point, but I'm not "upgrading" just for waggle.
Brawl and Galaxy look to make up for it though, and once games that are being worked on now start to trickle in, I think there will be a lot more quality content rather than all the shovelware.
I remember the N64 was the classic case of great games with horrendous droughts in between. For the first 2.5 year the only games i can recall worth owning was Mario64, Zelda OoT and Golden Eye.
lolz kidtendo
I would say graphics are less important on a handheld because having better graphics is a trade off of size and battery life with the second one being probably the most important thing for a handheld.
The GC wasn't that cheap in comparison though. The PS2 had a year lead and the GC was just $100 cheaper and withing 5 months of the GCs release it hit the $200 price point and and closed within $50 of the GC. The PS2 had a better library and was relatively close in price. I don't have numbers for a PS to N64 comparison, but the PS did release a year and a half earlier.
You are basically saying that price is only one of a myriad of factors such a graphics, size, design, etc. that influence a console's sales.
The GC was that cheap in comparison. The price was a third less than that of the PS2.
I think the Wii is perfect for people who have a lot of friends who are close by (not saying people who don't... don't have friends), because almost every game that comes out on it has a 4 player co-op available. I love being able to play Mario Party with all my friends, or Wii Sports with all my friends.
It's more of a social machine than anything else to me. The Virtual Console is just another selling point for me for my single player goodness.
And I disaggree with the Wii offers something different. It does right now, but MS or Sony could EASILY make a Wiimote of their own. And they would also still have HD and a ton of storage.
Not trying to slam the Wii. But it isn't the second coming. It's the same as every other silly thing Nintendo tried on us (Virtual boy, power glove, that stupid bazooka gun thing)...just this time it worked. But, if MS and/or Sony weren't worried about people saying they were copying, they could have it in a flash.
The power glove wasn't made by Nintendo. The Wii is also differen't from the bazooka light gun and the virtual boy in that most people find the Wii really fun to play.
It's funny because I've observed that the only ones who keep referring to it in any way, shape or form as "the second coming" are those who deride it, like yourself.
*In best Liquid Snake voice*
BROTHERRRRRRRRRR!
Because the Gamecube was a really bad system that really only survived because of Nintendo's first party games but Gamecube was just a bad system.
Shit, you're right. I in no way bought into it because I like the games that have come out for it, find waggle to be extremely fun, and won't afford a 360 or PS3 right now. They fooled me! Especially with how they added built-in wifi support, standard, wireless controllers, system stand-by, and an online marketplace with free downloads for web browsing, news, weather, and other stuff! It's exactly like a Gamecube.
Seriously, there's a lot more new tech, software, and features in a Wii over a Gamecube aside from a remote that wiggles. It might still be over-priced at $250, but not any more than every other tech gadget is when it first comes out.
I don't know that an attempt to temper what might be over-enthusiasm is really offensive.
The R600 (Radeon HD series) was based on the 360's graphics chip, not the other way around. I'd say that development for consoles is as relevant to PCs as vice versa.
Hell, the R300 (Radeon 9700, the chip that made ATi a serious competitor instead of another SiS/Via/Matrox-like producer of cheap crap) was based on the work they did for the Gamecube.
And R&D money is at least as important as R&D time. Nintendo licensed a bunch of stuff from Gyronics or Gyrotronics or whatever the name of that company is that has that gyroscopic mouse.
If by survived you mean sold slightly less than the XBOX worldwide and made Nintendo a profit almost every step of the way, then yes, it was a bad system that got creamed.
So saying, "I'm not bashing the Wii, but..." just reminded me.
"I don't want to say X, but X!"
The Gamecube was significantly more powerful than the PS2. It had bad PR and ended up with a mediocre third-party library, but I don't see how you could say it was "just a bad system" when if anything, the hardware end was what they did right.
I have always wondered how that guy flies in wonky positions makes games better. In fact, about 99 percent of X360 / PS3 games used additional horsepower for that.
Certainly. Nintedo's official fiscal statement shows that attach rate is 5.2 games without Wii Sports or VC games.... And that also explains why Gamecube was number one console during last generation.
Certainly not. Here is re-cap from this years TGS. Which platform has the most games on display?
NDS: 17.1% (10.4%)
Wii: 8.1% (1.0%)
PS2: 7.2% (20.1%)
360:4,9 % (4.0%)
PS3: 3.2% (3.6%)
PSP: 2.6% (6.6%)
PC: 0.2% (0.4%)
GBA: 0.0% (0.4%)
Number on the parenthesis is the last year. But hey, tell me more your incredible facts.
Just out of curiosity how are those numbers set up; are they only taking into account for console exclusive titles and ignoring multi-platform ones?
Yeah, it is because if console is selling constantly, attach rate actually goes down, because new owners haven't bought that many games. But I just wanted call on devolve's bullshit.
Off topic, but... the Gaijinbox had significantly more games than the PS3? At a Japanese game show? Um, ack. The PS3's really struggling if that's true.
By the way, where are these figures from?
They take multiplatforms on account, and numbers are originally from Gamefront.de.
Anyone who follows gaming news very closely knows that there hasn't been that many new exclusive games announced for PS3 during last six months. But yeah, this list doesn't, of course, tell whole truth, as most western companies didn't have stand on TGS. But japanese support is ramping up quickly.
It works so well, since games all have less than 1 year development cycles, and 3rd parties totally predicted that the Wii would sell this well, and totally didn't wait at all to see which console would take off.
I know it's really easy to say "SSBB and SMG, what else?" But if you actually look at some of the stuff in development, you'll see Project O, No More Heroes, the game by Vanillaware, Force Unleashed, that game with the 32 person multiplayer... just to name a few that I'm excited for. The devs are starting to come around to seeing the Wii as a real platform.
And just because they're using ageia doesn't mean that they're using it to even remotely the same degree as say the 360 or ps3 would. Shit can get scaled down.
Mind you, I've played neither, but two games aren't the rule, they're the exception.
You misunderstand. I'm saying ASIDE from nintendo created games, the attach rate is abysmal. Hell, the attach rate isn't even that good WITH them.
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
The wii has sold, without the pack-in game and only counting million + sellers, 14 million games. How many are 3rd party? TWO MILLION. between two games.
Compared to the 360: 18 million or so (not including xbl games). How many are 3rd party? Nearly all of it.
The fact is, nintendo has, and always will, be the dominate software seller on its systems, to the detriment of the 3rd party. It's a bit of a catch 22, for sure (developers don't make games for nintendo systems anymore because they don't sell, 3rd party games don't sell on nintendo systems anymore because developers don't make them), but I don't see nintendo trying their hardest to get people on board. They know they butter their own bread, and they're getting back to the way they used to be, where they want to dictate the rules.
the 360 team has so far given stellar support to 3rd parties, sony is desperately trying to do so and......well, how much have we heard in the way of developers talking about how cool nintendo is to work with?
Nobody cares so much that a game costs them 3 times as much to develop if they can make 3-5 times as much.
Look at the games above. it may not be 100% accurate, but you going to tell me you can't get some demographic information from those? that's not anecdotal. It may not be completely accurate, but it tells a tale.