It's an interesting thing when you stop and think about it. Nintendo spent all this time perfecting their motion controls which has given them a bit of an edge over the competition, they came up with a good controller, good control scheme, and just let the games be made around them.
The PS3 and XBox just continued to making games look better. So while their next generation products will now most likely include motion controls, Nintendo is going to be sitting in the corner going "Look we've improved our motion sensing, and it's going to be awesome, then they're going to turn around and say "Hey look, it's high def too now."
Making a game in HD is easy, expecially since most manufacturers have been doing it for two other consoles now, making a game work with motion controls is a bit different, so in the next generation Nintendo is going to, in theory, have the upper hand with manufacturers as most of them will already be familiar with how to program their controls in.
You can kindly keep motion controls away from my Xbox 720 thank you
No can do chief, it's now the future of gaming, though I imagine some games will be designed with it as optional
I love my Wii as a complement to my 360. I couldn't imagine JUST getting by with the Wii this generation. Nintendo really did make the system to fit well with one of the other HD systems. Damn geniuses I tell ya!
The bulk of games being made for the Wii are with kids and young teens in mind, some of them made for grown up gamers, while the xbox and PS3 are more or less the opposite, I see several games being released for xbox and PS3 with motion controls as optional because you'll have an generation of gamers tuned to playing with a 360 or PS3 contoller, which is pretty different than using motions, some people do not like motions, as such they will be optional.
Most in there because Nintendo did it and it was hugely a success
I don't mean this as a Sony apologist, but the small amount of motion control that many PS3-exclusive games add is, in most cases, just the right amount of motion control. I can definitely see what people mean when they say that some of the motion stuff tacked-on to Wii games feels half-assed. I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games. Ports from classic-controller systems are inherently designed to have the exacting control that such a controller gives you, and switching that to some sort of motion control doesn't even make sense. Many of these problems may come from the fact that with a nunchuck setup you're missing the right thumbstick, but still -- rearrange the controls, or make it optional.
I don't own a Wii, but had a GameCube (two actually, for multiplayer Kart). I was tempted to get one since Wii Sports seemed like a lot of fun, but figured I'd wait it out to see where things were going with the system. I'm not at all surprised that I'm seeing the two sides split along gamecube ownership: those who owned a GC are seeing a similar pattern -- lots of essentially overpriced party games, with good titles few and far between. Those who didn't own a GC are loving the Wii. The Zelda fanatics are their own separate group, of course ;D
For me, the Wii has become less attractive because there's such a strong focus on local multiplay and minigames. I used to have game parties and had a bunch of semi-gamers and casual gamers over, and we'd play a mix of games on gamecubes and my dreamcast (which I've since sold). I got sick of having to buy multiple controllers, and finagle extra copies of games. Shit, I even rented an extra copy of Mario Kart DD for a game party. It was fun, sure, but after doing that 2-3 times I realized that people liked having these parties because I paid for everything. I did a game party hiatus and I suddenly didn't hear from any of these people anymore.
Now, I play board games with some of my good friends, which are cheaper and, honestly, more conducive to a party or hanging out. My wife thinks Wii Sports is too shallow to spend $275 on for just the two of us to play, since she's happy playing PSN co-op titles with me like Monsters and Eden (and is anxiously waiting for LBP to launch since she got hooked on the beta).
So as a non-Wii owner, my initial interest in picking up the system has waned. I have a PS3 that we picked up for Blu-Ray and it has happily fulfilled my gaming needs. And it's not even just graphics -- Disgaea 3 is in there now -- but a focus on deep, single player games that I can dig into. But like I said above, the few bits of motion control that exclusive PS3 games have is where I see the future of "classic + motion" going -- a little here and there, tuned to parts of the game. Not motion everything, but not "sit in one spot" for everything, either.
and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control
See, and I'm quite the opposite. I LOVE playing Mario Kart with the motion control, because it's just fun. Especially the feeling while trying to drift through corners and get those sparks going. Using a stick to control a racer is boring now.
I look at mine in terms of what I've missed by buying it and what I'd have missed out on so far by not.
It's come out well in the positive, and I look eagerly to the next few years of its lifecycle. It's becoming more and more obvious that its image as a console is still in flux, and that its potential for improvement is vast.
The Xbox and PS3 will get better games in the next few years. Not much better, seeing as there's already been some really great releases on both systems, but we can look forward to a small handful of really groundbreaking experiences on each. I think my investment will bear sweeter fruit though, and more of it.
The bulk of non-shovelware games being made for the Wii are with everyone in mind, while the xbox and PS3 are made with 16-35 year old males in mind
I think that's a lot more accurate. That's not meant to be a criticism on either side. But I think that if you take a look at a lot of the games for Wii and compare them to the games for XBox 360 or PS3, you'll find a lot more games that are more accessible for everyone on the Wii side. I would guess that someone who hasn't played games who is not in that 16-35 male range would be able to understand the controls for Wii games much, much faster than they would for 360 or PS3 games, whereas a 16-35 male would probably be able to understand both.
Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games.
I beg to differ. I absolutely loved playing Mario Kart Wii with the wheel. While the control wasn't as great as with a traditional controller, the experience was far greater and immersing for me, and I've been playing video games for a long time, including every single Mario Kart. I enjoyed Mario Kart Wii much more than any of the others. Also, you can play Mario Kart Wii with a GC controller or Remote+Nunchuk for the more traditional experience.
Also, based on those game parties, it sounds like you need new friends. :P
I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games.
I disagree. I play Mario Kart Wii exclusively with the Wii Wheel. Not because I think it's better, in fact it's actually less accurate than an analog stick, but because I think it's more fun that way.
I don't mean this as a Sony apologist, but the small amount of motion control that many PS3-exclusive games add is, in most cases, just the right amount of motion control. I can definitely see what people mean when they say that some of the motion stuff tacked-on to Wii games feels half-assed. I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games. Ports from classic-controller systems are inherently designed to have the exacting control that such a controller gives you, and switching that to some sort of motion control doesn't even make sense. Many of these problems may come from the fact that with a nunchuck setup you're missing the right thumbstick, but still -- rearrange the controls, or make it optional.
I disagree on Mario Kart; I feel like racers most of all benefit from having motion control tilting built in, though I don't really play MK on a hard-core extreme level or anything. I haven't tried anything with SixAxis but both Mario Kart and Excite Truck control really nicely, I think.
But in general, I agree that straight ports of games often don't work well on Wii or at best get mixed reception. I'm able to adapt pretty well to Wii controls—I loved SSX Blur, even though most everyone hated the controls—but the few times I've been able to compare the same game across Wii and something non-Wii, the Wii version's controls generally feel flimsy. The only exception has been Tiger Woods, and that's something that naturally plays to the Wii's control strengths.
EDIT: On racers and motion controls: I think it's vital that games allow gamers to tweak and customize the sensitivity, which helps tons. Excite Truck controls terribly if you're using the really twitchy car, so I play with anything that has a slow/medium handling speed and it's heavenly. The same with bikes versus karts in MK. These games kind of build the control sensitivity in as game options, but I'd rather see games let us tweak that in the menu, like how FPSes let you adjust analog-stick sensitivity.
It's an interesting thing when you stop and think about it. Nintendo spent all this time perfecting their motion controls which has given them a bit of an edge over the competition, they came up with a good controller, good control scheme, and just let the games be made around them.
The PS3 and XBox just continued to making games look better. So while their next generation products will now most likely include motion controls, Nintendo is going to be sitting in the corner going "Look we've improved our motion sensing, and it's going to be awesome, then they're going to turn around and say "Hey look, it's high def too now."
Making a game in HD is easy, expecially since most manufacturers have been doing it for two other consoles now, making a game work with motion controls is a bit different, so in the next generation Nintendo is going to, in theory, have the upper hand with manufacturers as most of them will already be familiar with how to program their controls in.
Whenever I see this argument, I really begin to question just what some people think it takes for someone to make a game. I wonder, for example, if they think games are made with Photoshop and 'that one 3d modeling thing'. The ignorance of it is almost criminal.
I challenge you to show me how Microsoft (or hell, even Sony) has focused on just making games "look better." Go ahead. Make an argument like "lolz we can do volumetric lighting and more polys and thats it." Lets ignore the incredible advances that Microsoft has made with the DirectX framework in the past few years. Lets totally nullify the onset of managed languages in game development like XNA and the later versions of UnrealScript, capable of up to 95% of the performance of unmanaged code without the memory management headaches. Lets just pretend that middleware like Havok and Euphoria don't make art direction and level design more about art direction and level design than a geometrical mindfuck. Lets ignore the fact that Nintendo had jack all to do with the development of any of the above.
Yea. It's the motion controls; Nintendo's the only innovative company left in the world. Right.
I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games.
I disagree. I play Mario Kart Wii exclusively with the Wii Wheel. Not because I think it's better, in fact it's actually less accurate than an analog stick, but because I think it's more fun that way.
EDIT: Oh hey, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
It's only marginally less accurate than the stick, and the intuitiveness makes up for it, I'd say.
I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games.
I disagree. I play Mario Kart Wii exclusively with the Wii Wheel. Not because I think it's better, in fact it's actually less accurate than an analog stick, but because I think it's more fun that way.
EDIT: Oh hey, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
It is way more fun and almost as accurate. I used to pooh-pooh the wheel too until I started using it on a regular basis. The only problem is that driving straight is harder.
Mario Kart was the best with wiimote+nunchuck, which still promotes the Wii controls. Simply put, I love being able to be so relaxed while playing a game. With a standard controller you need to be all hunched over, but with this you can be lying back which your arms separate.
I think the Wii rocks as a secondary console, or if you do a lot of in-room multiplayer. I traded in my Xbox to help pay for the Wii after my then-fiance and I decided that's what we wanted. I liked it on it's own, but it just didn't live up to the level of gameplay that I'd gotten used to with KotoR, Jade Empire, etc on the Box.
Now that I've got a 360, I play that when I want some solo gaming time and then when the wife puts down her DS long enough to want some sort of interactive gaming we fire up the Wii (currently playing through Dokupan Kingdoms together). It's great for that sort of thing, both because of the specific gameplay elements it brings to the table and the specific titles themselves.
It's also a huge hit at family get-togethers. So much so that there are now 3 in her immediate family, one owned by her parents specifically for Tennis, cow racing and such at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
If I had to pick, I'd take my 360. But it's definitely a very highly appreciated supplement.
I should also add that it is only now that the 360 library is even beginning to interest me. From my perspective, it's had a whole lot of nothing the last few years.
It's an interesting thing when you stop and think about it. Nintendo spent all this time perfecting their motion controls which has given them a bit of an edge over the competition, they came up with a good controller, good control scheme, and just let the games be made around them.
The PS3 and XBox just continued to making games look better. So while their next generation products will now most likely include motion controls, Nintendo is going to be sitting in the corner going "Look we've improved our motion sensing, and it's going to be awesome, then they're going to turn around and say "Hey look, it's high def too now."
Making a game in HD is easy, expecially since most manufacturers have been doing it for two other consoles now, making a game work with motion controls is a bit different, so in the next generation Nintendo is going to, in theory, have the upper hand with manufacturers as most of them will already be familiar with how to program their controls in.
Whenever I see this argument, I really begin to question just what some people think it takes for someone to make a game. I wonder, for example, if they think games are made with Photoshop and 'that one 3d modeling thing'. The ignorance of it is almost criminal.
I challenge you to show me how Microsoft (or hell, even Sony) has focused on just making games "look better." Go ahead. Make an argument like "lolz we can do volumetric lighting and more polys and thats it." Lets ignore the incredible advances that Microsoft has made with the DirectX framework in the past few years. Lets totally nullify the onset of managed languages in game development like XNA and the later versions of UnrealScript, capable of up to 95% of the performance of unmanaged code without the memory management headaches. Lets just pretend that middleware like Havok and Euphoria don't make art direction and level design more about art direction and level design than a geometrical mindfuck. Lets ignore the fact that Nintendo had jack all to do with the development of any of the above.
Yea. It's the motion controls; Nintendo's the only innovative company left in the world. Right.
what? you just contradict yourself, first rant about people calling on ms and sony for a supposedly ignorance on the matter and then you list a bunch of technical stuff that was made precisely only for making games look better.
The only valid point would be innovation in the area of programming, but what the hell has that to do with Nintendo? Nintendo, as weird as it sounds, isn't a software company.
EDIT: this is like complaining that movie studios haven't contributed much to the technology behind cameras.
I was referrencing the hardware in the console, Sony and Microsoft sump mass quantities in making the machines powerful and capable of making things look good. I apologize for the confusion.
I think he has a point, but the message would have been better if it had been tailored around how the online landscape has set precedents for future generations of games.
But this is just the technology side. If for some odd reason technology right now wasn't electronic based but, lets say, steam powered, a company like Nintendo would have a place there as a game company and they probably would still be making games, Microsoft and Sony more than likely wouldn't. From a gaming stand point, Nintendo is indeed a very important innovation leader, they just use whatever technology to deliver the fun.
He could have at least said something about the potential for better AI.
I'm sure there are plenty of interesting developments in terms of physics middleware and what-have-you, but what we are discussing, and all that matters in the end, is what the public sees.
You could make a car with much improved handling and regulated temperature and a better airbag implementation and it automatically stops when you're going to hit something. Or you could make a car with a smooth color-changing exterior that hovers a foot off the ground. Both are innovation, but only one will be lauded as innovative and have an easy time becoming the new standard.
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Some of you guys have a pretty broad idea of what classifies as making a game look better. If DirectX, Euphoria, Havok, Unreal 3, etc all make you think "the shiny" and nothing else, then I can't help you. Go try to make a game and maybe you'll figure out why I think Nintendo's super-innovative image these days (emphasis on these days; I was all for Nintendo from the NES through the GameCube) is about as valid as Apple's 'hipster' icon.
EDIT: Sporky, you're right, I probably should have mentioned AI or the amazing networking and so on; I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
It's an interesting thing when you stop and think about it. Nintendo spent all this time perfecting their motion controls which has given them a bit of an edge over the competition, they came up with a good controller, good control scheme, and just let the games be made around them.
The PS3 and XBox just continued to making games look better. So while their next generation products will now most likely include motion controls, Nintendo is going to be sitting in the corner going "Look we've improved our motion sensing, and it's going to be awesome, then they're going to turn around and say "Hey look, it's high def too now."
Making a game in HD is easy, expecially since most manufacturers have been doing it for two other consoles now, making a game work with motion controls is a bit different, so in the next generation Nintendo is going to, in theory, have the upper hand with manufacturers as most of them will already be familiar with how to program their controls in.
Whenever I see this argument, I really begin to question just what some people think it takes for someone to make a game. I wonder, for example, if they think games are made with Photoshop and 'that one 3d modeling thing'. The ignorance of it is almost criminal.
I challenge you to show me how Microsoft (or hell, even Sony) has focused on just making games "look better." Go ahead. Make an argument like "lolz we can do volumetric lighting and more polys and thats it." Lets ignore the incredible advances that Microsoft has made with the DirectX framework in the past few years. Lets totally nullify the onset of managed languages in game development like XNA and the later versions of UnrealScript, capable of up to 95% of the performance of unmanaged code without the memory management headaches. Lets just pretend that middleware like Havok and Euphoria don't make art direction and level design more about art direction and level design than a geometrical mindfuck. Lets ignore the fact that Nintendo had jack all to do with the development of any of the above.
Yea. It's the motion controls; Nintendo's the only innovative company left in the world. Right.
This has nothing to do with the ps3 and 360. Or his point, really.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get World of Goo, Braid, and Fl0W, so I really don't care.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get World of Goo, Braid, and Fl0W, so I really don't care.
to your last statement: not really, get rid of all the stuff you described, and they would be on the computer (which World of Goo is).
I don't mean this as a Sony apologist, but the small amount of motion control that many PS3-exclusive games add is, in most cases, just the right amount of motion control. I can definitely see what people mean when they say that some of the motion stuff tacked-on to Wii games feels half-assed. I don't own a Wii but have played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii at a friend's place, and Mario Kart Wii just begs for a regular controller -- there's nothing "added" by having motion control, unless you never play video games. Ports from classic-controller systems are inherently designed to have the exacting control that such a controller gives you, and switching that to some sort of motion control doesn't even make sense. Many of these problems may come from the fact that with a nunchuck setup you're missing the right thumbstick, but still -- rearrange the controls, or make it optional.
Or, you know, use the fucking Classic or Cube controller.
It's an option.
And most of these games would translate quite nicely, except perhaps in some cases due to a lack of analog shoulder buttons. Unless they are analog, I forget. I don't think so, though. But then you still have the Cube controller as an option (though a poor one).
Again, I point at a simple multi-platformer like the Lego games as a shining example. No reason whatsoever not to include Classic functionaltiy, which would overcome the limitations of the Wiimote/'chuk. But no.
I beg to differ. I absolutely loved playing Mario Kart Wii with the wheel. While the control wasn't as great as with a traditional controller, the experience was far greater and immersing for me, and I've been playing video games for a long time, including every single Mario Kart. I enjoyed Mario Kart Wii much more than any of the others. Also, you can play Mario Kart Wii with a GC controller or Remote+Nunchuk for the more traditional experience.
Also, based on those game parties, it sounds like you need new friends. :P
Personally I like having both as an option, as MK does. I have some friends that simply don't adapt well to motion-based controls, so giving them the ability to just play it "regularly" is a definite plus. But yeah, personally I'm all about the wheel.
Some of you guys have a pretty broad idea of what classifies as making a game look better. If DirectX, Euphoria, Havok, Unreal 3, etc all make you think "the shiny" and nothing else, then I can't help you. Go try to make a game and maybe you'll figure out why I think Nintendo's super-innovative image these days (emphasis on these days; I was all for Nintendo from the NES through the GameCube) is about as valid as Apple's 'hipster' icon.
EDIT: Sporky, you're right, I probably should have mentioned AI or the amazing networking and so on; I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
But one thing is that they are working on an entirely different level, which I think is praiseworthy. Other people are tuning up the internals, making boxes bump into other boxes more realistically which of course is well worth the effort...but you've got one guy who steps outside of that and changes how you control the thing in the first place. Rather than making the stuff on the screen prettier and more complex, they stepped away from that and thought outside of the box.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get de Blob, Gears of War 2, and Uncharted, so I really don't care.
to your last statement: not really, get rid of all the stuff you described, and they would be on the computer (which World of Goo is).
I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
I haven't heard of these "big names." Instead of tossing out "big names" to sound like you know something, you could have just said "Microsoft worked on AI and networking." I would think your point is to get your message across to people who don't know, as opposed to people who do.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get de Blob, Gears of War 2, and Uncharted, so I really don't care.
to your last statement: not really, get rid of all the stuff you described, and they would be on the computer (which World of Goo is).
Better?
haha, wasn't de Blob originally a PC game? Just saying.
TelMarine on
3ds: 4983-4935-4575
0
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
I haven't heard of these "big names." Instead of tossing out "big names" to sound like you know something, you could have just said "Microsoft worked on AI and networking." I would think your point is to get your message across to people who don't know, as opposed to people who do.
You are correct. I'd love to get that message out to those who don't. The reason I haven't (and won't, in this thread) gone more in depth is mostly because I'm at work. I may do so later.
EDIT: And if I come across as condescending, I apologize. I'm just frustrated with Nintendo, and my attention is divided at the moment.
I'd just say that Microsoft has done a good job making online work well on a console. Other than that, everything else the PC has already done and better. The next step for them would be to make 60FPS a targeted standard (instead of 30), but then, graphically, games would have to look worse. Even if a game looks like shit, I at least give it some bonus points for getting 60 FPS.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get Metroid Prime 3, Gears of War 2, and Uncharted, so I really don't care.
to your last statement: not really, get rid of all the stuff you described, and they would be on the computer (which World of Goo is).
Better?
haha, wasn't de Blob originally a PC game? Just saying.
Some of you guys have a pretty broad idea of what classifies as making a game look better. If DirectX, Euphoria, Havok, Unreal 3, etc all make you think "the shiny" and nothing else, then I can't help you. Go try to make a game and maybe you'll figure out why I think Nintendo's super-innovative image these days (emphasis on these days; I was all for Nintendo from the NES through the GameCube) is about as valid as Apple's 'hipster' icon.
EDIT: Sporky, you're right, I probably should have mentioned AI or the amazing networking and so on; I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
I think people are overthinking this a bit. Yes, Microsoft and Sony did some very innovative things with hardware in order to facilitate the move to HD and address the need for much more detailed textures. Nintendo did some innovative things with game control, but they ALSO did some very innovative things with their hardware - it's just innovation that no one gives two shits about. The amount they were able to shrink the internals of the Wii, along with dramatic reducations in heat production and power consumption, took some doing. Why the hell they thought anyone cared is beyond me, but they do some innovative things with their hardware design. To cary on the stupid car analogy, if Sony and MS improved the braking and suspension systems, Nintendo radically changed and improved the cigarette lighter and left turn signal.
Also, I love my Wii - and I say this as a 'hardcore' gamer who prefers single player games. I think part of it is that I just don't have TIME anymore, so what is available on the Wii is enough to keep me happy for the most part. Really, if anyone added a 'standbye' mode to their next console that allowed me to suspend a play session for days at a time and pick up right where I left off as soon as I wanted (like flipping your DS closed) I'd pick that over the competition in a heartbeat regardless of who made it.
I care less about the Wii now than I did when it launched. The graphics are rather poo and the waggle novelty wore off quickly. I guess you could say it isn't for me. But I'm stoked that Nintendo have found success with it and re-established themselves as a driving force in the home console race. Watching Sony leave them for dust with the success of the PS2 was somewhat saddening after the demise of SEGA.
The problem I have is that Wii games give me this sense of "I've played you before", which isn't usually something that bothers me. I mean, I love playing old games and "new re-makes" but something about Wii games being new releases on a new console and not looking so hot just bugs me. Having said that, Miis are fantastic, and something I can't wait to see as an addition to the 360 NXE next month.
I remember when I had a Master System and desperately wanted a Megadrive, playing that cut-down Sonic just didn't feel like the real deal. I get a similar feeling when playing the Wii.
But I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will be quick to point out they find 360/PS3 games "more of the same" and that the Wii is the greatest and most innovative thing evar. They will of course be missing the point, completely wrong, and smell of goat urine. Opinions, eh?
Nintendo did some innovative things with game control, but they ALSO did some very innovative things with their hardware - it's just innovation that no one gives two shits about. The amount they were able to shrink the internals of the Wii, along with dramatic reducations in heat production and power consumption, took some doing. Why the hell they thought anyone cared is beyond me, but they do some innovative things with their hardware design.
Talk to the people who have sent in multiple red ringed 360s. Perhaps these innovations, if done by MS, would have been more greatly appreciated.
And yes, I do love that the Wii takes up so little space in my entertainment center. I can fit in one small shelf the Wii, four remotes, four nunchucks, a classic controller, the guitar (split in two), Zapper, Wheel, all my Wii and DS games, and my TV A/V auto-switch.
ArcSyn on
0
RoshinMy backlog can be seen from spaceSwedenRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Two years later and I still only play Wii Sports and Wii Fit.
I have learned to hate the Wii Waggle (TM) and those two games are the only ones where I feel the controls are integral to the gameplay, as opposed to bolted on as an afterthought. I don't hate the machine or anything. There's just very little there that excites me. A lot of titles feel like cheaper versions of proper games with the Wii Waggle thrown in. I have bought far more VC games than boxed Wii ones.
To me, the Wii is essentially a retro gaming console that also plays Wii games. If they ever sort out the storage issue, it will be perfect in this regard.
Posts
Most in there because Nintendo did it and it was hugely a success
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
I don't own a Wii, but had a GameCube (two actually, for multiplayer Kart). I was tempted to get one since Wii Sports seemed like a lot of fun, but figured I'd wait it out to see where things were going with the system. I'm not at all surprised that I'm seeing the two sides split along gamecube ownership: those who owned a GC are seeing a similar pattern -- lots of essentially overpriced party games, with good titles few and far between. Those who didn't own a GC are loving the Wii. The Zelda fanatics are their own separate group, of course ;D
For me, the Wii has become less attractive because there's such a strong focus on local multiplay and minigames. I used to have game parties and had a bunch of semi-gamers and casual gamers over, and we'd play a mix of games on gamecubes and my dreamcast (which I've since sold). I got sick of having to buy multiple controllers, and finagle extra copies of games. Shit, I even rented an extra copy of Mario Kart DD for a game party. It was fun, sure, but after doing that 2-3 times I realized that people liked having these parties because I paid for everything. I did a game party hiatus and I suddenly didn't hear from any of these people anymore.
Now, I play board games with some of my good friends, which are cheaper and, honestly, more conducive to a party or hanging out. My wife thinks Wii Sports is too shallow to spend $275 on for just the two of us to play, since she's happy playing PSN co-op titles with me like Monsters and Eden (and is anxiously waiting for LBP to launch since she got hooked on the beta).
So as a non-Wii owner, my initial interest in picking up the system has waned. I have a PS3 that we picked up for Blu-Ray and it has happily fulfilled my gaming needs. And it's not even just graphics -- Disgaea 3 is in there now -- but a focus on deep, single player games that I can dig into. But like I said above, the few bits of motion control that exclusive PS3 games have is where I see the future of "classic + motion" going -- a little here and there, tuned to parts of the game. Not motion everything, but not "sit in one spot" for everything, either.
See, and I'm quite the opposite. I LOVE playing Mario Kart with the motion control, because it's just fun. Especially the feeling while trying to drift through corners and get those sparks going. Using a stick to control a racer is boring now.
It's come out well in the positive, and I look eagerly to the next few years of its lifecycle. It's becoming more and more obvious that its image as a console is still in flux, and that its potential for improvement is vast.
The Xbox and PS3 will get better games in the next few years. Not much better, seeing as there's already been some really great releases on both systems, but we can look forward to a small handful of really groundbreaking experiences on each. I think my investment will bear sweeter fruit though, and more of it.
I think that's a lot more accurate. That's not meant to be a criticism on either side. But I think that if you take a look at a lot of the games for Wii and compare them to the games for XBox 360 or PS3, you'll find a lot more games that are more accessible for everyone on the Wii side. I would guess that someone who hasn't played games who is not in that 16-35 male range would be able to understand the controls for Wii games much, much faster than they would for 360 or PS3 games, whereas a 16-35 male would probably be able to understand both.
I beg to differ. I absolutely loved playing Mario Kart Wii with the wheel. While the control wasn't as great as with a traditional controller, the experience was far greater and immersing for me, and I've been playing video games for a long time, including every single Mario Kart. I enjoyed Mario Kart Wii much more than any of the others. Also, you can play Mario Kart Wii with a GC controller or Remote+Nunchuk for the more traditional experience.
Also, based on those game parties, it sounds like you need new friends. :P
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
I disagree. I play Mario Kart Wii exclusively with the Wii Wheel. Not because I think it's better, in fact it's actually less accurate than an analog stick, but because I think it's more fun that way.
EDIT: Oh hey, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
I disagree on Mario Kart; I feel like racers most of all benefit from having motion control tilting built in, though I don't really play MK on a hard-core extreme level or anything. I haven't tried anything with SixAxis but both Mario Kart and Excite Truck control really nicely, I think.
But in general, I agree that straight ports of games often don't work well on Wii or at best get mixed reception. I'm able to adapt pretty well to Wii controls—I loved SSX Blur, even though most everyone hated the controls—but the few times I've been able to compare the same game across Wii and something non-Wii, the Wii version's controls generally feel flimsy. The only exception has been Tiger Woods, and that's something that naturally plays to the Wii's control strengths.
EDIT: On racers and motion controls: I think it's vital that games allow gamers to tweak and customize the sensitivity, which helps tons. Excite Truck controls terribly if you're using the really twitchy car, so I play with anything that has a slow/medium handling speed and it's heavenly. The same with bikes versus karts in MK. These games kind of build the control sensitivity in as game options, but I'd rather see games let us tweak that in the menu, like how FPSes let you adjust analog-stick sensitivity.
Whenever I see this argument, I really begin to question just what some people think it takes for someone to make a game. I wonder, for example, if they think games are made with Photoshop and 'that one 3d modeling thing'. The ignorance of it is almost criminal.
I challenge you to show me how Microsoft (or hell, even Sony) has focused on just making games "look better." Go ahead. Make an argument like "lolz we can do volumetric lighting and more polys and thats it." Lets ignore the incredible advances that Microsoft has made with the DirectX framework in the past few years. Lets totally nullify the onset of managed languages in game development like XNA and the later versions of UnrealScript, capable of up to 95% of the performance of unmanaged code without the memory management headaches. Lets just pretend that middleware like Havok and Euphoria don't make art direction and level design more about art direction and level design than a geometrical mindfuck. Lets ignore the fact that Nintendo had jack all to do with the development of any of the above.
Yea. It's the motion controls; Nintendo's the only innovative company left in the world. Right.
It's only marginally less accurate than the stick, and the intuitiveness makes up for it, I'd say.
It is way more fun and almost as accurate. I used to pooh-pooh the wheel too until I started using it on a regular basis. The only problem is that driving straight is harder.
Now that I've got a 360, I play that when I want some solo gaming time and then when the wife puts down her DS long enough to want some sort of interactive gaming we fire up the Wii (currently playing through Dokupan Kingdoms together). It's great for that sort of thing, both because of the specific gameplay elements it brings to the table and the specific titles themselves.
It's also a huge hit at family get-togethers. So much so that there are now 3 in her immediate family, one owned by her parents specifically for Tennis, cow racing and such at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
If I had to pick, I'd take my 360. But it's definitely a very highly appreciated supplement.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
what? you just contradict yourself, first rant about people calling on ms and sony for a supposedly ignorance on the matter and then you list a bunch of technical stuff that was made precisely only for making games look better.
The only valid point would be innovation in the area of programming, but what the hell has that to do with Nintendo? Nintendo, as weird as it sounds, isn't a software company.
EDIT: this is like complaining that movie studios haven't contributed much to the technology behind cameras.
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
I'm sure there are plenty of interesting developments in terms of physics middleware and what-have-you, but what we are discussing, and all that matters in the end, is what the public sees.
You could make a car with much improved handling and regulated temperature and a better airbag implementation and it automatically stops when you're going to hit something. Or you could make a car with a smooth color-changing exterior that hovers a foot off the ground. Both are innovation, but only one will be lauded as innovative and have an easy time becoming the new standard.
EDIT: Sporky, you're right, I probably should have mentioned AI or the amazing networking and so on; I was more testing the waters on what people think these big names they hear every day actually mean.
This has nothing to do with the ps3 and 360. Or his point, really.
I would also say Microsoft has done a good job getting a bunch of people on all platforms to include achievements to artificially boost value (I mean really, people have already done this before, like trying to beat a game with no continues, or without using X weapon, or trying to beat the game without getting hit, what have you), they are a good addition, but I never thought different platforms (including PC now) would adopt them.
I think we all need to agree that each of the three companies have pushed various envelopes this gen and we, as people who enjoy video games, should be thankful to them.
Microsoft has mastered the art of appealing to your inner e-peen
Nintendo tapped into the heretofore unmanageable market of "people who fling the controller around to make their guy jump"
Sony has breached the psychotic spendthrift technophile market like noone before them.
All of this progress means I get World of Goo, Braid, and Fl0W, so I really don't care.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
to your last statement: not really, get rid of all the stuff you described, and they would be on the computer (which World of Goo is).
Or, you know, use the fucking Classic or Cube controller.
It's an option.
And most of these games would translate quite nicely, except perhaps in some cases due to a lack of analog shoulder buttons. Unless they are analog, I forget. I don't think so, though. But then you still have the Cube controller as an option (though a poor one).
Again, I point at a simple multi-platformer like the Lego games as a shining example. No reason whatsoever not to include Classic functionaltiy, which would overcome the limitations of the Wiimote/'chuk. But no.
Personally I like having both as an option, as MK does. I have some friends that simply don't adapt well to motion-based controls, so giving them the ability to just play it "regularly" is a definite plus. But yeah, personally I'm all about the wheel.
But one thing is that they are working on an entirely different level, which I think is praiseworthy. Other people are tuning up the internals, making boxes bump into other boxes more realistically which of course is well worth the effort...but you've got one guy who steps outside of that and changes how you control the thing in the first place. Rather than making the stuff on the screen prettier and more complex, they stepped away from that and thought outside of the box.
Better?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I haven't heard of these "big names." Instead of tossing out "big names" to sound like you know something, you could have just said "Microsoft worked on AI and networking." I would think your point is to get your message across to people who don't know, as opposed to people who do.
haha, wasn't de Blob originally a PC game? Just saying.
You are correct. I'd love to get that message out to those who don't. The reason I haven't (and won't, in this thread) gone more in depth is mostly because I'm at work. I may do so later.
EDIT: And if I come across as condescending, I apologize. I'm just frustrated with Nintendo, and my attention is divided at the moment.
I think you're thinking of World of Goo. Unless I'm mistaken.
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=401276
Also, I love my Wii - and I say this as a 'hardcore' gamer who prefers single player games. I think part of it is that I just don't have TIME anymore, so what is available on the Wii is enough to keep me happy for the most part. Really, if anyone added a 'standbye' mode to their next console that allowed me to suspend a play session for days at a time and pick up right where I left off as soon as I wanted (like flipping your DS closed) I'd pick that over the competition in a heartbeat regardless of who made it.
de blob was originally a pc game, but that game is completely different from the game that's on the wii.
The problem I have is that Wii games give me this sense of "I've played you before", which isn't usually something that bothers me. I mean, I love playing old games and "new re-makes" but something about Wii games being new releases on a new console and not looking so hot just bugs me. Having said that, Miis are fantastic, and something I can't wait to see as an addition to the 360 NXE next month.
I remember when I had a Master System and desperately wanted a Megadrive, playing that cut-down Sonic just didn't feel like the real deal. I get a similar feeling when playing the Wii.
But I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will be quick to point out they find 360/PS3 games "more of the same" and that the Wii is the greatest and most innovative thing evar. They will of course be missing the point, completely wrong, and smell of goat urine. Opinions, eh?
Talk to the people who have sent in multiple red ringed 360s. Perhaps these innovations, if done by MS, would have been more greatly appreciated.
And yes, I do love that the Wii takes up so little space in my entertainment center. I can fit in one small shelf the Wii, four remotes, four nunchucks, a classic controller, the guitar (split in two), Zapper, Wheel, all my Wii and DS games, and my TV A/V auto-switch.
I have learned to hate the Wii Waggle (TM) and those two games are the only ones where I feel the controls are integral to the gameplay, as opposed to bolted on as an afterthought. I don't hate the machine or anything. There's just very little there that excites me. A lot of titles feel like cheaper versions of proper games with the Wii Waggle thrown in. I have bought far more VC games than boxed Wii ones.
To me, the Wii is essentially a retro gaming console that also plays Wii games. If they ever sort out the storage issue, it will be perfect in this regard.