you're assuming the wii controls are not suited to certain games by shoe-horning them into genres designed for traditional controls
the thing is that wii games need to be designed specifically with the wii remote in mind so that it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. so while soul calibur 3 wouldn't be fun on the wii, a soul calibur designed with the wii in mind could be great
You make a valid point but Madden was not designed specifically for the wii and it's controls are pretty fun if you ask me. It's possible to redesign some games around the wii it's just difficult to do well.
well, madden was designed by a different division of EA than the other consoles version were
you're assuming the wii controls are not suited to certain games by shoe-horning them into genres designed for traditional controls
the thing is that wii games need to be designed specifically with the wii remote in mind so that it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. so while soul calibur 3 wouldn't be fun on the wii, a soul calibur designed with the wii in mind could be great
You make a valid point but Madden was not designed specifically for the wii and it's controls are pretty fun if you ask me. It's possible to redesign some games around the wii it's just difficult to do well.
there are some tweaks I would make to Madden's control scheme
you're assuming the wii controls are not suited to certain games by shoe-horning them into genres designed for traditional controls
the thing is that wii games need to be designed specifically with the wii remote in mind so that it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. so while soul calibur 3 wouldn't be fun on the wii, a soul calibur designed with the wii in mind could be great
You make a valid point but Madden was not designed specifically for the wii and it's controls are pretty fun if you ask me. It's possible to redesign some games around the wii it's just difficult to do well.
there are some tweaks I would make to Madden's control scheme
mainly anything on defense
but offense is pretty awesome
what's wrong with defense?
i can swat and intercept quite well now and was always able to hit and follow a runner
getting around blocks is a little crappy though
Menace on
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
you're assuming the wii controls are not suited to certain games by shoe-horning them into genres designed for traditional controls
the thing is that wii games need to be designed specifically with the wii remote in mind so that it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. so while soul calibur 3 wouldn't be fun on the wii, a soul calibur designed with the wii in mind could be great
You make a valid point but Madden was not designed specifically for the wii and it's controls are pretty fun if you ask me. It's possible to redesign some games around the wii it's just difficult to do well.
well, madden was designed by a different division of EA than the other consoles version were
so i guess it kinda falls in the middle
also, madden is so awesome
That maybe but that's because it's non on the next-gen game engine. It's just Madden 2006 with an updated roster and wii-specific control scheme.
t Wombat: My only qualms with the defensive controls are how hard it is to pick the ball off. I don't have too much trouble with anything else, including the big-hit scheme. Hit sticking was far too easy to successfully pull off if you ask me.
getting around blocks is a little crappy though
That's from the old 2006 magnetic blocking glitch.
All I'm saying is after just a few months of using the Wii Remote, I can honestly say I prefer it to console controllers, and wish there was some way to retroactively Wii out a bunch of old games. It's just something that comes more naturally to me, and adds more to the gameplay.
I'm sorry but I have to say, that's still on you. Just like someone who complains that an RTS is too hard because you use the mouse instead of the gamepad; it's well-designed, and it is therefore not the fault of the system that you're struggling. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's unfair to blame the system here.
i don't necessarily prefer the remote on an efficiency level for everything, but on a comfort and fun level
i don't care if i can swing the sword a split second faster in Zelda GC, i had an amazing time with the Wii version
See, this is exactly what I said earlier. Don't just throw "it's more fun" out there as a reason unless you can explain how or why it's more fun. That's basically just going "yes it is/no it isn't" because it's completely personal, subjective, and arbitrary. Things are fun or not fun for a REASON. If you don't believe that there is a reason why some things are fun to play and others aren't, then you are basically saying that being a successful game designer like Kojima or Miyamoto is all luck, since there's no way they could've PLANNED fun. So tell me WHY it's fun.
Moving beyond that, it really feels like you just didn't listen to anything I said. First off, I already said that control efficiency only matters in games with deep and interesting real-time gameplay. Party games, low-challenge single-player games (which, by the way, DEFINITELY includes the newer Zelda titles), and turn-based games don't count because their gameplay isn't sufficiently deep/interesting. You don't care if you can swing the sword half a second faster on the GC version because you don't have to care. If I played an easy single-player campaign in Warcraft, but I couldn't use any hotkeys, would I care? No, because I'd be able to win it easily anyway. I start to care only when the gameplay is sufficiently challenging that I actually have to put effort into winning. At that point, taking two extra seconds to cast my spells starts to matter. It is ONLY at the point where I'm good at the game and I'm facing a reasonably-difficult challenge that I care about efficiency.
Seriously, I played Mario Party 7 a while ago, and that game where you tell the car to change lanes by saying "left" or "right" just thought that every word that I ever said was "left," no matter how clearly I pronouced "RIGHT" directly into the microphone. It just kept going left and I ran out of gas in like ten seconds. But it was funny to everyone, me included, and nobody in the room (again, myself included) cared that it didn't work right. Why? Because it's a low-challenge game with basically zero gameplay depth. So for that, forget efficiency; I didn't even care that the control scheme flat-out FAILED.
So I've said this stuff already in the thread. I guess you missed it.
Why would you even bother to make a statement like that? It doesn't advance any reasoning or understanding on the subject at all. It adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe you don't care about the discussion; if that's the case, why are you posting in it?
So how much have you actually played the Wii, Defender?
Ordinarily I would answer this, but since this is like the twentieth time I've been asked, and since I think I already told you, directly, the answer to that question, I'm going to leave it at:
I have played with the Wii. I don't own a Wii. It doesn't matter.
If I say "ten minutes" you can say "you don't have enough first-hand knowledge to judge."
If I say "a thousand hours", you can say "you are just one person, there are many who disagree with you."
But above all of that, it doesn't matter. We are discussing theory, and I am not so distanced from the subject matter that I am unable to think about it rationally. The underlying principles of game design and human-computer interaction apply here just as much as they do with any other console or computer. I honestly see "have you played it" as a tactic used to discredit a person with the fallacy that some arbitrary number of hours of experience is absolutely needed for any thought to be valid. While it is sometimes a fair call, it is often not.
You're basicly saying that games being fun dosn't matter.
But I'll explain
I've had more fun with the Wii because controls felt more natural and in general there was a deeper sence of satifaction in the actions I performed because there was a closer connection between my actions in the real world and the actions performed in the game.
Sorry, I should of said I had forgotten how much you had played the last time I asked.
That was like a month ago Defender, that is a long time to remember something.
But thanks for not answering the question either way. I just wanted to know if you had but more time into the Wii, because all I recall is that your time and experience with the Wii I asked last time wasn't very much.
See I'm trying to decide if I want to read your posts or not. But if it's all just theory like you state, then play time is beside the fact, and I think I'll pass.
i posit that a flick of the wrist is just as unconscious of a motion as pressing a button or moving a mouse
The Wiimote's movement can most certainly be learned to the point where it is just as ingrained and second-nature to the user as any other input scheme. However, that doesn't mean that it's as well-suited for each individual task. For example, a d-pad and buttons (no analogs) are pretty much the ideal for Soul Calibur, while a Wiimote would be terrible. But a d-pad and buttons (no analogs) are borderline unplayable for aiming a gun in first-person, while a Wiimote is extremely well-suited to the task, especially on a large screen.
So I agree with your statement, but I would add to it that different input schemes are better or worse at different tasks.
using a wii remote is just as (if not more) as efficient, fast, and natural as using a mouse
I have already stated that a Wiimote is very analogous to a mouse, and that it has certain cases where it's slightly better, certain cases where it's slightly worse, and certain capabilities that a mouse simply does not have (such as twisting).
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings.
you argument of typing and mousing being natural and subconscious actions is only because you're been typing and mousing for many years and those movements are now second nature, ingrained into muscle memory
this means that your total experience with the system in question is of absolute importance, as you're comparing a control scheme that is new to you to one that has over time become second nature
a comparison is only appropriate if you can evaluate all subjects on equal grounds
your personal reaction time may be slower with the remote, but i submit that it is solely based on the fact that you haven't spent enough time with the interface for it to become an unconscious movement
so asking how long you've spent with the console is valid, i feel
you argument of typing and mousing being natural and subconscious actions is only because you're been typing and mousing for many years and those movements are now second nature, ingrained into muscle memory
this means that your total experience with the system in question is of absolute importance, as you're comparing a control scheme that is new to you to one that has over time become second nature
a comparison is only appropriate if you can evaluate all subjects on equal grounds
your personal reaction time may be slower with the remote, but i submit that it is solely based on the fact that you haven't spent enough time with the interface for it to become an unconscious movement
so asking how long you've spent with the console is valid, i feel
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings"
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings.
It's not about like or dislike, it's about validity.
Apparently.
I don't know.
I wish it was March so I could have SSX Blur and Super Paper Mario. And so Warioware isn't 50$ because that is ridiculous.
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings"
Why would you even bother to make a statement like that? It doesn't advance any reasoning or understanding on the subject at all. It adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe you don't care about the discussion; if that's the case, why are you posting in it?
Because I think this is a pretty pointless discussion only designed to rile up people.
I mean, I love the Wii. It's got some problems, yes, and there aren't a whole lot of good games out for it yet. But every system has problems, and it's a new system, so I don't really care about either.
These aren't my theories. Human-computer interaction is not something I made up. There's a whole theoretical basis for this stuff, complete with textbooks and graduate-level courses and guys with PhDs and all the rest. Are you seriously going to say that that entire segment of computer science is "crazy" made-up nonsense? I'm somehow doubting that a person who makes as many spelling errors as you do can back up a sweeping attack on an entire field of study.
I've had more fun with the Wii because controls felt more natural and in general there was a deeper sence of satifaction in the actions I performed because there was a closer connection between my actions in the real world and the actions performed in the game.
Does that satify your standards?
Jesus Christ, Pata. I am not going to call you names because you are not being rude to me, but I have used the phrase "visceral connection" to refer to the feeling of moving the Wiimote like fifty times already. I understand that it's more fun because you get to move around. Granted, you know, you could also just go out and get some exercise and play REAL sports if you wanted that feeling, but that's beside the point.
The point is that the Wii was codenamed "Revolution" and there was a HEAVY implication that it was going to revolutionize gaming, that it was going to make possible some huge advances in the field. Being able to wave your arms instead of pushing a button isn't an advance. In fact, Nintendo already made a device that did that; it was called the "Power Glove" and it failed mainly because it was very hard to get it to work right. I'm talking about actual, worthwhile advances in gameplay decision-making space, not about a gimmick where a more viscerally-rewarding input scheme acts as a surrogate for button-pushing. Please note that I am not calling the Wii a gimmick; I am calling your reasoning ("it's more fun to move my arms than push a button") a gimmick.
Why would you even bother to make a statement like that? It doesn't advance any reasoning or understanding on the subject at all. It adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe you don't care about the discussion; if that's the case, why are you posting in it?
Because I think this is a pretty pointless discussion only designed to rile up people.
I mean, I love the Wii. It's got some problems, yes, and there aren't a whole lot of good games out for it yet. But every system has problems, and it's a new system, so I don't really care about either.
Sorry, I should of said I had forgotten how much you had played the last time I asked.
That was like a month ago Defender, that is a long time to remember something.
But thanks for not answering the question either way. I just wanted to know if you had but more time into the Wii, because all I recall is that your time and experience with the Wii I asked last time wasn't very much.
See I'm trying to decide if I want to read your posts or not. But if it's all just theory like you state, then play time is beside the fact, and I think I'll pass.
That's not my bag.
That's fine. Yeah, it's all theory. It's about what could possibly be explored with the new space opened up by the 1:1 input scheme of the Wii. I'm not really here to argue that the new Mario game is fun or not fun.
To answer your question, no I have not put more time into the Wii; I currently do not have a lot of cash lying around, so I don't have any of the new consoles. I also don't have a ton of time to play games, I play like maybe an hour of Warcraft on weeknights and that's it.
Posts
we have fun with the Wii, guys
it comes straight from the Associated Press themselves
Nintendo has some sort of contract to get news directly from them
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
well, madden was designed by a different division of EA than the other consoles version were
so i guess it kinda falls in the middle
also, madden is so awesome
there are some tweaks I would make to Madden's control scheme
mainly anything on defense
but offense is pretty awesome
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
what's wrong with defense?
i can swat and intercept quite well now and was always able to hit and follow a runner
getting around blocks is a little crappy though
t Wombat: My only qualms with the defensive controls are how hard it is to pick the ball off. I don't have too much trouble with anything else, including the big-hit scheme. Hit sticking was far too easy to successfully pull off if you ask me.
That's from the old 2006 magnetic blocking glitch.
on the ps2 and stuff it was way easier to just count on the cpu teammate to knock down a pass or whatever
but on this version, i usually can get a manual pick or two in a game
also, i always play as a yellow-area-symbol guy on zone D play. you can play the receivers or follow the HB on a running play very easily
i still get fooled by play action fakes all the time though
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
well, there's your problem
pokemon pearl friend code- 4897-2782-3202
Also, Wombat, I find ripping away from the offensive line pretty easy.
By pretty easy I mean I can do it like, 1 out of every 4 plays.
Which is probably more than a real defensive lineman can do. I don't know I don't watch that much American football.
See, this is exactly what I said earlier. Don't just throw "it's more fun" out there as a reason unless you can explain how or why it's more fun. That's basically just going "yes it is/no it isn't" because it's completely personal, subjective, and arbitrary. Things are fun or not fun for a REASON. If you don't believe that there is a reason why some things are fun to play and others aren't, then you are basically saying that being a successful game designer like Kojima or Miyamoto is all luck, since there's no way they could've PLANNED fun. So tell me WHY it's fun.
Moving beyond that, it really feels like you just didn't listen to anything I said. First off, I already said that control efficiency only matters in games with deep and interesting real-time gameplay. Party games, low-challenge single-player games (which, by the way, DEFINITELY includes the newer Zelda titles), and turn-based games don't count because their gameplay isn't sufficiently deep/interesting. You don't care if you can swing the sword half a second faster on the GC version because you don't have to care. If I played an easy single-player campaign in Warcraft, but I couldn't use any hotkeys, would I care? No, because I'd be able to win it easily anyway. I start to care only when the gameplay is sufficiently challenging that I actually have to put effort into winning. At that point, taking two extra seconds to cast my spells starts to matter. It is ONLY at the point where I'm good at the game and I'm facing a reasonably-difficult challenge that I care about efficiency.
Seriously, I played Mario Party 7 a while ago, and that game where you tell the car to change lanes by saying "left" or "right" just thought that every word that I ever said was "left," no matter how clearly I pronouced "RIGHT" directly into the microphone. It just kept going left and I ran out of gas in like ten seconds. But it was funny to everyone, me included, and nobody in the room (again, myself included) cared that it didn't work right. Why? Because it's a low-challenge game with basically zero gameplay depth. So for that, forget efficiency; I didn't even care that the control scheme flat-out FAILED.
So I've said this stuff already in the thread. I guess you missed it.
Why would you even bother to make a statement like that? It doesn't advance any reasoning or understanding on the subject at all. It adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe you don't care about the discussion; if that's the case, why are you posting in it?
Ordinarily I would answer this, but since this is like the twentieth time I've been asked, and since I think I already told you, directly, the answer to that question, I'm going to leave it at:
I have played with the Wii. I don't own a Wii. It doesn't matter.
If I say "ten minutes" you can say "you don't have enough first-hand knowledge to judge."
If I say "a thousand hours", you can say "you are just one person, there are many who disagree with you."
But above all of that, it doesn't matter. We are discussing theory, and I am not so distanced from the subject matter that I am unable to think about it rationally. The underlying principles of game design and human-computer interaction apply here just as much as they do with any other console or computer. I honestly see "have you played it" as a tactic used to discredit a person with the fallacy that some arbitrary number of hours of experience is absolutely needed for any thought to be valid. While it is sometimes a fair call, it is often not.
You're basicly saying that games being fun dosn't matter.
But I'll explain
I've had more fun with the Wii because controls felt more natural and in general there was a deeper sence of satifaction in the actions I performed because there was a closer connection between my actions in the real world and the actions performed in the game.
Does that satify your standards?
That was like a month ago Defender, that is a long time to remember something.
But thanks for not answering the question either way. I just wanted to know if you had but more time into the Wii, because all I recall is that your time and experience with the Wii I asked last time wasn't very much.
See I'm trying to decide if I want to read your posts or not. But if it's all just theory like you state, then play time is beside the fact, and I think I'll pass.
That's not my bag.
The Wiimote's movement can most certainly be learned to the point where it is just as ingrained and second-nature to the user as any other input scheme. However, that doesn't mean that it's as well-suited for each individual task. For example, a d-pad and buttons (no analogs) are pretty much the ideal for Soul Calibur, while a Wiimote would be terrible. But a d-pad and buttons (no analogs) are borderline unplayable for aiming a gun in first-person, while a Wiimote is extremely well-suited to the task, especially on a large screen.
So I agree with your statement, but I would add to it that different input schemes are better or worse at different tasks.
I have already stated that a Wiimote is very analogous to a mouse, and that it has certain cases where it's slightly better, certain cases where it's slightly worse, and certain capabilities that a mouse simply does not have (such as twisting).
Super Monkey Ball
is it any good
pokemon pearl friend code- 4897-2782-3202
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings.
you argument of typing and mousing being natural and subconscious actions is only because you're been typing and mousing for many years and those movements are now second nature, ingrained into muscle memory
this means that your total experience with the system in question is of absolute importance, as you're comparing a control scheme that is new to you to one that has over time become second nature
a comparison is only appropriate if you can evaluate all subjects on equal grounds
your personal reaction time may be slower with the remote, but i submit that it is solely based on the fact that you haven't spent enough time with the interface for it to become an unconscious movement
so asking how long you've spent with the console is valid, i feel
what did you have for breakfast, retard bran?
dang
Do you guys really care that Defender doesn't like the Wii? Because I don't. When I'm playing Wii golf I don't feel stupid because Defender doesn't like how the club swings"
I have a theory that Defender has superpowers.
One power is to make people argue with him.
Apparently.
I don't know.
I wish it was March so I could have SSX Blur and Super Paper Mario. And so Warioware isn't 50$ because that is ridiculous.
This is a plausible theory
I'm cold, someone hold me
Because I think this is a pretty pointless discussion only designed to rile up people.
I mean, I love the Wii. It's got some problems, yes, and there aren't a whole lot of good games out for it yet. But every system has problems, and it's a new system, so I don't really care about either.
These aren't my theories. Human-computer interaction is not something I made up. There's a whole theoretical basis for this stuff, complete with textbooks and graduate-level courses and guys with PhDs and all the rest. Are you seriously going to say that that entire segment of computer science is "crazy" made-up nonsense? I'm somehow doubting that a person who makes as many spelling errors as you do can back up a sweeping attack on an entire field of study.
No, I'm not. Read and understand what I wrote.
Jesus Christ, Pata. I am not going to call you names because you are not being rude to me, but I have used the phrase "visceral connection" to refer to the feeling of moving the Wiimote like fifty times already. I understand that it's more fun because you get to move around. Granted, you know, you could also just go out and get some exercise and play REAL sports if you wanted that feeling, but that's beside the point.
The point is that the Wii was codenamed "Revolution" and there was a HEAVY implication that it was going to revolutionize gaming, that it was going to make possible some huge advances in the field. Being able to wave your arms instead of pushing a button isn't an advance. In fact, Nintendo already made a device that did that; it was called the "Power Glove" and it failed mainly because it was very hard to get it to work right. I'm talking about actual, worthwhile advances in gameplay decision-making space, not about a gimmick where a more viscerally-rewarding input scheme acts as a surrogate for button-pushing. Please note that I am not calling the Wii a gimmick; I am calling your reasoning ("it's more fun to move my arms than push a button") a gimmick.
I also don't think it's useful to try and figure out "why" he doesn't like it, because I'm pretty sure he knows already.
I read Defender's post as being sarcastic
I can only hope that was his original intention
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
the dude never said he didn't like it
he is just uncertain of how much of a step forward a new control scheme is and is wanting to wait and see
which is fine and dandy
Yeah, that's probably true.
That's fine. Yeah, it's all theory. It's about what could possibly be explored with the new space opened up by the 1:1 input scheme of the Wii. I'm not really here to argue that the new Mario game is fun or not fun.
To answer your question, no I have not put more time into the Wii; I currently do not have a lot of cash lying around, so I don't have any of the new consoles. I also don't have a ton of time to play games, I play like maybe an hour of Warcraft on weeknights and that's it.