What do you expect from the wii?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I think mines gonna be a paper weight until next christmas when there are some more good games out and i host the chrismas/new year parties at my house. I suppose the Mrs will use the wii fitness once in a while and we will have the odd bowling session (were just too lazy after 10 hour shifts and 2 hours in the gym to play wii sports stood up (which is the only decent way to play it) or rayman we would rather chill out on the sofa playing gthd, resistance, lemmings, gow etc. The 360,PS3 and PC will keep me busy until then.

QFT. Its fun, but its not a replacement for the 360/ps3/pc. Its just different.

you say this as if $80-$120 is alot of money......ROFL...get real, any of us will spend that on a few games, etc.....it's pocket change in the big picture, and it's not like you get nothing for the extra money invested

Exactly- is $100 really that much to most of you people? When you're talking about something that will give you 4-5 years of entertainment, is $4-500 even really all that much? Sheesh, anyone who plays an mmo drops $150-180 on subscription fees per year to that game alone.

I'm definintely in the camp that would have loved to see a more expensive, more powerful wii. Its funny, because a lot of people criticize ms and sony for making consoles that primarily market the fact that the graphics are better, yet its becoming increasingly clear, imo, that the next nintendo will be basically a wii with better graphics.

 

[Netrat33]

i cant tell you how many times i have seen this type of response from a Wii player...it's new, it's different, it's fun....for a night or two, but after that, the average gamer thats really into games wants good gameplay, with GOOD graphics and sound, etc......and the Wii fails to deliver in the long run.....thats why my expectation for the Wii is being replaced with a more up-to-date model, HDTV resolutions, digital surround, etc....

You fail to realizing no one is saying it's a replacement to ps3/xbox360. I'm the average...no...HARDCORE gamer who likes the Wii. Most people want a highdef system and a wii it's seeming and go about wii first because of price. Most people DON'T think it's fun for just a night or two. Wii doesn't fail to deliver in the long run

It IS a different system and it IS fun. Stop tryign to tell others it isn't because no one is buying your 'argument'

 

[nobody_here]

You fail to realizing no one is saying it's a replacement to ps3/xbox360. I'm the average...no...HARDCORE gamer who likes the Wii. Most people want a highdef system and a wii it's seeming and go about wii first because of price. Most people DON'T think it's fun for just a night or two. Wii doesn't fail to deliver in the long run

It IS a different system and it IS fun. Stop tryign to tell others it isn't because no one is buying your 'argument'

i can see how it would appear that way, sorry if i offended or whatever, the Wii just isn't for everybody, i think it's more for those that don't get into HDTV and all that but still like to play games , but i think Nintendo will step up graphically in the near future to stay competitive

 

[frankyk]

i brought my nintendo wii home for vacation and my parents loved it that they bought it from me.

my parents have never played video games EVER and when they played the wii, they loved it.

they could care less about graphics, the gameplay is what they like.

 

[PWMK2]

they could care less about graphics, the gameplay is what they like.

It's not like the other consoles are devoid of gameplay.

 

[sculelos]

It's not like the other consoles are devoid of gameplay.

True, but for many people the wii is easy to pick up and play.

 

[Netrat33]

It's not like the other consoles are devoid of gameplay.

come on...be real. you think most non-gamers care about PS2/360whatever? They aren't going to look for those RARE games. The wii definately has games that are for everyone to enjoy not just those who know combos or have no problem playing with controllers that have 10 buttons. And the fact that they use motions that we all know (swing a bat, throw a cow) that bring them into the game and laugh at ourselves (gamers) a bit.

THAT is an appealing difference and shows with it's sales.

Nobody_here: I still think a blanket statement like "those who don't care about HD" is false. Plenty of us on this forum care about HD. I got a 360, PS3, x1800xt videocard and a 46' dlp. I'm all about HD. But I can see what the wii is trying to do and it works for me. It's not replacing my systems though but like many others here feel: it's different and fun. A nice compliment to the HD systems.

 

[Technoob]

It's not like the other consoles are devoid of gameplay.

qft.

Good gameplay can exist both with good graphics and poor graphics. The wii's lesser graphics don't imbue it with some magic that makes all of its games suddenly more fun to play. And the excellent graphics in a game don't mean that it is a terrible gameplay experience. Remember logic folks...Wii sports isn't fun because the graphics are poor, it's fun because its well designed. Gears of war doesn't suck because it has awesome graphics, in fact it's awesome, AND has awesome graphics.

So all of the following will be true most likely

the wii will have games that have terrible gameplay and terrible graphics
the wii will have games that have great gameplay and terrible graphics
the wii will have games that have terrible gameplay and impressive graphics
the will will have games that have great gameplay and impressive graphics

I just get so sick of the "graphics > gameplay" quotes that somehow assume these terrible logical fallacies.

/yes I'm a loser, thanks for reading.

 

[PWMK2]

come on...be real. you think most non-gamers care about PS2/360whatever? They aren't going to look for those RARE games. The wii definately has games that are for everyone to enjoy not just those who know combos or have no problem playing with controllers that have 10 buttons. And the fact that they use motions that we all know (swing a bat, throw a cow) that bring them into the game and laugh at ourselves (gamers) a bit.

Thing is, I never understood why a video game console would be marketed toward non-gamers. It's like marketing books to non-readers, or ice cream to people on a diet. Oh wait..

Well, something must be working from that marketing standpoint - still, it's not fair to say that non-gamers don't care about 360. The Xbox 360 is a video game console. Of course non-gamers don't care about it. For the same reason I don't care about dolls (I'm not a doll collector), or even cars for that matter (I'm OK with my semi-ghetto station wagon).

However, that said, the Xbox 360 definitely has games that "non-gamers" can get into. Viva Pinata and many of the other Xbox 360 titles, especially the Xbox Live Arcade games, are examples of this. The Wii's success can be explained by many things, including marketing hype, the relatively low price point and high availability. I'm not saying any of those things are bad at all; I am a proud Wii60 guy myself. Still, I bought it for the Nintendo games, not the controller and certainly not on the notion that the Wii suddenly = great games. There were way too many really bad movie cash-in games last year for the Wii for that to be true.

Oh, and +1 for everything that Technoob said above.

 

[kumquat]

Two notes:

1) The Wii *is* marketed to non-gamers, and non-gamers are buying it in droves.

2) Viva Pinata is *not* a game for non-gamers the way Wii Sports, Animal Crossing, and Big Brain Academy are.

 

[Netrat33]

However, that said, the Xbox 360 definitely has games that "non-gamers" can get into. Viva Pinata and many of the other Xbox 360 titles, especially the Xbox Live Arcade games, are examples of this. The Wii's success can be explained by many things, including marketing hype, the relatively low price point and high availability. I'm not saying any of those things are bad at all; I am a proud Wii60 guy myself. Still, I bought it for the Nintendo games, not the controller and certainly not on the notion that the Wii suddenly = great games. There were way too many really bad movie cash-in games last year for the Wii for that to be true.

I'm not saying it doesn't. But it has the stigma of that being secondary to your "average" gaming console that non-gamers don't care. Every video game system has "non-gamer" friendly games. But Xbox is famous for Halo. GTA. GoW. All these type of games that aren't for your audience that usually plays solitare or poker. It's like how everyone likes to dis Sony and there multiplatform aproach (it's a blu-ray player, music, pictures, interent whatever) Well xbox I think gets little attack on it's standpoint that it's for video games...buuuut would like it to be a media center for those who understand this. But they aren't saying "video games for everyone!" and doing something that is unique that is very ...um...interactive? unique? words like that. It just IS different. Just like iPod or iPhone or whatever "i" is.

 

[GreenMonkey]

QFT. Its fun, but its not a replacement for the 360/ps3/pc. Its just different.



Exactly- is $100 really that much to most of you people? When you're talking about something that will give you 4-5 years of entertainment, is $4-500 even really all that much? Sheesh, anyone who plays an mmo drops $150-180 on subscription fees per year to that game alone.

I'm definintely in the camp that would have loved to see a more expensive, more powerful wii. Its funny, because a lot of people criticize ms and sony for making consoles that primarily market the fact that the graphics are better, yet its becoming increasingly clear, imo, that the next nintendo will be basically a wii with better graphics.

"We're talking about something that gives you years of entertainment..."

Why not use this description for $900? For $2000? When does it stop? You could use this same justification to buy a snowmobile, motorcycle, new car, RV. "They're worth it because they give you years of enjoyment!" Everyone has different budgets and different priorities. If you bought everything that would "give you years of enjoyment" you'd be in the poor house in no time.

It stops for me at $300 for the hardware. For that matter, I did $300 for the PS2, my wife did $150 for the GC during the first year, and I did $120 for the Xbox in 2005. They weren't worth more than that to me at any given time. I also don't pay money for MMOs. I've got better things to do with my money. But some people would probably rather play WoW for a couple years than get a console. Everyone has different priorities.

And you know what? The Wii is WAY funner than any other console so far, IMO. I haven't even turned on my NES/SNES/Xbox/PS2/PS1/GC since it came out. Lately it's just my PC and the Wii. Zelda + Rayman + Wiisports + VC rules.

you say this as if $80-$120 is alot of money......ROFL...get real, any of us will spend that on a few games, etc.....it's pocket change in the big picture, and it's not like you get nothing for the extra money invested

i cant tell you how many times i have seen this type of response from a Wii player...it's new, it's different, it's fun....for a night or two, but after that, the average gamer thats really into games wants good gameplay, with GOOD graphics and sound, etc......and the Wii fails to deliver in the long run.....thats why my expectation for the Wii is being replaced with a more up-to-date model, HDTV resolutions, digital surround, etc....

You act like that, for the extra money, the 360 is 'better'. It's not. THE CONSOLE is only better if you care about the technical aspects of the games or you only like online games. What makes a console fun is the GAMES. That's why people keep saying gameplay > graphics. I don't give a rat's ass how spiffy the graphics are for Call of Duty 3 because I am simply 100% NOT INTERESTED. But the Wiimote is a simply FUN controller with unique gameplay. As a bonus it's also cheaper. That's a big plus in my book.

BTW I play the Wii on a DLP projector @ 115", Onkyo receiver, etc. The only fault I have with it is too many jaggies. But so far consoles always seem to skimp on the AA.

I'm planning on a 360 purchase, perhaps as soon as they do a price drop to $300. I'm VERY interested in 2 xbox360 games - Dead Rising and Blue Dragon. I'm maaaaybe interested in Gears of War but I normally don't like FPS-ish games on consoles. And my wife wants Viva Pinata.

But the Wii has more games I like in in a few short months than a year of the 360. Part of this is because I could play a lot of the big 360 games on the PC.

 

[Technoob]

You act like that, for the extra money, the 360 is 'better'. It's not. THE CONSOLE is only better if you care about the technical aspects of the games or you only like online games. What makes a console fun is the GAMES. That's why people keep saying gameplay > graphics. I don't give a rat's ass how spiffy the graphics are for Call of Duty 3 because I am simply 100% NOT INTERESTED. But the Wiimote is a simply FUN controller with unique gameplay. As a bonus it's also cheaper. That's a big plus in my book.

And you just contradicted yourself. Your logic is that the 360 is not in and of itself fun or better, because only the games matter:

"t's not. THE CONSOLE is only better if you care about the technical aspects of the games or you only like online games. What makes a console fun is the GAMES."

Then you say in the same paragraph that the wiimote is fun. The hardware. By itself. That's pure ignorance. The wiimote is only as good its implementation in certain games. Unless you find waving your arm to be inherently fun in and of itself.

"But the Wiimote is a simply FUN controller with unique gameplay."

Really? I didn't know the wiimote ran software. See above.

Really you're just as bad a fan boy as anyone else. Get consistent.

 

[PWMK2]

And you just contradicted yourself. Your logic is that the 360 is not in and of itself fun or better, because only the games matter:

"t's not. THE CONSOLE is only better if you care about the technical aspects of the games or you only like online games. What makes a console fun is the GAMES."

Then you say in the same paragraph that the wiimote is fun. The hardware. By itself. That's pure ignorance. The wiimote is only as good its implementation in certain games. Unless you find waving your arm to be inherently fun in and of itself.

"But the Wiimote is a simply FUN controller with unique gameplay."

Really? I didn't know the wiimote ran software. See above.

Really you're just as bad a fan boy as anyone else. Get consistent.

QFT, 360 and Wii both have great games. People treat superior hardware as if it's a bad thing, or that only certain people should care, when two generations ago Nintendo had the technically superior console (N64) and that talking point was used to death.

The Wii controller is innovative. It really is. There could be plenty of great games made for it. There already are a good amount (Zelda and Elebits are excellent examples). But 360 has plenty of great games too. 360 is selling great and it's not because graphics whores are buying it left and right. To me, people who care too much about graphics sit at their HDTV until the wee hours of the morning adjusting the contrast. For everyone else, there's no reason even a non-gamer can't appreciate better graphics. I showed my dad Gears of War (he's an avid board game player, and doesn't play that much video games at all) and he went "holy crap." He thought it was awesome they were able to cram so much detail in.

To me, both 360 and Wii are in acceptable price ranges. $300 (YES, I know you need a memory card, and I know it doesn't come with Wii sports) is a great price for the 360. And just because the 360 costs more than the Wii doesn't mean it isn't affordable either. An "affordable" PC for many people is the price of a PS3. I'm sure they wouldn't mind spending $450 (a premium Xbox 360 plus a first-party game) for a 360.

 

[SPOOKYSHOGUN]

Expectations/Wish list for my Wii:

1. To provide an alternative platform for FPS games, which I love so much (complimentary to my PC).

2. That the Wii's graphics capabilities will be fully realized within a year, giving the system the polish that it will need to render FPS games that won't hurt a graphics whores eyes(thereby encouraging 3rd party FPS development).

3. That 3rd party developers release unique FPS games that utilize the controller to the fullest and that these developers spend the time necessary to make great FPS games before releasing them.

4. That adult rated content (blood/violence) become a larger segment of the Wii game line-up.

************Overall I expect the Wii to be an FPS supplement, to be taken in addition to my PC FPS doses *************

 

[kumquat]

Expectations/Wish list for my Wii:

1. To provide an alternative platform for FPS games, which I love so much (complimentary to my PC).

2. That the Wii's graphics capabilities will be fully realized within a year, giving the system the polish that it will need to render FPS games that won't hurt a graphics whores eyes(thereby encouraging 3rd party FPS development).

Won't happen. They'll still be in 480p, which just isn't going to compare to the PC.

 

[sculelos]

Won't happen. They'll still be in 480p, which just isn't going to compare to the PC.

But they should look better then Halo 2 / Resident Evil 4, graphics whores won't be satisfied, but those are the type of people who always need the latest/greatest, and only the absolute best games will look good to them... whatever, people who buy and like the wii probably don't care about the resolution, and if it's really a big problem don't get it.

 

[lesman]

I'm a graphics whore.

I love the Wii.

See? Those two statements can go hand in hand easily. It's all opinion guys, lets not get worked up about it please.

 

[nobody_here]

You act like that, for the extra money, the 360 is 'better'.

because in my opinion, it is....

 

[sculelos]

because in my opinion, it is....

Thats all fine and dandy, but the fact is the 360 and Wii arn't even meant to compete, and they have completely different games available for them.

Wii has me completely sold as far as I'm concerned, Zelda, Metroid, Mario and Smash are all the reasons I need to buy one.

As For the 360 It has good games, but nothing really that I can't get on my pc, so thats the reason I'm hesitating to purchase it, although if I didn't own a fairly high end pc I would definitly buy the 360.

 

[Technoob]

If they aren't meant to compete why are there multiple games for all three systems? You see this claim all the time, but the fact is that the wii is a competitor for the 360 and the ps3. And its doing quite well against them both...no need to sandbag the wii, it's doing just fine competing with the other next gen systems.

 

[GreenMonkey]

And you just contradicted yourself. Your logic is that the 360 is not in and of itself fun or better, because only the games matter:

"t's not. THE CONSOLE is only better if you care about the technical aspects of the games or you only like online games. What makes a console fun is the GAMES."

Then you say in the same paragraph that the wiimote is fun. The hardware. By itself. That's pure ignorance. The wiimote is only as good its implementation in certain games. Unless you find waving your arm to be inherently fun in and of itself.

"But the Wiimote is a simply FUN controller with unique gameplay."

Really? I didn't know the wiimote ran software. See above.

Really you're just as bad a fan boy as anyone else. Get consistent.

It's because the Wiimote-designed games are simply not doable on another console. The Wiimote IS what makes Wii Sports fun, or Rayman Raving Rabbids. The games are designed around the Wiimote.

Maybe I should have worded differently. That's what I get for writing with the baby trying to grab the laptop from me. But the Wiimote has made for very unique games. The hardware is part and parcel of the games, of course, but it's the GAMES that make it fun. And a few of the Wiimote games are DIFFERENT and NEW.

There is basically nothing different about the 360 vs the Xbox1 except for prettier graphics. That's it. If I want to play a fun FPS game I can play it on a PC, or on the xbox1. There's loads of 'em, differences aside. The 360 takes this to the next level - same old games, spiffier graphics.

There's only 1 Wii Sports style game, and only 1 Rayman style game. The interface has created very DIFFERENT games - kind of like the DS did at times. Sure some of 'em are seen-it-before retreads (Call of Duty 3, Zelda). But some of them are very different. And that equals "better" in my book.

Maybe you folks think HD graphics make for better games. HD or higher poly counts isn't making a unique game experience. In fact, many people are playing the games at 480i - without the HD resolution - and missing a big hunk of it. More of the same, except spiffy graphics.

Maybe some folks love spiffy graphics. Hell, I do to, sometimes. But I want new, fun GAMES. Maybe I'm jaded with like 8 consoles but I've got plenty of almost every kind of game under the sun. I'm not interested in more of the same games except with prettier graphics. I've gotten kind of bored with more of the same, honestly.

So for those of us tired of 'more of the same', the Wii is clearly better in the new FUN games dept, no matter how many more pixels or resolution it pushes, or media center features, or whatever. Saying you should buy a 360 because it's 'better' is ridiculous. It's like the people that insist there is a "best" kind of HDTV. No, each meets different needs for different people.

 

[Netrat33]

It's because the Wiimote-designed games are simply not doable on another console. The Wiimote IS what makes Wii Sports fun, or Rayman Raving Rabbids. The games are designed around the Wiimote.

Maybe I should have worded differently. That's what I get for writing with the baby trying to grab the laptop from me. But the Wiimote has made for very unique games. The hardware is part and parcel of the games, of course, but it's the GAMES that make it fun. And a few of the Wiimote games are DIFFERENT and NEW.

There is basically nothing different about the 360 vs the Xbox1 except for prettier graphics. That's it. If I want to play a fun FPS game I can play it on a PC, or on the xbox1. There's loads of 'em, differences aside. The 360 takes this to the next level - same old games, spiffier graphics.

There's only 1 Wii Sports style game, and only 1 Rayman style game. The interface has created very DIFFERENT games - kind of like the DS did at times. Sure some of 'em are seen-it-before retreads (Call of Duty 3, Zelda). But some of them are very different. And that equals "better" in my book.

Maybe you folks think HD graphics make for better games. HD or higher poly counts isn't making a unique game experience. In fact, many people are playing the games at 480i - without the HD resolution - and missing a big hunk of it. More of the same, except spiffy graphics.

Maybe some folks love spiffy graphics. Hell, I do to, sometimes. But I want new, fun GAMES. Maybe I'm jaded with like 8 consoles but I've got plenty of almost every kind of game under the sun. I'm not interested in more of the same games except with prettier graphics. I've gotten kind of bored with more of the same, honestly.

So for those of us tired of 'more of the same', the Wii is clearly better in the new FUN games dept, no matter how many more pixels or resolution it pushes, or media center features, or whatever. Saying you should buy a 360 because it's 'better' is ridiculous. It's like the people that insist there is a "best" kind of HDTV. No, each meets different needs for different people.

Nicely put. Like I said. I like my Wii as a great compliment to my 360/PS3. It just feels completely different and refereshing. Not just for me to say "pretty graphics"

 

[Technoob]

It's because the Wiimote-designed games are simply not doable on another console. The Wiimote IS what makes Wii Sports fun, or Rayman Raving Rabbids. The games are designed around the Wiimote.

Maybe I should have worded differently. That's what I get for writing with the baby trying to grab the laptop from me. But the Wiimote has made for very unique games. The hardware is part and parcel of the games, of course, but it's the GAMES that make it fun. And a few of the Wiimote games are DIFFERENT and NEW.

There is basically nothing different about the 360 vs the Xbox1 except for prettier graphics. That's it. If I want to play a fun FPS game I can play it on a PC, or on the xbox1. There's loads of 'em, differences aside. The 360 takes this to the next level - same old games, spiffier graphics.

There's only 1 Wii Sports style game, and only 1 Rayman style game. The interface has created very DIFFERENT games - kind of like the DS did at times. Sure some of 'em are seen-it-before retreads (Call of Duty 3, Zelda). But some of them are very different. And that equals "better" in my book.

Maybe you folks think HD graphics make for better games. HD or higher poly counts isn't making a unique game experience. In fact, many people are playing the games at 480i - without the HD resolution - and missing a big hunk of it. More of the same, except spiffy graphics.

Maybe some folks love spiffy graphics. Hell, I do to, sometimes. But I want new, fun GAMES. Maybe I'm jaded with like 8 consoles but I've got plenty of almost every kind of game under the sun. I'm not interested in more of the same games except with prettier graphics. I've gotten kind of bored with more of the same, honestly.

So for those of us tired of 'more of the same', the Wii is clearly better in the new FUN games dept, no matter how many more pixels or resolution it pushes, or media center features, or whatever. Saying you should buy a 360 because it's 'better' is ridiculous. It's like the people that insist there is a "best" kind of HDTV. No, each meets different needs for different people.

Sorry, but your underlying premise is just wrong. Greater horsepower, better processing, more RAM, and so forth don't just "make games prettier".

First just think of the difference in games from the NES to the PS2. If you think the only difference between games from those eras is the graphics, and gameplay hasn't changed at all, then stop reading.

Just look at a game like Dead rising. The extra processing power of the 360 makes the hundreds of enemies on screen possible. It's a gameplay mechanic, not a pretty graphics window dressing to have massive hordes of enemies. Can't do that on the wii the way it was done on the 360. Gameplay. Next gen hardware provides devs the opportunity to do things they couldn't with old hardware. Destructible environments, more advanced physics, exponentially more enemies. All gameplay mechanics. If you truly don't care about graphics, then why are you playing anything but the Atari or the NES? If graphics don't add anything, why did Nintendo even bother to give the Wii a slight hardware upgrade over the Gamecube? (I have a gamecube and thoroughly enjoy it) They should have just left it the way it was, and added the epic motion sensing technology. After all, graphics are useless, they just make things more shiny right?

I've played hours of Wii games. The Wii is a nice gimmick. The implementation of the controller ranges from good, to very poorly tacked on. There is nothing about the mechanic of waving your hand vs using your fingers to press buttons that is more inherently fun or innovative. Does it have some fun, kickass games? Yep, and it will have many of them over its lifetime. But frankly don't pretend that all the other systems give you is "pretty shinies", because if that's what you're claiming, you're no judge of gameplay in my book.

It's all opinion, but I find yours to be pretty unconvincing.

 

[sculelos]

Sorry, but your underlying premise is just wrong. Greater horsepower, better processing, more RAM, and so forth don't just "make games prettier".

First just think of the difference in games from the NES to the PS2. If you think the only difference between games from those eras is the graphics, and gameplay hasn't changed at all, then stop reading.

Just look at a game like Dead rising. The extra processing power of the 360 makes the hundreds of enemies on screen possible. It's a gameplay mechanic, not a pretty graphics window dressing to have massive hordes of enemies. Can't do that on the wii the way it was done on the 360. Gameplay. Next gen hardware provides devs the opportunity to do things they couldn't with old hardware. Destructible environments, more advanced physics, exponentially more enemies. All gameplay mechanics. If you truly don't care about graphics, then why are you playing anything but the Atari or the NES? If graphics don't add anything, why did Nintendo even bother to give the Wii a slight hardware upgrade over the Gamecube? (I have a gamecube and thoroughly enjoy it) They should have just left it the way it was, and added the epic motion sensing technology. After all, graphics are useless, they just make things more shiny right?

I've played hours of Wii games. The Wii is a nice gimmick. The implementation of the controller ranges from good, to very poorly tacked on. There is nothing about the mechanic of waving your hand vs using your fingers to press buttons that is more inherently fun or innovative. Does it have some fun, kickass games? Yep, and it will have many of them over its lifetime. But frankly don't pretend that all the other systems give you is "pretty shinies", because if that's what you're claiming, you're no judge of gameplay in my book.

It's all opinion, but I find yours to be pretty unconvincing.

The problem with calling the wiimote a gimmick is that, gimmicks don't actually add anything to the gameplay, and yes, in my openion it is more enjoyable to actually mimmick the motions, as mimmicking the motions is more immersive, same reason people like improved graphics, and the wii might not be in hd but hd doesn't add anything to the gameplay except more pixels, as for the other components you mentioned.

Physics with distructable enviraments: Show me one game that has fully distructable enviraments, face it this feature will not be on the 360, since the 360 isn't even powerfull enough to do it.

More Enimies: Still possible to do, although they will have to be lower detailed.

Plus name me one 360 game that is totally different then past consoles, and yes I'm sorry but more detailed enimies on the screen at one time isn't to different then less detailed, more of a graphics issue then anything else.

Basiclly the 360 has done NOTHING sofar that other consoles haven't done, except for vastly improved graphics, which is reason enough for some people to buy one.

Anyways, we will see what console has the better games at the end of the year.

 

[Technoob]

"Mimmicking the motions" with the wiimote is a fallacy. If the wiimote truly translated motions in the way it does in the misleading wii promotional materials, then it might be the transitive, amazing device that people claim. However, once you play with it for a few minutes and realize that it only substitutes the press of a button with small gestures, it loses 90% of the idea of the motion control. Once you realize that it doesn't take a swing of the wiimote like a bat, but rather a small flick of the wrist, it's really no more innovative than using a mouse.

Look, don't misunderstand my posts. The wii is a great system, it will have some great success, great games, and all the rest. I'd buy one and play one if I didn't only have money for one system. But this whole "ps3 and xbox 360 don't do anything but make games more shiny" is just nonsense.

 

[sculelos]

"Mimmicking the motions" with the wiimote is a fallacy. If the wiimote truly translated motions in the way it does in the misleading wii promotional materials, then it might be the transitive, amazing device that people claim. However, once you play with it for a few minutes and realize that it only substitutes the press of a button with small gestures, it loses 90% of the idea of the motion control. Once you realize that it doesn't take a swing of the wiimote like a bat, but rather a small flick of the wrist, it's really no more innovative than using a mouse.

I never played with a wii-mote, so I dunno, but it still sounds like a cool concept, although maby a little gimmicky, ah well doesn't matter, I buy whatever consoles have the games I want, although I prefer playing on pc, even in the case of racing games and fighting games, since I can just use a gamepad if I need to, anyways I'm not buying a wii for the motion sensing compatibilities, just the games, I guess if you don't like Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Smash or party/sports games (Wii Sports, Rayman, Wario Ware, Mario Party ect), then buying a wii is somewhat of a waste of money.

 

[SPOOKYSHOGUN]

"Mimmicking the motions" with the wiimote is a fallacy. If the wiimote truly translated motions in the way it does in the misleading wii promotional materials, then it might be the transitive, amazing device that people claim. However, once you play with it for a few minutes and realize that it only substitutes the press of a button with small gestures, it loses 90% of the idea of the motion control. Once you realize that it doesn't take a swing of the wiimote like a bat, but rather a small flick of the wrist, it's really no more innovative than using a mouse.

So I guess the remaining 10% of the idea is what has and is selling so hot? Consider the psychology of gesticulating your limbs for a moment rather then twiddling your fingers and thumbs with a dual analog standard. Have you ever noticed how many people talk with their hands? People like to gesticulate. It's stress relieving and it's expressive. I'll bet most people who have the Wii realize that they can use small wrist movements but choose exxagerated ones instead. Don't we all know someone who, when playing with a standard controller, looks caged, like he/she wants to move around and get more involved with the game then the controller will allow. The Wii has given those people a more enjoyable, less restricted option and I think most people are enjoying the idea (probably greater then 90% of Wii owners). That would render
your theory of a 90% loss of the idea 100% ______________(fill in the blank with expletive synonym for wrong).

***Hey Jim Bob, them there shifting paddles on the steering wheel of yer Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren is just a Gimmick so yer whole farkin car's a joke!***

--A loud thud resonates through the forest as a falling tree (cut by Jim bob) pounds the naysayers ignorant body into the earthy soil and the land is replenished through sacrifice--

 

[Technoob]

"People like to gesticulate. It's stress relieving and it's expressive. I'll bet most people who have the Wii realize that they can use small wrist movements but choose exxagerated ones instead"

Makes no sense. If the wii doesn't translate the gesticulation into on screen/in game movements, then how is that any different from how my 4 year old daughter uses the controller on her gamecube? She flings that thing around all over the place. But just like the wii, the motions she's making have no effect on gameplay. So if people are choosing exxagerated motions, and they do nothing, then you just made my point. People may want to believe that the wii is translating their motions like in the wii commercials, but we all know that it is not. (see: guy rolling into a ball while playing metroid in the commercials).

 

[TexasAg05]

I noticed the 'simple motions' required by the remote early on...while playing Wii sports I actually tried to play it seated using only the small movements needed...but I couldn't help being pulled into the tennis match/boxing round/whatever...I would end up getting up out of my seat and GETTING INTO THE GAME!! Meaning, I would find myself getting more involved in the gameplay, and enjoying using the full motions of a racket swing or full body dodge. Because it's fun to do so, not because it's necessary. Like someone said, the psychological factor is pretty strong in a game like Wii Sports.

I think it is different than a 4 year old jerking the gamecube controller when playing gamecube. Because in most games now jerking the controller DOES SOMETHING! I tell people how Nintendo--for me and my family--has come full circle. When we got our first nintendo we were all jerking the controller up when trying to make mario jump, pulling it back to the left when making him run away, etc; and now many of those movements actually translate to the game.

The theory is similar to the TrackIR for PC sims. Using the TrackIR to look around the cockpit is not 1-to-1 movement: to look back over your shoulder, you only turn your head about 10 degrees. But it makes the game MORE IMMERSIVE, even if it is not true realism. This is what the motion control of the Wiimote does...it makes gaming more immersive, allowing players to get more into the games they are playing.

I don't do a full racket swing because I think a full swing will give me a better shot; its because I feel like I'm playing tennis. I love how it gets me off the couch, more involved, and more excited about gaming. And THAT is an innovation in gaming.

 

[SPOOKYSHOGUN]

Won't happen. They'll still be in 480p, which just isn't going to compare to the PC.

BTW- I didn't say anything about Wii FPS's comparing to PC FPS's. I used the words "alternative" and "complimentary" on one line and "supplement" on another. As far as 480p, I don't care. I've played FPS's in stunning detail with high resolutions for years now and I'm quite comfortable now with the idea of playing any FPS's that I might enjoy, even if they aren't as good looking. I consider this feeling of comfort to be the result of a maturation process whereby I learned that more/bigger/higher isn't always better, just different. I have faith that the Wii FPS's will be developed and that some of them will be gems. When/if that happens, I know that I will enjoy them without comparing them to my PC FPS's.

 

[RancidWAnnaRIot]

BTW- I didn't say anything about Wii FPS's comparing to PC FPS's. I used the words "alternative" and "complimentary" on one line and "supplement" on another. As far as 480p, I don't care. I've played FPS's in stunning detail with high resolutions for years now and I'm quite comfortable now with the idea of playing any FPS's that I might enjoy, even if they aren't as good looking. I consider this feeling of comfort to be the result of a maturation process whereby I learned that more/bigger/higher isn't always better, just different. I have faith that the Wii FPS's will be developed and that some of them will be gems. When/if that happens, I know that I will enjoy them without comparing them to my PC FPS's.

COD3 on the Wii ROCKS!!!!.. it's an awesome game.. controls VERY well...

anyway..

I have a wii.. and a 360.. love them both...

 

[SPOOKYSHOGUN]

"People like to gesticulate. It's stress relieving and it's expressive. I'll bet most people who have the Wii realize that they can use small wrist movements but choose exxagerated ones instead"

Makes no sense. If the wii doesn't translate the gesticulation into on screen/in game movements, then how is that any different from how my 4 year old daughter uses the controller on her gamecube? She flings that thing around all over the place. But just like the wii, the motions she's making have no effect on gameplay. So if people are choosing exxagerated motions, and they do nothing, then you just made my point. People may want to believe that the wii is translating their motions like in the wii commercials, but we all know that it is not. (see: guy rolling into a ball while playing metroid in the commercials).

It does make sense, and I've made no point for you! Unless your daughter's gamecube contoller is a motion sensing controller, of course it's not going to do anything (if it did do something, she'd no doubt feel better about moving all over the place as there would be some on-screen feedback representation). Fact: you move the Wii-mote, something happens in the game. That is not "no effect on gameplay", that is: some effect on gameplay. It's stimulus and response, very basic. As far as exaggerated motions, I explained that IMHO those are psychologically pleasing. People like to move around and if it so happens that one can move little or much to gain response, I think many will move much for the fun of it. Take a punch to the jaw for instance. A short uppercut is often times more effective and is certainly more efficient for economy of motion, yet many people (especially non-hardcore fighters) choose the haymaker style (the wind-up) because that expresses what they're trying to accomplish (often with failure never the less).

 

[PWMK2]

It does make sense, and I've made no point for you! Unless your daughter's gamecube contoller is a motion sensing controller, of course it's not going to do anything (if it did do something, she'd no doubt feel better about moving all over the place as there would be some on-screen feedback representation). Fact: you move the Wii-mote, something happens in the game. That is not "no effect on gameplay", that is: some effect on gameplay. It's stimulus and response, very basic. As far as exaggerated motions, I explained that IMHO those are psychologically pleasing. People like to move around and if it so happens that one can move little or much to gain response, I think many will move much for the fun of it. Take a punch to the jaw for instance. A short uppercut is often times more effective and is certainly more efficient for economy of motion, yet many people (especially non-hardcore fighters) choose the haymaker style (the wind-up) because that expresses what they're trying to accomplish (often with failure never the less).

The Wii controller is very nice, fellas, but it's not worth buying a console over. If the Wii was the same price as the 360 and had exactly the same lineup of games but kept its controller setup, I would have totally skipped the Wii.

Let's take Twilight Princess, for example. The functionality of the Wii remote which everyone has been screaming about is used extremely little here. Pretty much just for using the sword, actually, and even then you can just press the A button. Yet this game is the best on the Wii.

I didn't buy a Wii for the controller. I bought it so that I could play the Nintendo games. I don't buy game consoles for the controller, no matter how cool or innovative it is. The Wii controller IS innovative, BTW, but it's not something so incredibly new and different that I forsee all future consoles as having this. The Xbox 360 controller is just fine without the motion sensing. It's not the controller that makes Wii Sports so fun, it's the fact that the games are so entertaining. Nintendo really did a good job designing this game to be fun.

It's the same thing with the Nintendo DS. It's not cool because you can touch the screen. That's just nonsense. It's a nice feature, but not what defines it. If that were the case, then the PSP could get a new touchscreen and call itself the PSP Touch or something like that and instantly start selling better.

I remember people saying the same things about the N64 rumble pack back in the day. Mostly about how it's so cool and innovative and what makes the N64 so fun to play. But looking back at it now, it's just ridiculous to say that the rumble pack is what made the N64 fun, no matter how innovative it was at the time. Mario 64, Starfox 64, Ocarina of Time, Paper Mario, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Smash Bros. and other games were what made it fun.

BTW, does anyone care to explain to me how the fact you can move the controller and stuff happens on the screen is "psychologically pleasing?" Because why isn't pressing a button psychologically pleasing, then? Stuff happens when you press buttons, too. Also, your mouse cursor moves around a lot when you use it on your computer. Yet I'm not sitting at my computer all the time entranced by the mouse and saying to myself when I'm playing games, "Wow, this mouse idea is so cool." Maybe the novelty wore off?

 

[Netrat33]

Just look at a game like Dead rising. The extra processing power of the 360 makes the hundreds of enemies on screen possible. It's a gameplay mechanic, not a pretty graphics window dressing to have massive hordes of enemies. Can't do that on the wii the way it was done on the 360. Gameplay. Next gen hardware provides devs the opportunity to do things they couldn't with old hardware. Destructible environments, more advanced physics, exponentially more enemies. All gameplay mechanics. If you truly don't care about graphics, then why are you playing anything but the Atari or the NES? If graphics don't add anything, why did Nintendo even bother to give the Wii a slight hardware upgrade over the Gamecube? (I have a gamecube and thoroughly enjoy it) They should have just left it the way it was, and added the epic motion sensing technology. After all, graphics are useless, they just make things more shiny right?

Doesn't Dynasty Warriors for the PS2 have tons of enemies? Granted not as many as an xbox360 can display of course, but as you see it's a marginal improvement. Not leaps and bounds as what you say with NES and PS1.

 

[Netrat33]

"People like to gesticulate. It's stress relieving and it's expressive. I'll bet most people who have the Wii realize that they can use small wrist movements but choose exxagerated ones instead"

Makes no sense. If the wii doesn't translate the gesticulation into on screen/in game movements, then how is that any different from how my 4 year old daughter uses the controller on her gamecube? She flings that thing around all over the place. But just like the wii, the motions she's making have no effect on gameplay. So if people are choosing exxagerated motions, and they do nothing, then you just made my point. People may want to believe that the wii is translating their motions like in the wii commercials, but we all know that it is not. (see: guy rolling into a ball while playing metroid in the commercials).

The thing is some games do work like that (excite truck)

 

[Netrat33]

I didn't buy a Wii for the controller. I bought it so that I could play the Nintendo games. I don't buy game consoles for the controller, no matter how cool or innovative it is. The Wii controller IS innovative, BTW, but it's not something so incredibly new and different that I forsee all future consoles as having this. The Xbox 360 controller is just fine without the motion sensing. It's not the controller that makes Wii Sports so fun, it's the fact that the games are so entertaining. Nintendo really did a good job designing this game to be fun.

It's the same thing with the Nintendo DS. It's not cool because you can touch the screen. That's just nonsense. It's a nice feature, but not what defines it. If that were the case, then the PSP could get a new touchscreen and call itself the PSP Touch or something like that and instantly start selling better.

I remember people saying the same things about the N64 rumble pack back in the day. Mostly about how it's so cool and innovative and what makes the N64 so fun to play. But looking back at it now, it's just ridiculous to say that the rumble pack is what made the N64 fun, no matter how innovative it was at the time. Mario 64, Starfox 64, Ocarina of Time, Paper Mario, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Smash Bros. and other games were what made it fun.

BTW, does anyone care to explain to me how the fact you can move the controller and stuff happens on the screen is "psychologically pleasing?" Because why isn't pressing a button psychologically pleasing, then? Stuff happens when you press buttons, too. Also, your mouse cursor moves around a lot when you use it on your computer. Yet I'm not sitting at my computer all the time entranced by the mouse and saying to myself when I'm playing games, "Wow, this mouse idea is so cool." Maybe the novelty wore off?

Oh really? Seems like every controller after teh N64 controller featured rumble. And when a controller didn't (PS3's) people complain about it. But at the same time, that PS3 controller is taking an approach at motion sensing. I don't think it's just a "gimmick" for upcoming systems after these.

And touching the DS screen and interacting with the game IS one of the very exciting features of the system. I don't see how you DON'T think that. Just because what then? It has two screens? No because it has two screens and you can play games by touching the screen.

As to psychologically pleasing, because it's a step closer to YOU being the person swinging, shooting, jumpnig whatever. Pressing a button isn't pleasing. Beating a level or whatever is. Swinging, even a little bit, a controller to kill something is very different and fun. The fact that my mind says "swing yoru arm to have the controller make the character swing his arm" is fresh and exciting and an easy concept to do. And actually the mouse on a PC is very similiar to this thought. And games that actually tried to think outside of the box (Indigo Prophecy) I think it helped a lot more using your mouse motions to do things.

 

[TexasAg05]

The Wii controller IS innovative, BTW, but it's not something so incredibly new and different that I forsee all future consoles as having this. The Xbox 360 controller is just fine without the motion sensing.

With the wiimote, FINALLY FPS aiming is intuitive and more natural. I hated console shooters because aiming with the analog stick just didn't compare with mouse aiming on the PC...(yes, I know there are mouse/keyboard mods out there for XBox and whatnot, but that is not a native scheme for the console). With the 'point and shoot' interface of the Wiimote, aiming in Call of Duty 3 is much more intuitive.

I remember people saying the same things about the N64 rumble pack back in the day. Mostly about how it's so cool and innovative and what makes the N64 so fun to play. But looking back at it now, it's just ridiculous to say that the rumble pack is what made the N64 fun, no matter how innovative it was at the time. Mario 64, Starfox 64, Ocarina of Time, Paper Mario, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Smash Bros. and other games were what made it fun.

And now every console has 'rumbling' controllers...so, it WAS "so incredibly new and different" that all future consoles had this feature

 

[GreenMonkey]

It's not the controller that makes Wii Sports so fun, it's the fact that the games are so entertaining. Nintendo really did a good job designing this game to be fun.

It's the same thing with the Nintendo DS. It's not cool because you can touch the screen. That's just nonsense. It's a nice feature, but not what defines it. If that were the case, then the PSP could get a new touchscreen and call itself the PSP Touch or something like that and instantly start selling better.

You are on crack. Wii Sports would be incredibly boring without the controller. I don't play sports games. I played Table Tennis on the 360. Boring. Move guy, hit button -> hit ball. Repeat.

Say I want some backspin on the ball in Wii Tennis. I hit it with a bit of backspin on the controller. I want a fast, low ball - I hit it higher and downward, just like with a real racket. BTW the Wiimote does translate movments pretty accurately. Try playing Wii baseball. Move the controller around like you're warming up for a hit, you'll see the bat follows the motions pretty precisely.

The DS has some very unique games based on the touchscreen mechanic. It IS what defines it. Games like Brain Age and Nintendogs live on it. Sure, plenty of games have it tacked on for no good reason as a gimmick (NSMB for example) or barely use it at all (Castlevania). But plenty of games like Kirby Canvas Curse are 100% unique and use only touch screen control. Similiarly, many Wii games will use the Wiimote/nunchuck for basically the same sorts of things (Zelda, for example).

And BTW I like the idea of being able to toss more bad guys on the screen. But I've got Dynasty Warriors for the PS2. This has been done before.

Saying "why aren't you playing NES" is exagerrating. The NES cannot do 3D. The NES cannot do any sort of advanced AI for the most part. The NES could not even put very many 2D guys on the screen, even (the old blinking people problem -see Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy). Etc. The problem is that as of the PS2 era, the consoles simply have enough juice to do 3D environments, they have analog control, 3D camera, they have AI. All the newer consoles are doing is tuning that up further. Shinier graphics, spruced up AI (still braindead though), etc.

BTW, Twilight Princess has destructable environments. I noticed that when I ran over one of the signposts in the town and it busted into a bunch of pieces. Oh wait, you mean "more destructable environments".

There's a reason consoles added 3D. New kinds of games. They constantly improved & changed controllers - analog sticks, more buttons, shoulder buttons, analog triggers, etc. Improved control and new kinds of games needed different kinds of buttons & control. Some, like Analog Sticks, made a HUGE difference. Try playing Halo on a NES pad - not doable

 

[Droopz]

Nintendo and another game developer (cant remember name) have both said that games that give you 1:1 motion are ntirley possible with the Wii and its hardware. I guess they dumbed down Wii Sports to make it more accessable, and allow people to play sitting of their arse (like a PS3/360 player j/king).

The new Super Swing Gold shows how much better the controls can be used in a similar game to Wii Sports, so its just a matter of time and game development before some cool 1:1 games arrive.

Imagine Wii Killer Instinct in 1st person with 1:1 and a toggle button to switch between punches and kicks and buttons for special moves, or a Star Wars lightsaber game, run with the anolog stick like a FPS then hold Z to strife use the wiimote as the lightsaber and you could swing it in any direction, A would natuarlly be the button to open the lightsaber (the saber sound would come from teh Wiimotes speaker and the swing and idle sound would too.

You could play online with, one on one saber battles with your buddys. Throw the saber by holding B and swinging the wiimote. jump with c and use the cross pad to cycle through force powers .. i donno you get the idea..

As forthe thread title, I expect it to offer me something that my highend PC can't do. Which it does perfectly. And its sh!tloads of fun in the process.