I honestly don't understand this. I see huge long posts about how going cheaper "allow them to push the envelope of their own games" which makes no sense at all. The only thing making the system cheap and less powerful does is allow Nintendo to sell lots of them by virtue of the lower price and (allegedly, I haven't seen actual confirmation on this) make money selling the console itself. That's fine, it's a good marketing strategy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "allowing" them to make fun games.
This is not how it works:
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
If they want to focus on making fun games, that's fine, the Gamecube did it just fine, nothing is stopping them, certainly having a console more equal to the competition wouldn't.
Forgive me if i made it appear that I my arguement was all that the innovation is about cheap hardware and lower dev/consumer price.
Well, no it surely wouldnt hurt for the system to be powerful, and really my arguement was that implementation of IR and Motion sensing was Nintendos attempt to make a fresh new experience.
I am just trying to make the connection between Nintendo's strategy to keep innovating the user experience and the Wii package.
We've already seen pretty cool first party stuff from Nintendo for the DS for instance, the touchscreen didnt end up being a gimmick but a pretty fresh at playing handheld games. If we're to be observant, we're to see that Nintendo actually figured out something really simple that noone else realized, the fact that handheld gaming has always merged the screen and controls in the same peripheral, so extending that experience was the logical choice. There is a big difference between home console experience and handheld experience, and that difference is not simply slower hardware on the go.
As far as the lower price point and slower hardware, it just makes it more appealing to the mainstream, casual gamers and non-gamers. It's kind of a bonus.
Personally i would have liked more juice from the system, but looking at it now, I would almost expect a new generation of the console much earlier than the competition.
So my point was that there is a reason why the Wii is the way it is, and why it's so popular, and that reason is not because the Nintendo cant afford to ship more computing power or wants to flood the market with their "glorified GC" with the fake notion of a "next-gen" experience to make a quick buck.
There are two evolutionary events taking place here:
1) New interfaces - Wii remote, obviously. This is necessary if we want to keep breaking new ground as an entertainment medium.
2) New technology - Which can only be run using powerful hardware. This is a different kind of evolution, but the effects are the same as (1). With it, we break new ground--specifically the incorporation of advanced simulation tech that has been showing up recently (on all consoles and PC). Games are different now with physics because it provides element of true non-linearity, and this is just as important as new interfaces.
I grew up with Duck Hunt and Mario much like the rest of you (probably), but I'm not nostalgic. They were fun games for their time, but I want new ideas or at least improvements on the old ideas. I want progression. And either way you look at it, I think you'll find that with these new evolutionary events, there's more fun to had now then there was 20 years ago because we can do so much more now--we are better able to express our ideas and stories.
[ QUOTE ]
...and really my arguement was that implementation of IR and Motion sensing was Nintendos attempt to make a fresh new experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
... back in 1989...
I'm not so sure Wii-Mote is a fresh new experience, since it is just a functional version of the Power Glove. Same idea, wave your hands around in front of a wand that sits on your TV. Perhaps the push to develop games that take advantage of the hardware is new, but the idea behind the hardware interface is just a polished version of an older failed attempt at the same thing.
[ QUOTE ]
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say that still isn't quite right. Power and "fun" are almost completely independent of each other. There is hardly any correlation between the two (like I said before, I know of several DS games that outshine most Xbox games).
For the past decade and a half, the existing paradigm has been to release a system with the most cutting-edge hardware you can afford to put in it... Nintendo decided they would aim more to the middle of the technology spectrum in order to make a more affordable system, and they believed they could sell their systems by offering an innovative interface. It doesn't make the Wii a less legitimate console, it's just a different business model... and it's obviously paid off big time, which seems to have ruffled a few feathers amongst the hardware circle-jerk crowd.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that still isn't quite right. Power and "fun" are almost completely independent of each other. There is hardly any correlation between the two (like I said before, I know of several DS games that outshine most Xbox games).
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence the fun bar not changing at all between the two graphs, just their relation to the power bar
That's fine Asthane, i didnt want to turn this into a "what's the better system" arguement.
It's a shame that a lot of gamers are simply turned off the party aspect of nintendo's home consoles or the unusual nature of the games on the DS. I guess the "kiddy games" image is to blame, oh well. People should stil give it a chance.
Look, why can't anyone understand? Nintendo was being lazy so they just increased the speed of the system they already had. They spend little money on doing anything, then they market it so that people can drop a dookie over the idea of "revolutionary games!" All the games on the Wii suck except Zelda. Everyone is trying to defend it as Nintendo was focusing on games, but they weren't focusing on shit. They were hoping lots of people would play it for 5 minutes or see a video of someone playing it then run out and buy one without even thinking it through, which is exactly what happened.
Just a note, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has given it a chance and wasn't really impressed. The games everyone seems to love on the DS and Wii are some of the most god awefully boring I've played(for me of course).
There are a few games Nintendo puts out I'd love to play, but no where near enough to make me want to buy a system.
lol sonic. In my personal experience i bougth the wii not for what i saw in the videos , but simply because i could play lost pearls for the gamecube wich i really liked and some nice titles. And also what i like is the fact i dont have to wait almost a full minute just to play a level.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't understand this. I see huge long posts about how going cheaper "allow them to push the envelope of their own games" which makes no sense at all. The only thing making the system cheap and less powerful does is allow Nintendo to sell lots of them by virtue of the lower price and (allegedly, I haven't seen actual confirmation on this) make money selling the console itself. That's fine, it's a good marketing strategy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "allowing" them to make fun games.
This is not how it works:
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
If they want to focus on making fun games, that's fine, the Gamecube did it just fine, nothing is stopping them, certainly having a console more equal to the competition wouldn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to have drawn the fun at equal lengths on both, so I'd rather have the power WITH the fun
In all fairness the 360 allows you to play nostalgic games such as mortal kombat. Personally the NES still rocks my little world and '1942' on a mame rom is good times for everyone, but I really aren't interested in the wii. I prefer stylised games which don't necessarily use the full power of a console. Tak and the power of JuJu was great fun on the xbox, but I doubt it uses all its power.
Same with the 360, Gears of War isn't better than Vegas for me, and its certainly better graphics wise, I just find Vegas more fun.
[ QUOTE ]
Look, why can't anyone understand? Nintendo was being lazy so they just increased the speed of the system they already had. They spend little money on doing anything, then they market it so that people can drop a dookie over the idea of "revolutionary games!" All the games on the Wii suck except Zelda. Everyone is trying to defend it as Nintendo was focusing on games, but they weren't focusing on shit. They were hoping lots of people would play it for 5 minutes or see a video of someone playing it then run out and buy one without even thinking it through, which is exactly what happened.
[/ QUOTE ]
I havent yet heard of anyone regretting purchasing the system. It's not as if the Wii's are getting left behind on the shelves after the original craze like the ps3 for instance. So i dont see where you are coming from.
I think tulk put it better, he doesnt find the system interesting because he simply doesnt like the games, which is fine, everyone has their own taste.
it's not like fun is defined by the amount of pixelshaders your hardware can push or whatever. personally i have not yet seen any game on 360 or ps3 that blew me away. everything looks so pixelated in 720p still, where's the big step upwards? pc's did a better job at next-gen-graphics three years ago, or so it seems to me.
but releasing a console with so weak computing power as the wii will restrict developers in terms of what computationally expensive FUN-enhancements can be added to a game. dynamics, ai, environments that you can interact with/destructible scenery would be top of my list of things that we might finally see in this gen enhancing the gameplay, not just being cool show-off gimmicks. will be interesting to see how much we can squeeze out of those secondary cpu cores on the cell for example.
as entertaining as playing some classic might be, that's not what a console should be about imo. i detest the idea of the commercial virtual console and the sony/ms-equivalents. let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing. bring on some new stuff instead. same goes for those godawful gradius-whatever-give-us-money-twice classic-collections on the PSP. a game from the late 80ties/early 90ties does not only look outdated, it also plays very outdated imo.
You lot all seem to be missing the point of what he was saying, i really think his point was much more towards *processing power* for AI and physics than it was for graphics. But all you guys do is the cliche OMG PIXELSHADERS DONT = FUN LOL comment that we've seen posted constantly on these boards for the last 5 years. I know you guys love to have this arguement, but seriously re-read the article.
Not even to mention things like handling rigged characters, all of which can be much bigger bottlenecks than lol polygons and shaders lol. Seriously wtf are you guys going on about, do you have any idea what it takes to put more than 10 characters on screen that have decent AI and physiscs? Look at dead rising even, it has super shit dumb ai, but you'de never in your life see something like that on a system as weak as the wii.
[ QUOTE ]
let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you tried emulating any of the CD based systems? I don't know about the gamecube, but emulation on the PSX has always been a total headache and I don't know if there's even anything workable for the PS2. Honestly, Sony's decision to cut back on backwards compatability is a huge dissapointment for me.
I've also never played a Zelda newer than the SNES one, so it's good to know I can still (pretty much) just pick up a Wii and catch up if I feel like it-- I can't do that with, say, System Shock any more (I've never been able to get it to run right under DOSbox).
And again, it's not like including it means it's instead of something else, in the case of the Wii it doesn't even mean more hardware (far as I know), so why not include it?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you tried emulating any of the CD based systems? I don't know about the gamecube, but emulation on the PSX has always been a total headache and I don't know if there's even anything workable for the PS2. Honestly, Sony's decision to cut back on backwards compatability is a huge dissapointment for me.
I've also never played a Zelda newer than the SNES one, so it's good to know I can still (pretty much) just pick up a Wii and catch up if I feel like it-- I can't do that with, say, System Shock any more (I've never been able to get it to run right under DOSbox).
And again, it's not like including it means it's instead of something else, in the case of the Wii it doesn't even mean more hardware (far as I know), so why not include it?
[/ QUOTE ]
i don't know about you but i have always used a usb controller, epsxe, the newest ps1 bios dump, and all of pete's plugins and i have never had any problem running any ps1 game i own, and to top it off i get better graphics than the ps1 ever gave me while rendering out to a progressive output for my projector. best ps1 experience ever. i prefer playing my ps1 games thru emulation than on my ps2 (my old ps1 died 2 years ago, it was one of the original consoles).
although xbox and ps2 emulation is quite bad.
[ QUOTE ]
I havent yet heard of anyone regretting purchasing the system. It's not as if the Wii's are getting left behind on the shelves after the original craze like the ps3 for instance. So i dont see where you are coming from.
I think tulk put it better, he doesnt find the system interesting because he simply doesnt like the games, which is fine, everyone has their own taste.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one is going to say they regret it, because they are stuck in the idea that they got the best system ever. I camped out for 10 hours to buy one the opening night. Now I think it's a piece of shit. My friend here in town owns a LAN center. The first month the Wii came out he had all 6 of them being used non stop. Now they either collect dust or we played Smash Bros on them. What's the lineup for 2k7? Project HAMMER looks cool, but what else? The same exact rehashed shit. Metroid 3, Mario 84, Warioware Smooth Moves (such a shitty game), Smash Brothers 3, Battalion Wars 2?!
Also, I can't believe that guy apologized. Doesn't anyone have any balls these days?
I went to Maxis homepage and now i get it, there is The Sims Complete Collection, The Sims 2 Pets, The Sims 2, The Sims For Consoles and Handhelds, SimCity 4, all this in the front page. This man is used to create art.. magic.. i can feel his passion playing the Sims2. "Nintendo gives a s*** about games as an art form" lol
Replies
This is not how it works:
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
If they want to focus on making fun games, that's fine, the Gamecube did it just fine, nothing is stopping them, certainly having a console more equal to the competition wouldn't.
Well, no it surely wouldnt hurt for the system to be powerful, and really my arguement was that implementation of IR and Motion sensing was Nintendos attempt to make a fresh new experience.
I am just trying to make the connection between Nintendo's strategy to keep innovating the user experience and the Wii package.
We've already seen pretty cool first party stuff from Nintendo for the DS for instance, the touchscreen didnt end up being a gimmick but a pretty fresh at playing handheld games. If we're to be observant, we're to see that Nintendo actually figured out something really simple that noone else realized, the fact that handheld gaming has always merged the screen and controls in the same peripheral, so extending that experience was the logical choice. There is a big difference between home console experience and handheld experience, and that difference is not simply slower hardware on the go.
As far as the lower price point and slower hardware, it just makes it more appealing to the mainstream, casual gamers and non-gamers. It's kind of a bonus.
Personally i would have liked more juice from the system, but looking at it now, I would almost expect a new generation of the console much earlier than the competition.
So my point was that there is a reason why the Wii is the way it is, and why it's so popular, and that reason is not because the Nintendo cant afford to ship more computing power or wants to flood the market with their "glorified GC" with the fake notion of a "next-gen" experience to make a quick buck.
There are two evolutionary events taking place here:
1) New interfaces - Wii remote, obviously. This is necessary if we want to keep breaking new ground as an entertainment medium.
2) New technology - Which can only be run using powerful hardware. This is a different kind of evolution, but the effects are the same as (1). With it, we break new ground--specifically the incorporation of advanced simulation tech that has been showing up recently (on all consoles and PC). Games are different now with physics because it provides element of true non-linearity, and this is just as important as new interfaces.
I grew up with Duck Hunt and Mario much like the rest of you (probably), but I'm not nostalgic. They were fun games for their time, but I want new ideas or at least improvements on the old ideas. I want progression. And either way you look at it, I think you'll find that with these new evolutionary events, there's more fun to had now then there was 20 years ago because we can do so much more now--we are better able to express our ideas and stories.
...and really my arguement was that implementation of IR and Motion sensing was Nintendos attempt to make a fresh new experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
... back in 1989...
I'm not so sure Wii-Mote is a fresh new experience, since it is just a functional version of the Power Glove. Same idea, wave your hands around in front of a wand that sits on your TV. Perhaps the push to develop games that take advantage of the hardware is new, but the idea behind the hardware interface is just a polished version of an older failed attempt at the same thing.
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say that still isn't quite right. Power and "fun" are almost completely independent of each other. There is hardly any correlation between the two (like I said before, I know of several DS games that outshine most Xbox games).
For the past decade and a half, the existing paradigm has been to release a system with the most cutting-edge hardware you can afford to put in it... Nintendo decided they would aim more to the middle of the technology spectrum in order to make a more affordable system, and they believed they could sell their systems by offering an innovative interface. It doesn't make the Wii a less legitimate console, it's just a different business model... and it's obviously paid off big time, which seems to have ruffled a few feathers amongst the hardware circle-jerk crowd.
I'd say that still isn't quite right. Power and "fun" are almost completely independent of each other. There is hardly any correlation between the two (like I said before, I know of several DS games that outshine most Xbox games).
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence the fun bar not changing at all between the two graphs, just their relation to the power bar
It's a shame that a lot of gamers are simply turned off the party aspect of nintendo's home consoles or the unusual nature of the games on the DS. I guess the "kiddy games" image is to blame, oh well. People should stil give it a chance.
People should stil give it a chance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just a note, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has given it a chance and wasn't really impressed. The games everyone seems to love on the DS and Wii are some of the most god awefully boring I've played(for me of course).
There are a few games Nintendo puts out I'd love to play, but no where near enough to make me want to buy a system.
well at least titles can be made for the nintendo without bankrupting a small country
[/ QUOTE ]
exactly, there are still smaller developers out there without the means or cash to produce massive next-gen pipeline games that the wii is perfect for
I honestly don't understand this. I see huge long posts about how going cheaper "allow them to push the envelope of their own games" which makes no sense at all. The only thing making the system cheap and less powerful does is allow Nintendo to sell lots of them by virtue of the lower price and (allegedly, I haven't seen actual confirmation on this) make money selling the console itself. That's fine, it's a good marketing strategy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "allowing" them to make fun games.
This is not how it works:
This is more like it:
(Strictly talking about the constoles' ability, not the actual games made, obviously)
If they want to focus on making fun games, that's fine, the Gamecube did it just fine, nothing is stopping them, certainly having a console more equal to the competition wouldn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to have drawn the fun at equal lengths on both, so I'd rather have the power WITH the fun
In all fairness the 360 allows you to play nostalgic games such as mortal kombat. Personally the NES still rocks my little world and '1942' on a mame rom is good times for everyone, but I really aren't interested in the wii. I prefer stylised games which don't necessarily use the full power of a console. Tak and the power of JuJu was great fun on the xbox, but I doubt it uses all its power.
Same with the 360, Gears of War isn't better than Vegas for me, and its certainly better graphics wise, I just find Vegas more fun.
Look, why can't anyone understand? Nintendo was being lazy so they just increased the speed of the system they already had. They spend little money on doing anything, then they market it so that people can drop a dookie over the idea of "revolutionary games!" All the games on the Wii suck except Zelda. Everyone is trying to defend it as Nintendo was focusing on games, but they weren't focusing on shit. They were hoping lots of people would play it for 5 minutes or see a video of someone playing it then run out and buy one without even thinking it through, which is exactly what happened.
[/ QUOTE ]
I havent yet heard of anyone regretting purchasing the system. It's not as if the Wii's are getting left behind on the shelves after the original craze like the ps3 for instance. So i dont see where you are coming from.
I think tulk put it better, he doesnt find the system interesting because he simply doesnt like the games, which is fine, everyone has their own taste.
but releasing a console with so weak computing power as the wii will restrict developers in terms of what computationally expensive FUN-enhancements can be added to a game. dynamics, ai, environments that you can interact with/destructible scenery would be top of my list of things that we might finally see in this gen enhancing the gameplay, not just being cool show-off gimmicks. will be interesting to see how much we can squeeze out of those secondary cpu cores on the cell for example.
as entertaining as playing some classic might be, that's not what a console should be about imo. i detest the idea of the commercial virtual console and the sony/ms-equivalents. let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing. bring on some new stuff instead. same goes for those godawful gradius-whatever-give-us-money-twice classic-collections on the PSP. a game from the late 80ties/early 90ties does not only look outdated, it also plays very outdated imo.
Not even to mention things like handling rigged characters, all of which can be much bigger bottlenecks than lol polygons and shaders lol. Seriously wtf are you guys going on about, do you have any idea what it takes to put more than 10 characters on screen that have decent AI and physiscs? Look at dead rising even, it has super shit dumb ai, but you'de never in your life see something like that on a system as weak as the wii.
let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you tried emulating any of the CD based systems? I don't know about the gamecube, but emulation on the PSX has always been a total headache and I don't know if there's even anything workable for the PS2. Honestly, Sony's decision to cut back on backwards compatability is a huge dissapointment for me.
I've also never played a Zelda newer than the SNES one, so it's good to know I can still (pretty much) just pick up a Wii and catch up if I feel like it-- I can't do that with, say, System Shock any more (I've never been able to get it to run right under DOSbox).
And again, it's not like including it means it's instead of something else, in the case of the Wii it doesn't even mean more hardware (far as I know), so why not include it?
[ QUOTE ]
let the old stuff rest in peace, the emulators are already here for those who really want that sort of thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you tried emulating any of the CD based systems? I don't know about the gamecube, but emulation on the PSX has always been a total headache and I don't know if there's even anything workable for the PS2. Honestly, Sony's decision to cut back on backwards compatability is a huge dissapointment for me.
I've also never played a Zelda newer than the SNES one, so it's good to know I can still (pretty much) just pick up a Wii and catch up if I feel like it-- I can't do that with, say, System Shock any more (I've never been able to get it to run right under DOSbox).
And again, it's not like including it means it's instead of something else, in the case of the Wii it doesn't even mean more hardware (far as I know), so why not include it?
[/ QUOTE ]
i don't know about you but i have always used a usb controller, epsxe, the newest ps1 bios dump, and all of pete's plugins and i have never had any problem running any ps1 game i own, and to top it off i get better graphics than the ps1 ever gave me while rendering out to a progressive output for my projector. best ps1 experience ever. i prefer playing my ps1 games thru emulation than on my ps2 (my old ps1 died 2 years ago, it was one of the original consoles).
although xbox and ps2 emulation is quite bad.
I havent yet heard of anyone regretting purchasing the system. It's not as if the Wii's are getting left behind on the shelves after the original craze like the ps3 for instance. So i dont see where you are coming from.
I think tulk put it better, he doesnt find the system interesting because he simply doesnt like the games, which is fine, everyone has their own taste.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course no one is going to say they regret it, because they are stuck in the idea that they got the best system ever. I camped out for 10 hours to buy one the opening night. Now I think it's a piece of shit. My friend here in town owns a LAN center. The first month the Wii came out he had all 6 of them being used non stop. Now they either collect dust or we played Smash Bros on them. What's the lineup for 2k7? Project HAMMER looks cool, but what else? The same exact rehashed shit. Metroid 3, Mario 84, Warioware Smooth Moves (such a shitty game), Smash Brothers 3, Battalion Wars 2?!
Also, I can't believe that guy apologized. Doesn't anyone have any balls these days?
Also, I can't believe that guy apologized. Doesn't anyone have any balls these days?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure of his testicular status, but he probably has a bay area mortgage to pay and thus can't relinquish his large monthly income.