Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 21, 2008, 07:23:37 PM
Want to know why so many Nintendo fans are looking to The Conduit as their system's messiah? High Voltage may not have the greatest track record, but they're actually putting some effort into making their game take advantage of the current technology. We should expect this from every full-price Wii game, regardless of genre or art style.
A few years ago, Chris Rock had a great comedy routine about guys who always want special attention for things they're supposed to do anyway. To paraphrase:
'I ain't never been to jail!"
"What, you want a cookie?"
I think this scenario perfectly captures the current state of Wii graphics. We all know that GameCube was a powerful system for its time, and we know that Wii is significantly more powerful than that. Yet the vast majority of Wii games, including Nintendo's own projects and those of talented third-party studios, barely meet the standards of mid-level GameCube visuals. I'm not talking about budget-priced shovelware. Marquee titles like Battalion Wars, Rock Band, Animal Crossing, de Blob, Boom Blox, and Mario Kart could all be mistaken for last-generation titles, based on their graphics.
In fact, some of the Wii games most highly praised for their visuals are literally last-generation games, including Twilight Princess, Resident Evil 4, and Okami. Now we have Capcom announcing a remake of Dead Rising, an Xbox 360 game, and they are flaunting the fact that it runs on the same engine as RE4: Wii Edition. I guess we're supposed to be relieved that Dead Rising might look as good as a GameCube game when it's brought over to Wii.
At E3 last week, I complained to Steven Rodriguez that the water in Wii Sports Resort's power-ski game looks closer to Wave Race 64 than Wave Race: Blue Storm. His response was: "So what? It's Wii Sports." And I agree in principle that graphics are not especially important in this kind of casual game. However, I also don't think it's asking too much that a new, $50 Wii game meet the minimum visual standard of Blue Storm, a game that is nearly seven years old and was built on predecessor technology. Casual or not, if I'm going to spend a large portion of Resort looking at the water, that water shouldn't be distractingly ugly. It certainly was in the E3 demo.
Here's my message to Nintendo fans, media, and especially game developers: raise your standards. I'm not saying that Wii games should look like PlayStation 3 games. I'm just saying that Wii games should look like Wii games. If you're the "vote with your dollars" type, here are a few suggestions to send a message: Zack & Wiki, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, and Geometry Wars Galaxies. (If you can think of another game with better-than-GameCube graphics, let us know in Talkback.)
Post by: Arbok on July 21, 2008, 07:25:15 PM
Quote
(If you can think of another game with better-than-GameCube graphics, let us know in Talkback.)
Brawl... and its exclusion makes me cry...
Post by: Ian Sane on July 21, 2008, 07:36:38 PM
The problem is Nintendo has the most influence on their console and they don't care about graphics anymore. That started on the Cube. SSB Melee's Mario model looked better than Mario's model in Super Mario Sunshine and that game came out later. And then Nintendo reused that lousy model again and again. It was laziness and it's not really surprising that that laziness has continued on to the Wii. Third parties follow Nintendo's lead. You think we would get all these last-gen ports if Nintendo didn't do it first with Zelda?
We can try all we want but we're overwhelmed by non-gamers that don't care. That's the Wii in a nutshell. It seems with the blue ocean strategy what Nintendo found was an audience that doesn't require them to try. Hopefully that was an accident but the blue ocean market doesn't care about quality in graphics or gameplay and everyone is taking advantage of that.
It's still a good message for everyone.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 21, 2008, 07:54:26 PM
Seriously comparing models of a 2D fighting game to a 3D Platformer with massive environment is silly at best.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 21, 2008, 08:15:47 PM
I am voting with my dollars but it doesn't do any good. The problem is for every one of me there are 20 people probably on this forum alone that will give Nintendo the opposite message.
I'm doing my best to counteract Ian, I've bought Alien Syndrome and Heatseeker, both of which are PSP ports, and I haven't bought Zack & Wiki. I like to support games that don't slouch in the graphics department, but that's not what decides whether or not I'll buy a game. If I think a game is fun, which I do think the two games I mentioned are, I'm going to buy it, and conversely it doesn't matter if the game could pass for a 360 game, if I don't think it's fun I'm not going to buy it.
Post by: wandering on July 21, 2008, 08:19:44 PM
SSB Melee's Mario model looked better than Mario's model in Super Mario Sunshine and that game came out later.
Not sure I agree. I don't think realistic clothing textures suit Mario.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 21, 2008, 08:28:11 PM
Post by: Arbok on July 21, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
I think the impact of Brawl's graphics was lessened for me because it looks so much like Melee, even though Melee was one of the best looking GameCube titles (despite being near-launch).
To each their own... the beauty of the Fire Emblem and Star Fox stages still makes smile from ear to ear on occasion.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 21, 2008, 09:32:06 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on July 21, 2008, 10:09:32 PM
SSB Melee's Mario model looked better than Mario's model in Super Mario Sunshine and that game came out later.
Not sure I agree. I don't think realistic clothing textures suit Mario.
BAA DUMM CCCSSSHHH
Post by: Djunknown on July 21, 2008, 10:40:44 PM
Quote
Want to know why so many Nintendo fans are looking to The Conduit as their system's messiah?
I've seen Conduit in action, and have to say that their art style is unintentionally funny. It reminds me of a b-movie alien flick. But I think that's a good thing, FPS'es have been taking themselves too seriously, Team Fortress 2 being an exception. Everything else High Voltage is doing on the money: Customizable controls, multiplayer with voice chat sans tea bagging/ curb stomping.
Quote
You think we would get all these last-gen ports if Nintendo didn't do it first with Zelda?
To be fair, Twilight Princesses depth is greater than most games made for the Wii. The nearly never ending cave at the bottom of Lake Hylia is an example.
Quote
Where is the line drawn between Graphics-whore and Graphically-I-have-morals-and-standards?
Graphics Whore:
Looks at Conduit and says: Needs moar ____ mapping.
Morals and Standards:
Looks at Far Cry:Vengeance and says: %#@ this, I'll play the PC Version.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 21, 2008, 10:54:27 PM
Post by: TheFleece on July 21, 2008, 11:52:01 PM
I bought the Wii because I believed that it would bring me a new way to enjoy games and I'm not a graphics whore to be honest, but the lack of detail in many titles I see is just sad. I've often thought of trying to boycott games and developers, but it would be very difficult to change how things are run (I'd love to hear some ideas). As it stands the regular gamer has no control or influence over the industry, it's run on trends and right now being graphically amazing isn't in.
Post by: D_Average on July 22, 2008, 12:36:00 AM
Post by: Stogi on July 22, 2008, 12:44:21 AM
Gameplay + Graphics; even better.
Gameplay < Graphics; oh dear god no.
I already "vote with my dollars" and I always vote with gameplay first.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 22, 2008, 02:11:16 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 22, 2008, 03:49:08 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on July 22, 2008, 09:34:57 AM
Mario Kart Wii still looks great in places, i thought.
Post by: D_Average on July 22, 2008, 11:55:09 AM
Nintendo's negligence here is an insult to people who think.
Post by: Deguello on July 22, 2008, 12:12:11 PM
Quote
Third parties follow Nintendo's lead.
Oh they do, Ian? So how come Nintendo made all those jawesome, earth-shattering N64 and GC games and most third parties just kinda sat around and masturbated? Third parties should be THIRD PARTIES and not computerized, deflated Nintendo groupies. They should be giving more effort and they'll eventually be forced to when Nintendo's effort-full titles make more money than their phone-ins. Just like the DS.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 22, 2008, 12:12:42 PM
Post by: RABicle on July 22, 2008, 12:13:34 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 22, 2008, 12:17:27 PM
SSB Melee's Mario model looked better than Mario's model in Super Mario Sunshine and that game came out later. And then Nintendo reused that lousy model again and again. It was laziness and it's not really surprising that that laziness has continued on to the Wii.
Wow a model in a fighting game with tiny levels looked better than one in a 3D adventure game.
Are you retarded.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 22, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
Quote
Wow a model in a fighting game with tiny levels looked better than one in a 3D adventure game.
Are you retarded.
Mario's Sunshine model looked like it something out of a Dreamcast launch game. Somehow other Cube games that were in full 3D managed to have decent looking character models but Mario Sunshine and all the spin-offs that reused the same model didn't. If Rare, Retro, Capcom, Silicon Knights, and even EAD themselves with Twilight Princess (and I'd argue Pikmin as well) were able to make full 3D games with decent looking character models then Super Mario Sunshine had no excuse. The hardware was clearly capable of better and Nintendo didn't try. Hell Super Mario Sunshine had FMV that looked WORSE than the in-game graphics.
Every other Mario platformer (except portable ones I guess) managed to wow me with its graphics at the time of release except Mario Sunshine. It looked like Sonic Adventure.
It was actually the first time that it looked like Nintendo really didn't put a full effort into the presentation. I know everyone is all graphics over gameplay but in the past Nintendo's game always pushed the envelope in visuals. They occasionally made something intentionally simplistic for style like Earthbound or Paper Mario or in F-Zero X's case compromised the graphics in favour of gameplay but they didn't make "good enough" graphics. Mario Sunshine was just "good enough".
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 22, 2008, 03:41:58 PM
This is a huge difference compared to a meaningless background Corneria building in Melee, and the huge expanses of land in Twilight Princess that did next to NOTHING beyond displaying Link's shadow. Pikmin's characters were mostly round bulbish models lacking texture and had the advantage of model repetition to keep your eyes busy. Rare had nice models cuz the games were empty eye candy with not much to do inside. Silicon Knights' models weren't that great and the environments were tiny as well. I doubt Mario Galaxy has nearly the same amount of "platformable" surface area than Mario Sunshine. And to Sunshine's credit, it had considerably more versatility in platform improvisation and stage cohesion (falling or flying to a far part of the stage usually meant the whole stage was there, whereas in Galaxy shooting away from a planetoid was like going through a door in Metroid Prime, allowing the console to "nevermind it" and focus resources in the immediate area).
FMV was horrible cuz Nintendo had no practice and no disc space. Two N64s taped together.
You see an artistic deficiency and somehow forget that there's hardware underneath that has a significant role in driving these things, so balance and economy in design becomes central, and not "deurrrr Nintendo didn't try hard enough."
The only games that came close to reusing Sunshine's Mario was Double Dash and MK Wii. Where the hell are the other ones you're talking about? Mario Teaches Trolling?
Try harder, E3tard.
Post by: Halbred on July 22, 2008, 04:03:03 PM
I'm kind of in the "why does it have to be photorealistic?" crowd. I prefer the abstract look of Viewtiful Joe and Patapon over Gears of War and Halo. Video games are an art form, one where a developer's creative energies can go virtually unchecked. I'd like to see more games developed specifically for the medium. Nintendo is in a great position to do that. Not only can the gameplay be fundamentally different, but the look of a game can be experimental, too.
"Better graphics" doesn't have to mean "BETTER graphics." It can mean something totally different. It can mean "different graphics." Sure, the Wii is underpowered compared to the competition (graphically speaking), but why not make a stable of wierd-looking games that are absolutely unique?
Again, Patapon is a great starting point.
Post by: Arbok on July 22, 2008, 04:04:10 PM
The only games that came close to reusing Sunshine's Mario was Double Dash and MK Wii. Where the hell are the other ones you're talking about? Mario Teaches Trolling?
Didn't the EA sports game, the basketball and snowboarding one, reuse one of the earlier Mario models? Not that those games are ones many want to recall Mario being in...
Post by: Ian Sane on July 22, 2008, 04:34:19 PM
Quote
The only games that came close to reusing Sunshine's Mario was Double Dash and MK Wii. Where the hell are the other ones you're talking about? Mario Teaches Trolling?
I'm pretty sure all the Mario Party game reused the same model. And let's not forget Mario Tennis, Golf, maybe Baseball and Mario DDR. If those didn't use the same model they sure as hell didn't do much else beyond the Dreamcast launch game design of Sunshine. I found all those games to have the same dull "going through the motions" appearance of Sunshine.
I personally don't buy this "the hardware was dedicated to the water" excuse. Somehow Wave Race: Blue Storm didn't look like balls but whatever.
To be fair my opinion may be influenced by the fact that I find the game overall very disappointing. It's easily the worst and least essential of the EAD Mario platformers, except for Lost Levels of course.
I agree that games need not be photorealistic. In fact I find most games that strive for that look dull. I do however like it when a game goes for a realistic look but just adds the tiniest bit of style to it that makes it stand out. Capcom and Konami make a lot of games that are supposed to look like the real world but have a style that prevents them from looking generic.
Logically the Wii should have both better looking games than the Gamecube and different looking games. Right now it has a little too many games that wouldn't even fly on the Gamecube in the first place. That's unacceptable.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 22, 2008, 05:22:10 PM
What Nintendo is doing right now reminds me of what P. Diddy did to hip-hop back in '95. Before that people knew how to make a good hip-hop record, but nobody knew how to package it or market it to the masses. P. Diddy figured that out, and hip-hop has never been the same since. Now everything is bling-bling, garbage beats, garbage lyrics etc. Once Diddy figured out The Formula, nobody had to try to do anything different any more, because they could sell maximum records with minimum effort.
I see a lot of that here. If Nintendo can sell millions of games to people that are perfectly fine with GameCube-level graphics, then why bother spending money on doing anything better? Unfortunately for us, it's really good business.
Post by: Plugabugz on July 22, 2008, 06:17:58 PM
Sound familiar?
Post by: Ian Sane on July 22, 2008, 06:38:15 PM
Scary stuff. Popular music died for me a long time ago. It's gotten to the point where there are teenagers that never lived in a world where one had to make melodic music. It seems like we eventually hit a point of no return where the younger generation is so ignorant of what came before that things cannot be fixed. Gaming may very well go in that direction.
Hell it happened with music before. Who is familiar with popular music prior to 1955? Rock n Roll pretty much stamped the old music out. I know the odd Sinatra song but that's like it.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 22, 2008, 06:45:43 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 22, 2008, 07:17:01 PM
Face it, you have mud-tinted glasses. There was a prevalent primary-candy-colored art style recycled throughout GameCube Mario, and that's all there is to it, and they all ran at 60fps to boot.
Post by: Morari on July 22, 2008, 08:54:40 PM
Quote
I'm kind of in the "why does it have to be photorealistic?" crowd. I prefer the abstract look of Viewtiful Joe and Patapon over Gears of War and Halo. Video games are an art form, one where a developer's creative energies can go virtually unchecked. I'd like to see more games developed specifically for the medium. Nintendo is in a great position to do that. Not only can the gameplay be fundamentally different, but the look of a game can be experimental, too.
I'm of the same crowd. However, I'd argue that games used to be an art form, when it took one to five people sitting in their parents' garage to make. Nowadays, there is so much bureaucracy involved in popular games that there are nothing more than a product. No one person tends to have enough influence during develop to turn said videogames back into art. The same is generally true for films as well, which is why the small one-man crew flicks tend to have more substance than all of the big-budget CGI in the world.
Post by: Mario on July 22, 2008, 09:41:52 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 22, 2008, 09:48:55 PM
(http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2945/busdriverlm9.jpg)
Oh okay.
Post by: Deguello on July 22, 2008, 09:55:27 PM
Post by: MegaByte on July 22, 2008, 10:17:09 PM
For example I know Johnny criticized the environments in Deadly Creatures, while I found the visuals to be quite good, even on part with most GC visuals.Isn't this exactly what Jonny is railing against?
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 22, 2008, 11:02:31 PM
It seems like we eventually hit a point of no return where the younger generation is so ignorant of what came before that things cannot be fixed. Gaming may very well go in that direction.
I think that's a little - OK, a lot - pessimistic Ian, but video gaming, like music, is a copycat industry. The whole "casual movement" isn't going away any time soon. I think there will be a glut of casual games, then there will be a backlash, then there will no longer be any money in casual games, and then we'll be back to traditional games again. Eventually I'd expect some sort of equilibrium to develop, but who knows.
Post by: Dasmos on July 22, 2008, 11:17:52 PM
I see a lot of that here. If Nintendo can sell millions of games to people that are perfectly fine with GameCube-level graphics, then why bother spending money on doing anything better? Unfortunately for us, it's really good business.
Fortunately the thing that matters, THE GAMEPLAY, is still first-class. So the visuals aren't all they COULD be, they are all that they NEED to be.
Personally when I'm playing a game, for instance Mario Strikers, which was criticised for only a minor upgrade fro its GC counterpart, I'm not looking at bland texture or a blurry character model, I'm enjoying the game. Better graphics would be better from a technical standpoint, but it's not going to affect my experience too greatly. I think the problem with most of you whiners is you don't play games, you review games. You are looking for things to fault instead of enjoying what you have.
Post by: Rize on July 23, 2008, 11:00:36 AM
And even worse, the technology in question is ostensibly owned by Nintendo already and just waiting to be ported into the game.
Personally, I'm hardly expecting any more Wii games that I even want to play, much less good games that also look good. Except maybe one more decent game from each of the metroid, zelda and mario teams, my attention is focused on the consoles that truly cater to "hardcore" gamers.
Post by: Rize on July 23, 2008, 11:11:41 AM
I think Nintendo's finally figured out The Formula. Remember all those years when they said they wanted to find out a way to do away with the expensive, long development cycles most games had? That all of that stuff was crippling the industry and that it wasn't sustainable in the long run? Yeah, they just figured it out.
What Nintendo is doing right now reminds me of what P. Diddy did to hip-hop back in '95. Before that people knew how to make a good hip-hop record, but nobody knew how to package it or market it to the masses. P. Diddy figured that out, and hip-hop has never been the same since. Now everything is bling-bling, garbage beats, garbage lyrics etc. Once Diddy figured out The Formula, nobody had to try to do anything different any more, because they could sell maximum records with minimum effort.
I see a lot of that here. If Nintendo can sell millions of games to people that are perfectly fine with GameCube-level graphics, then why bother spending money on doing anything better? Unfortunately for us, it's really good business.
This makes me want to write a blog post or editorial called "Nintendo Is Destroying the Video Game Industry". At least the one most of us care about. Of course, if it was going to implode anyway due to impossible to maintain costs, then that's not being entirely fair. Perhaps I could at least move on with my exposition entitled "I hate the Wii".
And yet, look at the computer graphics they manage to include in "low budget" movies these days. The movie industry, at least, as greatly streamlined the process of making great looking computer graphics... the game industry could (and is slowly beginning to) do the same sort of thing.
Post by: Dasmos on July 23, 2008, 11:14:16 AM
Personally, I'm hardly expecting any more Wii games that I even want to play, much less good games that also look good.
lol what?
Post by: Rize on July 23, 2008, 11:18:56 AM
Fortunately the thing that matters, THE GAMEPLAY, is still first-class. So the visuals aren't all they COULD be, they are all that they NEED to be.
Personally when I'm playing a game, for instance Mario Strikers, which was criticised for only a minor upgrade fro its GC counterpart, I'm not looking at bland texture or a blurry character model, I'm enjoying the game. Better graphics would be better from a technical standpoint, but it's not going to affect my experience too greatly. I think the problem with most of you whiners is you don't play games, you review games. You are looking for things to fault instead of enjoying what you have.
Personally, when I'm playing a game, I'm going for total immersion. I play games like Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime III, Half-Life 2, Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Bioshock etc. I want a visual extravaganza and good gameplay at the same time.
"enjoying what you have" again, that is exactly the lowering of standards that Jonny is talking about.
I'd rather not waste any time playing a video game if I'm not playing a really good one (good in every way). I have better things to do. There's decades worth of good books and movies to experience, not to mention activities that involve people who don't really care for video games.
Post by: Dasmos on July 23, 2008, 11:28:36 AM
Personally, when I'm playing a game, I'm going for total immersion. I play games like Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime III, Half-Life 2, Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Bioshock etc.You're my hero.
"enjoying what you have" again, that is exactly the lowering of standards that Jonny is talking about.And that's what I'm saying is stupid. If the graphics are so bad that it starts to detract from other aspects of the game then you have a acceptable reason to complain.
Post by: Morari on July 23, 2008, 11:35:57 AM
And yet, look at the computer graphics they manage to include in "low budget" movies these days. The movie industry, at least, as greatly streamlined the process of making great looking computer graphics... the game industry could (and is slowly beginning to) do the same sort of thing.
Nope, CGI ruins films, simple as that. It always comes off as fake looking and instantly destroy what little suspension of disbelief may have existed before. Besides, game companies have been licensing engines for over a decade.
Post by: vudu on July 23, 2008, 01:48:03 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 23, 2008, 02:47:32 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 23, 2008, 04:47:48 PM
I love our staff.
I think some of the staff contracted the Whino virus. :(
Post by: King of Twitch on July 23, 2008, 07:00:12 PM
Post by: Shift Key on July 24, 2008, 06:21:01 AM
I think some of the staff contracted the Whino virus. :(
Post by: TheFleece on July 24, 2008, 07:25:42 AM
Whining gets nothing done so again, as consumers is there any way that voting with your dollar makes any impact? Some titles you just can't stop and all the rest just die on the shelves and become rental zombies. I can raise my standards all I want, but then I end up sounding like a whining Nintendo fan. Is there any way the consumer voice can be heard in the video game industry?
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2008, 11:04:57 AM
I'm playing Zak and Wiki right now. Is it the prettiest most graphic intensive game in the world no. Though what it does do is pick an art style and apply it well. If I popped into Zak and Wiki's universe tomorrow I believe that the Universe and I would look exactly how the game portrays. For e its the little steps to immersion.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 24, 2008, 12:27:42 PM
Control scheme aside, if all I'm getting is GameCube-level graphics, why did I buy a Wii? I'm not "whining", I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Right now, I figure the top seven games on Wii are:
SSB: Brawl
Okami
Resident Evil 4
Zack & Wiki
Mario Galaxy
Zelda: Twilight Princess
Metroid Prime 3
Aside from Zack & Wiki and Okami, I can find suitable replacements (or, in the case of Zelda, literally the same game) on GameCube. Even Okami is a port of a GameCube-generation game, and I believe Metroid Prime 3 started out on the GameCube as well. Brawl and Galaxy are arguably the only two games that truly harness the Wii's power, and I think that's pretty disappointing. Combine this fact with Nintendo's focus on graphics-irrelevant games like Wii Sports Resort, Animal Crossing, and Wii Music, and you begin to realize that pushing the Wii hardware to its limits - essentially, giving us part of what we paid for, which is an improved visual experience on top of everything else the Wii offers - isn't really Nintendo's priority any more (outside of the Mario and Zelda franchises, of course).
And if Nintendo isn't going to push the Wii hardware with anything but their one or two biggest titles, who will?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2008, 12:31:56 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 24, 2008, 01:24:37 PM
BWii does plenty of harnessing.
...and you can also get a similar experience on GameCube. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Post by: Deguello on July 24, 2008, 01:30:49 PM
Quote
And if Nintendo isn't going to push the Wii hardware with anything but their one or two biggest titles, who will?
Well, what about that narrative where 3rd parties piss their pants every time they have to go up against Nintendo's titles? Hell, look at what Nintendo showed at and you could just see them artificially holding back titles in progress, and only showing the graphically simple games. They were literally BEGGING for a third party to steal the show from them. IT's a rare occurrence for the usually profit and attention-happy Nintendo to literally give up their Q3 and Q4 just so third parties can "have a chance" on the biggest userbase in the world. And they still are interested in utilizing graphics, or else they wouldn't have funded and agreed to publish that Fatal Frame game in Japan, which should probably be localized here too.
And why do third parties feel the need to ape Nintendo at every turn anyway? Just because Nintendo "focuses" one E3 on games like Wii music (similar to them "focusing" on Electroplankton and Brain Age in E3 2006) doesn't mean all the third parties, who for years found the courage to defy Nintendo's innovations and projects, should fall in behind Nintendo lockstep and copy their every move.
Also notice Nintendo isn't responsible for the best looking DS game ATM either, despite Nintendo's "focus" on non-graphically-intensive games like Nintendogs and Brain Training. That's just what being the market leader will do for you, and I'm hearing it's starting to work out that way for the Wii as well, especially if NPD reports keep showing Wii breaking sales records for months. The PS1 had to deal just just such a torrent of low-effort **** and Sony certainly wasn't interested in pushing it's graphics either.
Somebody's just going to have to take a risk and try the Wii out for a core game. Just like Square took a risk with FFVII, Konami took a risk with MGS on the PS1, and like Nintendo took two big risks with DS and Wii. And these risks are independent of other companies.
Or they can just stay "safe and watch their profits dwindle, their companies merged and destroyed, as Nintendo continues to rake in all the money from this generation. It's their choice.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2008, 02:20:54 PM
BWii does plenty of harnessing.
...and you can also get a similar experience on GameCube. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
And somehow that's different than the rest of the industry? What are you asking for?
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2008, 02:27:52 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2008, 02:35:25 PM
You know what the sad part of all this is. I always believed that the Gamecube ever only used half of its potential...
Well you need to come back to reality. Metroid, RE, Zelda, Wave Race, Pikmin, and Battalion Wars already show the full potential of the system, in different ways. The other imaginary "half" of its potential went to Wii as a waggle wand.
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2008, 02:38:30 PM
You know what the sad part of all this is. I always believed that the Gamecube ever only used half of its potential...
Well you need to come back to reality. Metroid, RE, Zelda, Wave Race, Pikmin, and Battalion Wars already show the full potential of the system, in different ways. The other imaginary "half" of its potential went to Wii as a waggle wand.
*shrug* You know what else Battalion Wars and Prime 2 broke my machine, also F-Zero.
Also I leave from being regular for a while and you ditch Daisy, become Serious, and I lose the ability to watch any of you linked videos...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2008, 02:51:50 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 24, 2008, 04:22:07 PM
Quote
why did I buy a Wii?
Why buy a 360 or PS3 when you could get similar experiences on PS2 and Xbox? If anything Wii has brought more to the table with a unique control scheme THAT is the reason why you got it a Wii, it wasn't because of visuals but the controller itself which was FRESH and is still progressing.
Post by: D_Average on July 24, 2008, 05:13:54 PM
Quotewhy did I buy a Wii?
Why buy a 360 or PS3 when you could get similar experiences on PS2 and Xbox? If anything Wii has brought more to the table with a unique control scheme THAT is the reason why you got it a Wii, it wasn't because of visuals but the controller itself which was FRESH and is still progressing.
I disagree. There are only TWO games I have to get off the couch to play, Wii Sports, and Wario Ware. The control scheme is still only a glimpse of greater things to come.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 24, 2008, 06:25:33 PM
Quote
Why buy a 360 or PS3 when you could get similar experiences on PS2 and Xbox? If anything Wii has brought more to the table with a unique control scheme THAT is the reason why you got it a Wii, it wasn't because of visuals but the controller itself which was FRESH and is still progressing.
I bought a Wii because I wanted to play Nintendo's new games and they were being made for a new console I didn't own. That's why anyone buys a PS3 or X360 as well. The company more or less shuts down the old console and you make the new purchase or you can't play the new games.
Of course it kind of sucks to have to pay a couple hundred dollars every five years so you expect a fair trade-off. The new hardware has to impress in such a way that the games could not have been made on the old console. In other words we look for justification for the new machine aside from a corporation wanting to sell us an expensive new product.
Personally I think all three consoles SUCK at that justification. The Wii feels like a Gamcube with a weird controller that I'm not sold on. Well I like it when it's used right but to me it's like a lightgun, very awesome for some games and unsuitable for all others. The justification for the Wii's existence is more just to provide Nintendo with a fresh start. Otherwise they probably could have just released the remote as an accessory for the Cube. There is also the online stuff but that's stuff that SHOULD have been on the Cube. It's last gen functionality debuting on the Wii because Nintendo was behind with the times.
I find the other consoles have a noticable jump in graphics but it isn't as big of a jump as before. When the Wii was annouced I argued that superior hardware doesn't just help graphics but also can improve AI and have more characters on the screen and stuff like that. So there is a justification but it doesn't seem THAT necessary. Not as necessary as the PS2 was from the PS1.
The honest truth is that I think we could have decided that the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube hardware could be the standard for the next ten years and it would have been fine. Nintendo in theory could still have released the remote for it and introduced some online plan since the Gamecube is capable of going onlne. The reason for the current consoles is mostly just business related. Nintendo needed to start fresh. Sony needed to push Blu-Ray. Microsoft wanted to get a jump on Sony by switching to the next gen early. But for us gamers the whole thing is almost a rip-off.
But they still should try really hard to convince us that there was more to that to justify moving to this generation.
If they move ahead again in five years it's probably going to really look unnecessary. Graphics can only get so good so the space between new hardware should logically increase as time goes on. Console caught up to arcades years and PC games are being released on the Xbox 360 at the same time.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2008, 06:29:03 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 24, 2008, 06:47:55 PM
Quotewhy did I buy a Wii?
Why buy a 360 or PS3 when you could get similar experiences on PS2 and Xbox? If anything Wii has brought more to the table with a unique control scheme THAT is the reason why you got it a Wii, it wasn't because of visuals but the controller itself which was FRESH and is still progressing.
I disagree. There are only TWO games I have to get off the couch to play, Wii Sports, and Wario Ware. The control scheme is still only a glimpse of greater things to come.
I wasn't quite referring to whether you can play on the couch or not. So far we have PES with a revolutionary control scheme that could be done nowhere else. We also have two FPS shooters that run circles around analog controls (MOH2 and MP3). A future Lightsaber Dual game and a multiplatform Star Wars game that is causing some people to question which version will be the best. EA is harnessing the Wiimote for Madden this year for new innovative things, same with Tiger Woods. Mario Galaxy provided a unique experience that balanced both traditional with Wiimote controls to create a new level of interaction. That is why many of us got a Wii beyond being just Nintendo fans and while it still has room to grow it is showing tremendous signs of turning into something far beyond the other two consoles when it comes to interaction.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 24, 2008, 08:33:26 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 24, 2008, 08:58:20 PM
I wasn't quite referring to whether you can play on the couch or not. So far we have PES with a revolutionary control scheme that could be done nowhere else. We also have two FPS shooters that run circles around analog controls (MOH2 and MP3).
The controls for PES are very good. As for MP3, the controls are good as well but they certainly aren't leaps and bounds beyond analog controls. Each control scheme has its ups and downs, frankly. Analog controls aren't as "quick" as mouse pointer, but it's much easier to do 180's with them (to shoot enemies behind you) than on Wii. I think that the MP3 control setup is fine for a first-person adventure like MP3, but in anything requiring split-second, accurate reactions in the thick of a firefight (like what you need for most first-person shooter multiplayer), I think they'd be a little unwieldy. Looking up and looking down is kinda hard to control, for example. We'll see in The Conduit, since it's a legit FPS.
And as for what I'm asking for, I'm asking for Wii games that don't look like GameCube games. And no matter how much people hate on the 360 and PS3, those games look better because developers take advantage of newer hardware. The Wii has newer hardware and I'm just not seeing that effort.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 24, 2008, 10:20:20 PM
As for MP3, the controls are good as well but they certainly aren't leaps and bounds beyond analog controls. Each control scheme has its ups and downs, frankly. Analog controls aren't as "quick" as mouse pointer, but it's much easier to do 180's with them (to shoot enemies behind you) than on Wii. I think that the MP3 control setup is fine for a first-person adventure like MP3, but in anything requiring split-second, accurate reactions in the thick of a firefight (like what you need for most first-person shooter multiplayer), I think they'd be a little unwieldy. Looking up and looking down is kinda hard to control, for example.
All of these things are quite a bit better in Medal of Honor Heroes 2, especially if you tweak the settings right. Hopefully The Conduit will have the same controls, but this time with a single player campaign that isn't horrible.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 24, 2008, 10:29:30 PM
PES could be done on PC. Just saying!
We are talking about console gaming. If we want to jump to the PC it blows everything else out of the water besides motion controls because you can also plug in control pads as well. Also most FPS on 360 and PS3 are built around the two analog sticks because they are not that good for pinpoint accurate controls, though to be fair it is getting better, but then again it is still the most awkward and horrendous way to play a FPS. With the Wii Remote you can point and shoot, heck the Wii is the first platform that you can have an on rails shooter without an extra peripheral. In regards to PES I would think it would be cumbersome at best to control two players on a mouse/keyboard setup.
It is kind of funny though that after 10 years or so, even with the evolution of FPS controls on consoles that the Wii Remote is already surpassing many aspects of it in 1.5 years. Conduit will be a perfect testing ground as to whether the Wii Remote can be the control method of choice for the FPS genre. All I can say now is that I will not touch a 360 or PS3 multiplatform FPS if it is also on Wii.
Post by: D_Average on July 24, 2008, 11:08:54 PM
Quotewhy did I buy a Wii?
Why buy a 360 or PS3 when you could get similar experiences on PS2 and Xbox? If anything Wii has brought more to the table with a unique control scheme THAT is the reason why you got it a Wii, it wasn't because of visuals but the controller itself which was FRESH and is still progressing.
I disagree. There are only TWO games I have to get off the couch to play, Wii Sports, and Wario Ware. The control scheme is still only a glimpse of greater things to come.
I wasn't quite referring to whether you can play on the couch or not. So far we have PES with a revolutionary control scheme that could be done nowhere else. We also have two FPS shooters that run circles around analog controls (MOH2 and MP3). A future Lightsaber Dual game and a multiplatform Star Wars game that is causing some people to question which version will be the best. EA is harnessing the Wiimote for Madden this year for new innovative things, same with Tiger Woods. Mario Galaxy provided a unique experience that balanced both traditional with Wiimote controls to create a new level of interaction. That is why many of us got a Wii beyond being just Nintendo fans and while it still has room to grow it is showing tremendous signs of turning into something far beyond the other two consoles when it comes to interaction.
To each his own I suppose. In my opinion though, the Wii is only a great success in revolutionizing the gaming market, as far as revolutionizing control schemes there is a lot to be desired. I was one of the many who quit Nintendo gaming after the N64, and was then suckered back in via Wii Sports. I didn't think Wii Sports was amazing, but I took it as a small example of greater things to come. Well....two years later, I'm still waiting. Perhaps Tiger 09 can alleviate some of that disappointment....then again, Nintendo didn't let them in on their secret "motion plus" technology....guess I'll have to wait till 2010.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 24, 2008, 11:26:10 PM
We are talking about console gaming. If we want to jump to the PC it blows everything else out of the water besides motion controls because you can also plug in control pads as well. Also most FPS on 360 and PS3 are built around the two analog sticks because they are not that good for pinpoint accurate controls, though to be fair it is getting better, but then again it is still the most awkward and horrendous way to play a FPS. With the Wii Remote you can point and shoot, heck the Wii is the first platform that you can have an on rails shooter without an extra peripheral. In regards to PES I would think it would be cumbersome at best to control two players on a mouse/keyboard setup.
GP and I are forever destined to butt heads on the topic of first-person shooters.
GP, you constantly rail on how analog control for first-person shooters is terrible. My God, the way you describe it, you'd think it renders an FPS nigh unplayable. In reality, they aren't as accurate as a mouse, but what is? The controls for every console FPS I've played have been great. Even Unreal Tournament III, a PC port to PS3, is awesome with analog controls. Analog control is excellent, and a mouse pointer is even better. It's not "Mouse control is amazing, analog control is totally ass [i.e. awkward and horrendous]" as you claim. It's simply not true on any level.
It is kind of funny though that after 10 years or so, even with the evolution of FPS controls on consoles that the Wii Remote is already surpassing many aspects of it in 1.5 years. Conduit will be a perfect testing ground as to whether the Wii Remote can be the control method of choice for the FPS genre.
If the Wii controls were that great, why are virtually no FPS games being made for the system? Who cares about a new control scheme if there are no games to use it with. Wii controls would be much more relevant on a platform that developers actually, you know, make FPS games for. PC, 360, PS3, whatever - put the Wii controls on those systems, and NOW we're talking.
The Wii's controls are a neat sideshow that's pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the FPS genre, because they're on a system that's ignored by the genre altogether thanks to the Wii's effectively last-gen graphics. No cost-consicous FPS developer (i.e. anybody outside of EA and Activision) is going to risk spending money to create a graphics engine on PC and then dumb it down to Wii visuals. It's not worth their time and money to do so. They can instead port it pretty much directly to 360/PS3 without compromising any of the experience they've aimed for on PC, and it's not like it would sell like gangbusters on the Wii anyways. Sad but true.
As much as we'd both like The Conduit to sell 2 million copies, I'll bet that it has a hard time eclipsing 500,000. If it wants a shot at a million it had better get 9.5's across the board and generate a ton of buzz off of marketing.
All I can say now is that I will not touch a 360 or PS3 multiplatform FPS if it is also on Wii.
Then you'll get what you pay for.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 24, 2008, 11:52:46 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 25, 2008, 04:59:34 AM
Regardless Lindy, you constantly talk about Wii being inferior when PC makes FPS on consoles look like crap, yes CRAP any "serious" game would get the PC version (See what I did there). Though I do sympathize with the fact that you talked yourself into thinking how amazing they are.
Now why aren't FPS shooters made on Wii? Oh gee, it must be the controller right? Do you seriously believe that? The reason is that few companies are willing to take the risk, they'd rather spew there generic FPS garbage on 360/PS3 because they know the crowd either doesn't know any better, or that they are willing to accept a poor man's version of a genre that has surpassed it elsewhere not only in controls but innovation as well. If it wasn't for a game like Mirror's Edge the FPS genre would still be a sea of the same. Halo, Unreal Tournament, Resistance, Frontlines, Medal of Honor, and on and on. People must truly be disparate because even when the plat former craze was around I got sick of the majority after a generation.
Tell me Lindy, how many 3rd party games on Wii have had a solid marketing campaign behind it? Red Steel? I think that about covers it when it comes to the more traditional games. Perhaps 3rd party games would do better, if you know, the company actually did something other than release it to die.
It is kind of funny when I step back, the disdain tree reaches even above you when it comes to PC gaming. You disdain the Wii and in turm those that enjoy the Wii, yet at the same time PC gamers have the same for the games you enjoy. Xbox 360/PS3 will be archaic in a year or two, so you'll be sitting in visually downgraded games, and then what are you going to do? You seem to care so much about visuals. Thankfully I do not have that problem, because I appreciate more than the visuals of the game and do NOT justify my purchases based off them.
Now is this all a bit condescending? I hope so! That was my intention because I feel that you've sadly slipped into that mode from time to time, and you need a taste of some exaggerated medicine. You already were exaggerating my comments like "OMG Conduit is going to be the next coming" or "You can't play FPS on consoles" so I thought I'd do it for you! Heck you even did it yourself by saying how great analog controls were, then again I guess it depends on your standards!
It is too bad your gaming tastes are so limited because you could really find much more enjoyment in your gaming. Bang, bang, look at the pretty graphics is obviously what you seem to be limiting yourself to. Some of us actually enjoy some variety in addition to that stuff. While you’re shooting away at generic hordes of aliens in Resistance 2, I will be experiencing the wonders of Spore, mixed with a little bit of Viva Pinata, and top it off with a stroll through my town in Animal Crossing. Heck I may even be exploring the dark hallways with nothing but a camera at my side, or better yet experiencing life through the perspective of an arachnid. Maybe I'll also blow up some aliens (or nazis) right after playing a great trivia game with my family, or better yet....wait for it...playing in a band with my loved ones. Perhaps to top it off I will be playing a genre that is almost extinct on any system, a 2D Platformer, and finally topped off by a light saber duel that cannot be done on the other consoles.
Yeah that makes me feel all fuzzy inside, too bad you will not be apart of that. You’ll be busy shooting stuff and over and over again with no end in sight on a system that is already being surpassed by the PC. I mean how could you ever enjoy games whose visuals have been downgraded for your system? :(
I still love you Lindy but sometimes I think you go a bit overboard with your newly acquired PS3 love and Wii hatred
Post by: NWR_Karl on July 25, 2008, 08:56:33 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 25, 2008, 09:08:26 AM
Sitting idly by and giving everyone a free pass is just as bad as emphasizing that it makes or breaks the game.
Post by: Dasmos on July 25, 2008, 09:10:23 AM
Aha! I made this very point on RFN almost a year ago. Good to see that Jonny's finally come over to the light side.
Translation: Aha! I was stupid before everyone else!
Also WOW. I actually agreed with everything GP posted. That's probably a first.
Post by: Stogi on July 25, 2008, 05:07:41 PM
ERRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
*Head Explodes*
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 25, 2008, 06:46:00 PM
*Reads Posts*
ERRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
*Head Explodes*
That means I accomplished my goal. ;)
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 25, 2008, 09:03:07 PM
Furthermore, I don't know why you keep dragging the PC into this when I've already acknowledged that mouse controls are superior. I never even disputed that fact. PC's are also typically graphically superior as well (assuming you have the money to kit them properly), no disagreement there.
As for the Wii, I wasn't blaming the lack of first-person shooters on motion control. My point was that, as good as you think the motion controls are, they aren't enough of a draw to get notable companies to develop Wii FPS games. You blame it on marketing, I blame it on the Wii's weaker graphics capabilities. There's no way you'll ever see, say, Crytek port Crysis to Wii, but they would port it to 360 and PS3. I'm not dogging the Wii by saying that, I'm just stating a fact. The graphics capabilities of a platform will always trump the control mechanism of a platform when talking about the first-person shooter genre. Just the nature of the beast.
I'm not hung up on visuals. All I ask is that games on a console have graphics that exploit the power of that console, not a bunch of games that are ports of last-generation graphics engines. Like I said, if the DS was populated mostly with games that look like GBA titles, I'd be just as irritated with that platform.
My gaming tastes are FAR from limited. I have my favorite genres, but Viva Pinata is really cool, as is Rock Band, as is Wario Ware: Smooth Moves, as is Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 for Wii, as is Karaoke Revolution. Regardless of my "reputation" on this board, I like all kinds of games and will pretty much give anything a try. But if I think something is half-assed, I'll call it out. I don't care if Shigeru Miyamoto made it or not.
No hard feelings GP ;D
Post by: Morari on July 25, 2008, 10:18:06 PM
As condescending as you think I am when I talk about first-person shooters vs. casual games, I think you're just as condescending when you classify EVERY first-person shooter as generic, and not worth the time unless it's being played on a PC.
That's not condescending, it's just the plain and simple truth. First person shooters without keyboard and mouse are quite simply dumbeddown console-kidded crap. Now that's casual gaming. It's too bad, as the Wii could at least do something interesting (not better!) with the genre, thus making it tolerable on consoles.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 26, 2008, 12:05:09 AM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on July 26, 2008, 12:07:46 AM
SWEET
OVER NINE-THOUSAND?!?
Post by: Morari on July 26, 2008, 02:00:41 PM
I'll guess I'll just have to keep it real and play Unreal Tournament III on PS3 with a keyboard and mouse.
Except that UT3 in and of itself pales in comparison to its predecessors anyway, probably directly because it was developed with consoles in mind. Choosing to play any game on a console over the PC version is most definitely not "keeping it real" no matter how you look at it.
Besides, once you're at a desk with a keyboard and mouse, why not spend that $500 on PC anyway? It'd do everything the PS3 already does but better, and then some. Oh, and in a few years, instead of buying a whole new and entirely overpriced console, you just upgrade a few parts. Economics!
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 26, 2008, 03:40:25 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on July 26, 2008, 04:12:58 PM
I'll guess I'll just have to keep it real and play Unreal Tournament III on PS3 with a keyboard and mouse.
Except that UT3 in and of itself pales in comparison to its predecessors anyway, probably directly because it was developed with consoles in mind. Choosing to play any game on a console over the PC version is most definitely not "keeping it real" no matter how you look at it.
Besides, once you're at a desk with a keyboard and mouse, why not spend that $500 on PC anyway? It'd do everything the PS3 already does but better, and then some. Oh, and in a few years, instead of buying a whole new and entirely overpriced console, you just upgrade a few parts. Economics!
LOL economics? Since when can you build a gaming machine that'll be bleeding edge for a "couple of years"? Much less a reasonable viewing space and all the accessories. Economics nothin'
Post by: Stogi on July 26, 2008, 06:30:57 PM
The graphics capabilities of a platform will always trump the control mechanism of a platform when talking about the first-person shooter genre. Just the nature of the beast.
I'd like to see this theory play out next gen........
Post by: Deguello on July 26, 2008, 08:16:42 PM
The same can also be said of Half-Life vs. GoldenEye and Deus Ex vs. Halo.
Post by: Arbok on July 26, 2008, 09:00:19 PM
Crysis looks better than anything the Xbox 360 or PS3 can hope to achieve in their respective ten year plans. Yet somehow people bought the inferior Halo 3 more.
Brand loyalty and the functionality of more readily being able to invite people over to play the game with you, in person, are a pretty powerful force in this case. For me, PC gaming loses out over consoles for the simple fact that multiplayer games are so important to me, and I don't mean online and LAN isn't an economically practical option for most.
Post by: Morari on July 26, 2008, 10:36:28 PM
Why is it that I see Microsoft and Sony fanboys as just misguided fools and shrug them off but I see PC fanboys as pure evil and they make me want to grab something and throw it across the room?
My guess is because the truth hurts. :P
LOL economics? Since when can you build a gaming machine that'll be bleeding edge for a "couple of years"? Much less a reasonable viewing space and all the accessories. Economics nothin'
Long term economics. I'd hardly call the 360/PS3 bleeding edge, even upon release. Besides, last time I checked, all of those fancy accessories and HD televisions don't come with consoles either. Any well built and thought-out system can easily last a gamer for a few years, only requiring minor upgrades afterward. After several years, when upgrades are no longer possible (and you're already on your PS4 or PS5), then you can start the cycle over again and have an extra, if not slightly more modest, setup for LAN gaming. People who disregard PCs as an overall superior platform simply do not know enough to be taken seriously in a conversation. Stop buying overpriced junk from Best Buy and order some OEM parts!
Post by: Mario on July 27, 2008, 02:26:52 AM
Quote
The graphics capabilities of a platform will always trump the control mechanism of a platform when talking about the first-person shooter genre. Just the nature of the beast.That's just plain LOL
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 07:08:02 AM
Post by: Morari on July 27, 2008, 11:24:47 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 02:37:30 PM
The PC is only the ultimate gaming machine that you make it out to be if all you're interested in is FPSs, strategy games, sims, and MMOs. There's a lot more to gaming than that, and that's why the PC is just another option alongside consoles and handhelds.
Also, I don't know if this discussion is why, but I've been playing PC games a lot over the past few days. I played Civilization IV for eleven straight hours yesterday.
Post by: Morari on July 27, 2008, 03:07:57 PM
Roleplaying games tend to work a lot better on the PC as well. Point and click adventures are obviously better suited to a mouse. There really isn't any specific genre that the PC can't do at least equally as well. I know quite a few people that have personal preferences for using gamepads when it comes to third person games (such as action/adventure and platformers) as well as racing titles. I've never had an issue with this, though can see where some are coming from in terms of racing games at least. The Wiimote is basically a mouse that operates within a 3D space anyway. Outside of input devices, very little actually separates one console from another. The sheer level of customization alone makes the PC the best overall platform--whether you're changing around the controls, the hardware, or the game data itself.
I haven't played any strategy game since Rome: Total War. Unfortunately, the genre has largely degraded into Blizzard-style RTS, where hogging resources matter more than actual strategy. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy WarCraft, but it's definitely not what I'd want in a real strategy game. It'd be nice to see Civilization Revolution come out onto the Wii, as the IR pointer probably would work well enough. :)
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 03:51:13 PM
Whether or not something could be made to work on a PC isn't the entire issue, someone actually has to make the type of game for the PC. A PC is only good for RPGs if all you want is western-style RPGs. Japanese RPGs could easily be done on PCs, they just aren't done that often.
Also, I think we switched sides on this one, because there's no way I'd buy Civilization on a console. It's just so unbelievably better on PCs.
Post by: Morari on July 27, 2008, 04:09:01 PM
I would generally agree that strategy games are one of those genres that simply need a mouse, but I'm quite curious to see how something designed with the Wii in mind would work. Likewise, I'd love to try the Wiimote/nunchuck in a well thought out FPS. It'll never be as good, but it could be an interesting and enjoyable experience nonetheless. "Different" doesn't have to mean "better", but it tends to mean "unplayable" with conventional gamepads. That makes the Wii remote an exciting prospect, as it could be "different" and stand on its own as something that is simply fun. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to get used to the extent that it should.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 27, 2008, 05:48:05 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 06:04:11 PM
I actually prefer Wii controls for first person shooters, they may not be as precise as mouse and keyboard but they make up for it by being more fun. Pointing the remote at your target and pulling a trigger > moving a mouse and clicking. Medal of Honor Heroes got the controls right, now somebody has to make a game that's fun to use them with.
Post by: Morari on July 27, 2008, 08:22:19 PM
The problem I have with Wii controls for the FPS genre is not only an issue of precision, but also speed. In the time it takes to turn to the side, you'd have already been shot in any normal FPS. I like being able to do a 360, instagib two people with my railgun, and sweep up the Quad Damage all with the flick of my wrist. :P
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 08:33:54 PM
Post by: Morari on July 27, 2008, 09:57:56 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 27, 2008, 10:26:10 PM
Boasting about the superiority of gaming on custom-made PCs is like talking trash about a Mustang GT straight out of the factory because it isn't as good as a Mustang GT that Chip Foose just totally kitted out on Overhaulin'. Duh, of course it's better, it's entirely custom-made. But a lot of work went into it to get it to that stage, and that isn't work that everybody is willing to do or pay for.
With a console, you're pretty much buying a ready-made high-end gaming PC. It won't be the best platform out there forever, but it'll be pretty darn good for a while. And, since the hardware is static, as time goes on developers can maximize what they get out of it. With the PC, developers are always coding towards specs that Nvidia or ATI are releasing a year down the line, so no matter what hardware you have, you're always out of date. The fact that games from three years back don't even run very well on my PC (which isn't wildly out of date) doesn't make me want to hop into the PC arms race.
So yeah, I could spend $500 and build a decent gaming PC, but why bother? Just to be able to control an FPS with a mouse? I could care less, especially when all of my friends are playing FPS's on their 360's and PS3s anyways. I could build a PC and get the pure, uncut, unadulterated, real-deal FPS experience, but I'd be doing it by myself.
Besides, gaming with a keyboard and mouse just isn't comfortable. You can make it more comfortable, sure, but you have to buy - guess what - more equipment.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 27, 2008, 11:02:36 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2008, 04:37:32 AM
Quote
I think you're just as condescending when you classify EVERY first-person shooter as generic, and not worth the time unless it's being played on a PC.
I don't believe I said every FPS was generic, but the vast majority are. Seriously can you name, let's say, three FPS shooters that actually innovated and evolved the genre beyond basic technical/visual upgrades like more people online or prettier graphics/physics? For example I LOVE yes LOVE Crysis yet it is far from being unique beyond some innovative additions to difficulty levels (Which do more than make enemies harder and you more susceptible to damage). I would even call Crysis generic because it doesn't do much for the genre beyond visuals/physics.
I'm looking for something in the gameplay that truly has helped change the genre or provides a base for future evolution, not new game modes (unless they are innovative game modes). If you cannot find 3 games that do this, I think my point still stands about how generic the genre has become. If most genres had as many games in it as the FPS genre 3 games should be easy to spot. So this is my challenge to you!
Also I do stand by my statement that ALL FPS games are inferior to their PC counterparts in control and if you have the choice it would be best to get the PC one. We'll see how Mirror's Edge does it, maybe it will be the exception.
Post by: Mario on July 28, 2008, 04:59:37 AM
Post by: Shift Key on July 28, 2008, 05:20:27 AM
I could care less, especially when all of my friends are playing FPS's on their 360's and PS3s anyways.You need better friends.
I could build a PC and get the pure, uncut, unadulterated, real-deal FPS experience, but I'd be doing it by myself.Heard of this thing called the internet? Yeah, there's people on there who are playing the same game as you. No matter how obscure or rubbish it is, you'll find someone else.
Besides, gaming with a keyboard and mouse just isn't comfortable.Agreed. No couch involved.
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 28, 2008, 10:09:25 AM
Wii controls are much better than PC controls I reckon
And if not better, they are certainly more fun and more visceral.
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 02:01:38 PM
PC gaming is fine, but there's a lot of overhead. You'll have to upgrade your graphics card every couple of years (and you may have to upgrade your power supply to support it), and then at some point you have to upgrade your motherboard (at which point you might as well buy a new machine). On top of that you have to deal with graphics drivers. That's all well and good if you're a hardware person, but it's a big pain in the ass if you're not.
There isn't any more overhead than there is with a console. In fact, if you plan your system correctly, there is a lot less as you often times won't have to build a completely new system but just replace a part here or there. Video cards depend largely upon what games you're playing and how you're playing them. If you time your purchases correctly, a decent mid-range video card should perform very well for at least a few years. Will you get bleeding edge performance out of it? Probably not, but then again you don't see that on consoles either. As far as power supplies and motherboards go, those should not have to be upgraded very often at all unless you have a poorly planned system. Laziness seems to be the enemy here more so than anything, and that assumption only seems truer from your remarks given graphics drivers. New drivers don't come out all that often (perhaps a few times a year at most) and they are hardly a hassle at all--just a few clicks. This is no different than updating your Wii's firmware, keeping your firewall up to date, checking the oil in your car, etc.
Boasting about the superiority of gaming on custom-made PCs is like talking trash about a Mustang GT straight out of the factory because it isn't as good as a Mustang GT that Chip Foose just totally kitted out on Overhaulin'. Duh, of course it's better, it's entirely custom-made. But a lot of work went into it to get it to that stage, and that isn't work that everybody is willing to do or pay for.
A lot of work is not exactly something I would equate to piecing together your own computer. A dozen screws and some plugs is a far cry from supping up your hot rod. Besides, muscles cars have no real purpose, as the roads have speed limits. A well built computer will be great for not only gaming, but also photo manipulation, video editing, graphic design, etc. Hell, depending on what you're running now, it may even show a boost as far as loading your e-mail client goes!
With a console, you're pretty much buying a ready-made high-end gaming PC. It won't be the best platform out there forever, but it'll be pretty darn good for a while. And, since the hardware is static, as time goes on developers can maximize what they get out of it. With the PC, developers are always coding towards specs that Nvidia or ATI are releasing a year down the line, so no matter what hardware you have, you're always out of date. The fact that games from three years back don't even run very well on my PC (which isn't wildly out of date) doesn't make me want to hop into the PC arms race.
You are not buying a high-end gaming PC when purchasing a console. Consoles can do very little outside of play games, and usually quite poorly when they do. Your own computer may not be very old, but age doesn't necessarily mean much when talking about specs. Just because a lot of games are geared toward the future doesn't mean that they aren't scalable. PC games have options about settings for a reason, so you can play at console-level graphics or experience the whole shebang. There is no more an arms race on the PC than there is on consoles, the difference is that you are responsible for planning the upgrades to your system, not Sony or Nintendo.
So yeah, I could spend $500 and build a decent gaming PC, but why bother? Just to be able to control an FPS with a mouse? I could care less, especially when all of my friends are playing FPS's on their 360's and PS3s anyways. I could build a PC and get the pure, uncut, unadulterated, real-deal FPS experience, but I'd be doing it by myself.
You need a better class of friends then. Or at least to learn what it is that makes the internet and LAN parties work so wonderfully. Besides, the PC has far more to offer than just the FPS genre. Oh, and you don't have to pay to redownload and play your old games! Want to pop in Wolfenstein 3D? A compatibility layer is all that's stopping you from installing from the original floppy!
Besides, gaming with a keyboard and mouse just isn't comfortable. You can make it more comfortable, sure, but you have to buy - guess what - more equipment.
You should already own a comfortable desk and chair if you do any sort of work on the computer as is. I prefer wrists pads as well, but that's just my opinion. You're doing the technology a grave disservice by relegating your PC to the corner of the living room and sitting it atop that card table. It's sad that youngsters will buy $300 cell phones, go in debt to afford gas-guzzling vehicles and flimsy diplomas, but won't make use of what is the single most inspiring technology in a long time simply due to perceived price points. Look beyond just gaming--PCs aren't limited to that, they're literal tools of creativity, even if MySpace and YouTube would like you to think different.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 28, 2008, 02:20:57 PM
Morari, it's obvious you love PCs. That's awesome. However, not everybody wants to be bothered with doing the research necessary to figure out what they need to upgrade their machine, just like some people just want to buy a car that works and don't want to do any performance enhancements. And I'm not lazy - I just upgraded my PC's graphics card, power supply, RAM, and CPU, and I'll probably build another PC in the next year or so from the ground up - but that doesn't mean I want to do that as an ongoing bi-annual project.
With consoles you have a very low barrier to entry. Console gaming might not be the "optimal" experience in the eyes of PC gamers, but for those unable or unwilling to invest their time, money, and patience in build a gaming rig, consoles are a Godsend.
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 28, 2008, 02:27:19 PM
EDIT: I agree with Mr. Freeze.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2008, 02:42:12 PM
I need better friends? What an absurd statement to make. You don't know me, or my friends, just like I don't know you guys. Enough with the personal attacks.
I just realized he was talking about me because I'm your friend Lindy! So I feel insulted too :-P
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 03:02:18 PM
I need better friends? What an absurd statement to make. You don't know me, or my friends, just like I don't know you guys. Enough with the personal attacks.
Morari, it's obvious you love PCs. That's awesome. However, not everybody wants to be bothered with doing the research necessary to figure out what they need to upgrade their machine, just like some people just want to buy a car that works and don't want to do any performance enhancements. And I'm not lazy - I just upgraded my PC's graphics card, power supply, RAM, and CPU, and I'll probably build another PC in the next year or so from the ground up - but that doesn't mean I want to do that as an ongoing bi-annual project.
With consoles you have a very low barrier to entry. Console gaming might not be the "optimal" experience in the eyes of PC gamers, but for those unable or unwilling to invest their time, money, and patience in build a gaming rig, consoles are a Godsend.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack... the stuck-out tongue emocon simply didn't find its way into the sentence afterwards. My bad. But really, don't people research what console they're going to buy? What HD television they're going to use with it? What games to pick up? I think wanting something that "just works" is a cop out, and is certainly a funny statement on a forum that so often see complaints about casual gamers dumbing down the industry. Ease of use is fine, but when someone else is making inferior decisions for you it becomes questionable whether or not it's worth the risk. Only the most hardcore of enthusiasts will modify their rig bi-annually. That's not what I'm advocating, as that is a waste of time and money.
Also, could you please tell me what this car is that "just works"? I'd love to buy one, because I'm tired of my current ride. I'm always having to change the oil, top off the brake fluid, check the tire pressure, change the brake pads, etc. I'd really like one of those cars that "just works"! Perhaps that's the parallel you're trying to make though? I'm perfectly capable of doing almost all the required work and maintenance on my vehicle, whereas most would simply pay the premium and have a mechanic do it for them (while ripping them off and giving sub par service) to save themselves time and effort in learning what it takes to survive.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 28, 2008, 03:34:38 PM
It wasn't meant as a personal attack... the stuck-out tongue emocon simply didn't find its way into the sentence afterwards. My bad.
It's all good.
But really, don't people research what console they're going to buy? What HD television they're going to use with it? What games to pick up? I think wanting something that "just works" is a cop out, and is certainly a funny statement on a forum that so often see complaints about casual gamers dumbing down the industry.
But we're talking about video game hardware, not the games themselves. Even with the TV example, sure you research the TV, but you aren't picking and assembling its parts yourself. It's not like you buy a TV, and then swap out the transistors for something that lasts longer. A TV is just like a game console: it's a pre-packaged collection of pre-selected components. You can research the difference between a 360 and a PS3, but you aren't going to build either one from a collection of parts.
When you buy a toaster, do you want one made of the best parts, or one that just works? It's a silly comparison, but to some people a video game console is a similar type of purchase. I plug it in, it plays games. They don't want anything more complicated than that.
Ease of use is fine, but when someone else is making inferior decisions for you it becomes questionable whether or not it's worth the risk. Only the most hardcore of enthusiasts will modify their rig bi-annually. That's not what I'm advocating, as that is a waste of time and money.
They're inferior decisions only if you care about them. Some people just don't care if they have a card with SLI or without SLI, because they don't even care what SLI is.
Also, could you please tell me what this car is that "just works"? I'd love to buy one, because I'm tired of my current ride. I'm always having to change the oil, top off the brake fluid, check the tire pressure, change the brake pads, etc. I'd really like one of those cars that "just works"! Perhaps that's the parallel you're trying to make though? I'm perfectly capable of doing almost all the required work and maintenance on my vehicle, whereas most would simply pay the premium and have a mechanic do it for them (while ripping them off and giving sub par service) to save themselves time and effort in learning what it takes to survive.
But what you're saying about building a PC isn't just "changing the oil". The equivalent to that would be applying Windows OS updates. Upgrading your PC is more like putting in a new transmission or exhaust system. Are you going to do that yourself? You technically could, but you're going need a lot of time, space, expertise, and proper equipment to do so.
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 04:22:56 PM
The thing is--and you know this since you said you build your own computers--is that unscrewing a board here and there to upgrade a component is simple as pie. Guidelines can easily be found for those not wanting to put the effort into figuring out compatibility. People that are unappreciative of the potential of PCs (in general, not just gaming) generally aren't so because of a lack of time or money. Usually it comes down to them simply not caring or not knowing in the first place. That's where the problem is as I see it. People can't make informed decisions on what they want because they don't know what is out there for them.
I like consoles and have owned at least one from every generation since the Atari. They will never replace computers however, and the fact that many try hard to be more PC-like is a very telling fact. I get consoles that offer games that you generally won't find on the PC, and for that I love the Wii. The sad state of affairs is that many developers have abandoned ship and now develop their games with consoles in mind because they are easier and cheaper to do so with (even if they try to scream "piracy"). You don't have to worry about a variety of setups and you're guaranteed an instant base of consumers. This has hurt a lot of classic PC games at the design level, a recent example being The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Aspects of each were simplified, or at least modified, to work best on a console while neglecting what would be better on the PC side. This practically forces people that want to game to purchase a console, even if they do have a perfectly good PC (that they primarily use for equally demanding applications, such as video editing or 3D animation). This kind of rationale is expensive for the PC gamer just as much as breaking into PC gaming would be to the console fan.
Edit: I did research into the last toaster I bought. I like to purchase things that last, but more so I wanted something that would work well. Most toasters on the market today seem to be pretty cheap (both in price and quality). I like to have adjusted racks inside to do bagels and English muffins. ;)
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 28, 2008, 05:11:50 PM
Oblivion was definitely dumbed down for consoles. I haven't jumped into it yet, but as a side project I'm playing through Morrowind on PC and it seems much less handhold-ish.
Adjusted racks - I'll have to look into that. What brand did you buy, out of curiosity?
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 07:02:43 PM
Adjusted racks - I'll have to look into that. What brand did you buy, out of curiosity?
It was a "Krups"... I wouldn't be able to tell you the model number though, as that kind of stuff was printed on the bottom on the crumb tray and was not as "dishwasher safe" as the rest of the exterior. :P
I suppose though that it wouldn't actually be "adjustable racks" but "adjustable bread guards" or something to that extent. Racks makes it sound too much like a toaster oven.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 28, 2008, 07:32:47 PM
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 07:51:53 PM
Oblivion was definitely dumbed down for consoles. I haven't jumped into it yet, but as a side project I'm playing through Morrowind on PC and it seems much less handhold-ish.
Morrowind was my favorite installment to the series, and only got better after install Tribunal and (especially) Bloodmoon. If nothing else, it had a much better atmosphere than Oblivion. Whereas Oblivion is mostly set in a generic fantasy / Gecko-Roman area, Morrowind is full of desolate wastelands and bizarre architecture. That's not to say that Oblivion didn't do some things right (like fixing the damn journal system!), but Morrowind is still better, and is easily the definitive Elder Scrolls experience once you throw a few mods on top of it.
Post by: Svevan on July 28, 2008, 08:31:54 PM
Evan needs to take the last few posts and split them off into their own topic like he used to do, in General Chat, Official Toaster Discussion.
Will everyone whine like before?
Post by: Khushrenada on July 28, 2008, 09:19:02 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on July 28, 2008, 10:23:30 PM
Morrowind was my favorite installment to the series, and only got better after install Tribunal and (especially) Bloodmoon. If nothing else, it had a much better atmosphere than Oblivion. Whereas Oblivion is mostly set in a generic fantasy / Gecko-Roman area, Morrowind is full of desolate wastelands and bizarre architecture. That's not to say that Oblivion didn't do some things right (like fixing the damn journal system!), but Morrowind is still better, and is easily the definitive Elder Scrolls experience once you throw a few mods on top of it.
I think the stuff that people complain about with Morrowind isn't bad at all. Inventory, journals, it's not very streamlined, but I've been playing RPGs for so long that I can put up with damn near anything. I have a high tolerance for stuff (that's how I handled beating Final Fantasy I a couple of times).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2008, 10:34:32 PM
Morrowind was my favorite installment to the series, and only got better after install Tribunal and (especially) Bloodmoon. If nothing else, it had a much better atmosphere than Oblivion. Whereas Oblivion is mostly set in a generic fantasy / Gecko-Roman area, Morrowind is full of desolate wastelands and bizarre architecture. That's not to say that Oblivion didn't do some things right (like fixing the damn journal system!), but Morrowind is still better, and is easily the definitive Elder Scrolls experience once you throw a few mods on top of it.
I think the stuff that people complain about with Morrowind isn't bad at all. Inventory, journals, it's not very streamlined, but I've been playing RPGs for so long that I can put up with damn near anything. I have a high tolerance for stuff (that's how I handled beating Final Fantasy I a couple of times).
Morrowind is an amazing game, I really should play it again! Though I think Oblivion is even more amazing.
Post by: Morari on July 28, 2008, 11:36:48 PM
I think the stuff that people complain about with Morrowind isn't bad at all. Inventory, journals, it's not very streamlined, but I've been playing RPGs for so long that I can put up with damn near anything. I have a high tolerance for stuff (that's how I handled beating Final Fantasy I a couple of times).
I thought that the inventory generally fine, and it's departure was actually one of the worst decisions made in Oblivion. The journal was never very helpful though, especially as I found myself venturing off onto side quests near constantly. My clipboard, notebook paper and ink pen did a far better job at keeping me informed about objective. Heh.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 29, 2008, 12:50:11 AM
The Conduit does look promising! I can't convince myself to pay for a WWII shooter however, so Medal of Honor will remain a mystery. Any idea how Metroid Prime 3 handled?
MP3 handled aiming particularly well within its 3D-Nintendo-Action-Adventure context. Adding free aim to the lock-on-strafe mechanic allowed the camera to stay centered on the target, yet have the freedom to twitch-aim at "distractions" away from the center; a natural evolution of lock-on. Minus lock-on, normal traversal felt downright soothing, tho traditional twitch-aim wasn't useful at this point since the game isn't designed to ambush you from behind (requiring lightning quick turning). But walking and looking around was neatly done.
I hear Medal of Honor Heroes 2 allows the fine tuning which enables proper twitch-aim results.
People also need to get it out of their heads that fixing the targeting reticule to the center of the screen for Wii shooters is a bad idea. What the player inputs must have an appropriate visual feedback. Fixed reticules on PCs work cuz the camera moves with the mouse by moving in a 1:1 fashion. When the mouse stops, the camera stops. The IR Aiming does not do that, since it's based on Remote deflections away from the imaginary center. At minor angles, the crosshair should twitch around inside its bounding-box just as your hand twitches the Remote around; that's immediate, intuitive feedback, and it feels right. Aiming outside the bounding box to make the camera turn is essentially treating the Remote like an analog stick that's pointing at the TV, but at least the crosshair still leans to coincide with the way the player is tilting the Remote.
Fixing the reticule is outright DUMB because you're now dragging the camera to catch-up with the direction you tilt the Remote. With no bounding-box effect, you've eliminated the semi-free twitch-aim functionality inherent in Wii IR pointing. What the Wii Remote is "aiming" at no longer matters, since the reticule/camera exclusively moves based on your deflection from the center. At this point you've turned the Wii Remote into a GIANT analog stick aimed at the TV (minus the traditional IR aiming ability), and you might as well be using a traditional controller now.
BLAH BLAH BLHA BLHAAL;HX
Post by: Shift Key on July 29, 2008, 05:33:27 AM
I need better friends? What an absurd statement to make. You don't know me, or my friends, just like I don't know you guys. Enough with the personal attacks.
Turn on your sarcasm detector. Not all of us are wielding pitchforks...
Post by: Morari on July 29, 2008, 10:59:37 AM
People also need to get it out of their heads that fixing the targeting reticule to the center of the screen for Wii shooters is a bad idea. What the player inputs must have an appropriate visual feedback. Fixed reticules on PCs work cuz the camera moves with the mouse by moving in a 1:1 fashion. When the mouse stops, the camera stops. The IR Aiming does not do that, since it's based on Remote deflections away from the imaginary center. At minor angles, the crosshair should twitch around inside its bounding-box just as your hand twitches the Remote around; that's immediate, intuitive feedback, and it feels right. Aiming outside the bounding box to make the camera turn is essentially treating the Remote like an analog stick that's pointing at the TV, but at least the crosshair still leans to coincide with the way the player is tilting the Remote.
Fixing the reticule is outright DUMB because you're now dragging the camera to catch-up with the direction you tilt the Remote. With no bounding-box effect, you've eliminated the semi-free twitch-aim functionality inherent in Wii IR pointing. What the Wii Remote is "aiming" at no longer matters, since the reticule/camera exclusively moves based on your deflection from the center. At this point you've turned the Wii Remote into a GIANT analog stick aimed at the TV (minus the traditional IR aiming ability), and you might as well be using a traditional controller now.
That was (one of) my problem(s) with Red Steel. I wanted to point the Wii remote and have it look over there, keeping the reticle centered like you would in a traditional FPS. Having to take the time to push your aimer up against the side of the screen just to look around was slow and cumbersome to say the least. I'm willing to believe that an in-between (or a switch on/off function) may very well work best on the Wii, but more so than anything I want options. I don't use the default WASD while playing on the computer, and I don't want to be stuck with default controls on the Wii. Console gaming, in general, needs to be more customizable as far as controls go. Choosing between two or three pre-set schemes just doesn't cut it either!
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 29, 2008, 11:01:53 AM
Console gaming, in general, needs to be more customizable as far as controls go. Choosing between two or three pre-set schemes just doesn't cut it either!
I'll agree with that all day long. No reason for console games to not have customizable controls.
Post by: D_Average on July 29, 2008, 11:20:48 PM
The Conduit does look promising! I can't convince myself to pay for a WWII shooter however, so Medal of Honor will remain a mystery. Any idea how Metroid Prime 3 handled?
I hear Medal of Honor Heroes 2 allows the fine tuning which enables proper twitch-aim results.
Though the game does offer calibration, and is far better than most FPS's on Wii (MP3 excluded), the controls are FAR from reliable. In fact, you will die at least 3 times battling online in say a 20 min session due to sketchy controls.
And that my friends, is why I quickly sold this game for $40 to some guy in a McDonald's parking lot.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 29, 2008, 11:43:38 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 30, 2008, 01:51:33 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2008, 09:52:03 AM
In other words, be careful what you wish for. The last thing we need on the Wii is risk-averse game design.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 31, 2008, 01:24:15 AM
That was (one of) my problem(s) with Red Steel. I wanted to point the Wii remote and have it look over there, keeping the reticle centered like you would in a traditional FPS. Having to take the time to push your aimer up against the side of the screen just to look around was slow and cumbersome to say the least. I'm willing to believe that an in-between (or a switch on/off function) may very well work best on the Wii, but more so than anything I want options. I don't use the default WASD while playing on the computer, and I don't want to be stuck with default controls on the Wii. Console gaming, in general, needs to be more customizable as far as controls go. Choosing between two or three pre-set schemes just doesn't cut it either!
Watch the "VS. Rundas" gameplay clip below, and see how things turned out.
MP3: Corruption videos (http://sixsidedvideo.com/media/wii/mprime3.html)
