Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 12, 2007, 09:07:13 PM
Quote
Nintendo's Wii launched to massive mainstream applause and a lot of hope has been placed in the potential for gaming innovation via the console's unique controller. Nintendo disappointed some, however, by choosing not embrace HDTV or to compete with Sony and Microsoft in processing power. The Wii can't even play normal DVDs.
Judging the consoles based upon a broad perspective that includes software now available and coming in the future an entirely different argument could be formulated. However, from a hardware perspective, the PS3 is by far the more interesting console. Though the launch software hasn't blown anyone away, the 360's launch titles were equally unimpressive, and the system will certainly mature. Sony's embrace of the PS3 as a computer rather than just a console, and the availability of supported Linux distributions for the console will also develop and will likely bear entirely unexpected fruit in future.
Post by: BlkPaladin on January 12, 2007, 09:40:05 PM
On the bright side they did give Nintendo the publisher of the year award, which is funny because I don't think they really did give any Nintendo game an honor.
And its IGN what do you expect. As someone said you cant have ignorant without IGN.
Post by: WalkingTheCow on January 12, 2007, 10:04:40 PM
Quote
. . .which is funny because I don't think they really did give any Nintendo game an honor.
Nah. New Super Marios Bros. won best platformer, Tetris DS won best puzzler and Wii sports won best Sports Game and Best offline multiplayer.
Post by: WalkingTheCow on January 12, 2007, 10:08:15 PM
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 12, 2007, 10:16:51 PM
My guess is there must have been a pretty heated debate on rather Zelda, Gears of War or Oblivion should win and when they couldn't come to an agreement on those, they decided to give to a game that was lesser known that they all generally liked and so Okami is what they all decided upon as a way to honor it.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on January 12, 2007, 10:32:47 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 12, 2007, 10:46:10 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on January 12, 2007, 10:50:26 PM
10. Metroid Prime Hunters (DS)
9. Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (DS)
8. Elite Beat Agents (DS)
7. Mega Man Powered Up (PSP)
6. Tetris (DS)
5. Lemmings (PSP)
4. Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror (PSP)
3. Tekken: Dark Resurection (PSP)
2. New Super Mario Bros. (DS)
1. Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (PSP)
Where's Castlevania, Final Fantasy III, Yoshi's Island, Brain Age, Star Fox, Mega Man ZX, Contact, etc. However Gamespy did put Zelda as the Overall Game of the Year.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on January 12, 2007, 11:31:50 PM
Post by: Artimus on January 13, 2007, 05:14:37 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on January 13, 2007, 06:18:22 AM
While the PS3 isn't my choice (Don't see myself buying one unless my predictions don't come true and FFXIII remains exclusive to it), but it makes sense that they chose it.
Artimus, it isn't about the games, or Xbox360 would have won by a landslide. I think it has more to do with what's under the hood this time around. And while it may be an expensive piece of you-know-what that nobody seems to be buying. Just based on what's in it the PS3 has mountains of potential. Now whether or not that potential will ever be realized is the debate (I personally think that the console will be abondoned by the casual market before its potential will be realized and only those big exclusives already announced for it will keep it afloat with the hardcore). But with all that power, and those extra trinkets, you simply can't deny the potential the system has.
One could argue that the Wii has comparable potential, despite being so underpowered, due to the Wiimote. But so far the huge amount of potential and fantasies of swinging swords in real timesand doing all these fun things has degenerated into simple gesture control (and wonky gesture control, in a lot of cases). What's sad is a lot of Nintendo fans are becoming okay with that. If Nintendo shows us something that really pushes the wiimote's potential into more than swinging rackets, next year it'll have Console of the Year in the bag.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 13, 2007, 06:39:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Devil's advocate time.
While the PS3 isn't my choice (Don't see myself buying one unless my predictions don't come true and FFXIII remains exclusive to it), but it makes sense that they chose it.
Artimus, it isn't about the games, or Xbox360 would have won by a landslide. I think it has more to do with what's under the hood this time around. And while it may be an expensive piece of you-know-what that nobody seems to be buying. Just based on what's in it the PS3 has mountains of potential. Now whether or not that potential will ever be realized is the debate (I personally think that the console will be abondoned by the casual market before its potential will be realized and only those big exclusives already announced for it will keep it afloat with the hardcore). But with all that power, and those extra trinkets, you simply can't deny the potential the system has.
One could argue that the Wii has comparable potential, despite being so underpowered, due to the Wiimote. But so far the huge amount of potential and fantasies of swinging swords in real timesand doing all these fun things has degenerated into simple gesture control (and wonky gesture control, in a lot of cases). What's sad is a lot of Nintendo fans are becoming okay with that. If Nintendo shows us something that really pushes the wiimote's potential into more than swinging rackets, next year it'll have Console of the Year in the bag.
Well Pittboi you may be right, except this was a category that was on 2006 NEW console basing the ranking based off what was the better console this year. If the category was best console, then I agree Xbox 360 should of won, but it was only for consoles released in 2006. This makes the choosing make even less sense, because based off 2006's performance whether it is sales, games, popularity etc etc Wii blew the PS3 out of the water.
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 13, 2007, 07:57:02 AM
Xbox 360
This last year, Xbox 360 finally got its wings to start soaring. A few outstanding games came out. There online presence is strong with Xbox Arcade bringing updated classic games to play. And overall, the system was available to purchase and most if not all of the earlier problems with the 360 were resolved. However, it is old news and almost all the hype for the system is gone. Basically, the magic of Xbox 360 is gone...and I don't know if even Halo 3 can bring it back.
Wii
The Wii is a cultural phenomenon. It's unique control system captured the hearts of media and the world bringing a new interest in gaming. Games became simple and fun again...and most importantly the entire system felt accessible. Nintendo really does have the potential to broaden the market with this thing. For this reason alone Wii should deserve the hardware of the year. It isn't about power as much as philosophy and importance of the system. And, the fact that Wii is the only system with actually new experiences with their games is important too. However, Wii is old technology, and nothing screams high technology...not even the controllers. Revolutionary yes...but high tech, not really. From a hardware point of view I can see why the Wii would be voted down.
Playstation 3
Remember when the Xbox was launched and it was heralded as the most powerful console of the generation and it was a huge deal...but then turned out to not be anything. Well the PS3 is in that situation now...however, this time the new most powerful system for the generation actually may live up to its promises. With Blu-Ray Disc for movies and game storage the PS3 is more ready to take on high definition graphics. It has the space required for HD textures, sound, movies and is powerful enough to display these games. From a hardware standpoint the PS3 is incredible at $600.00 and as one looks at the potential of the system, one could easily declare it hardware of the year. However, potential is nothing without games to play the system and without actual systems to sell to the public. In this regard Sony has failed miserably...and as much potential that PS3 has to be the console of tomorrow; it most definitely is not the console of today or 2006.
My opinion would sway towards the Wii being the true console of the year, because of that cultural shift it may be creating, and the media attention it has garnered. The Wii is a bold step in a DIFFERENT direction for gaming. One that still values simplicity over complexity in all areas of its philosophy. Cost, Design, Functionality, Games, Control. And it is even fighting to broaden the market of gaming not continue to shrink it.
Post by: IceCold on January 13, 2007, 08:18:13 AM
QuoteElf Bowling was already the GoTY on DS for 2005.. imagine how good it could be with the Wii controller!
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
Okami and Zelda TP are both rubbish, they should have given the award to Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties.
QuoteAnd that affects games... how?
The Wii can't even play normal DVDs.
Post by: Blue Plant on January 13, 2007, 08:44:28 AM
Post by: denjet78 on January 13, 2007, 09:23:39 AM
Besides, Nintendo doesn't live or die by awards. Apparently Sony does however. Let them give the PS3 what ever awards they feel they need to in order to justify its existence to themselves. The market will do whatever it wants to do, with or without their permission.
Post by: MaryJane on January 13, 2007, 12:57:33 PM
Obviously the site visitors, they speak for the population.
Note: You should know this already but when companies show statistics, like so many americans prefer this over this, or this amount of black people would vote for him as opposed this many white people, it based on the demographic of the country and it's used as an estimate. Which is why I say the IGN visitor speak for the population, they are made up of the majority of different types of video game players, and while not every videogamer voted, I'm sure they were represented.
Post by: Caliban on January 13, 2007, 01:50:40 PM
Tp and Wii Sports got alot of negative bias from PS2/PS3/PSP/X360/PC editors, only Matt and Peer Schneider gave positive responses to both games.
What annoyed me the most is the "people" that were against TP based their discontentment on the fact that it was just another Zelda, when they were rejubilating on GoW, R6 Vegas, and what not. Hypocrites!
Peer Schneider is still the only sane person in IGN, at least that's what I think.
Post by: SixthAngel on January 13, 2007, 06:24:30 PM
What is "the potential of the ps3" I keep hearing? The potential to have the same games in HD graphics? That is exactly what the 360 showed so far I can't imagine the ps3 having much more potential then that besides its slightly better graphics and bluray movies.
Totally off topic but my biggest complaint about reviews recently is how they just don't care how long a game is. My friend beat gears of war in under six hours the first time. I understand it has multiplayer but how can a six hour long game be given so much praise and not be ripped into for being so short?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 13, 2007, 07:31:42 PM
As for Zelda, I think NWR's review put it perfectly. The game is essentially the same as the earlier 3D games, but at the same time it feels like playing a brand new Zelda (thanks to the wolf transformation and such). It offers something new while providing the traditional gameplay we know and love.
Post by: Magik on January 13, 2007, 11:18:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlkPaladin
Well I can see them giving Okami (the proper spelling is with two o's) the honors since it is truly a work of art. Too bad Capcom butchered the developer that made it.
On the bright side they did give Nintendo the publisher of the year award, which is funny because I don't think they really did give any Nintendo game an honor.
And its IGN what do you expect. As someone said you cant have ignorant without IGN.
Capcom butched Clover? I don't think so.
Capcom kept funding Clover even though their games were selling like crap. It just got to the point where they were losing too much money.
Ookami is a perfectly fine choice for Game of the Year and has nothing to do with being a sympathy vote.
I don't agree with the PlayStation 3 getting the Console of the Year since the console has only been out for 2-3 months.
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 14, 2007, 02:42:19 AM
1) Link's Wolf mechanics and the swapping between the two versions of Link has not been done before and brand new to the series.
2) On Rail mini-games have not been done before in Zelda (Snowboarding...and Fruit Collecting Game.)
3) Riding the Horse during combat situations really hasn't been done before.
4) The level of cinematic quality, and Action oriented plot devices outside of dungeons hasn't really been done before.
5) 3 Brand new Items introduced...possibly more if you stretch it.
To label this Zelda as simply another Zelda game without innovation is ignorance...but you know it will happen again when Mario Galaxy is released, but with Nintendo Quality isn't appreciated its expected and then ignored.
Post by: Nick DiMola on January 14, 2007, 03:08:27 AM
I think at this point I am more than capable of making my own decisions on games and what is good or bad. I know what I like and I know what I don't like, and I know that I don't need any of these asshats trying to tell me what I should/should not like. Whoever said Matt C. is the least douche at IGN and we shouldn't rip on him as much, I agree. I have always harbored a resentment towards him and some of his opinions, but it seems like he has separated himself from the crowd and paved his own way over there at IGN. Must be hard swimming in a sea of Nintendo haters.
Post by: denjet78 on January 14, 2007, 04:38:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I stopped listening to the opinions of reviewers the day Zelda got reviewed. It shows the unbelievable ignorance in game journalism and the biases with no grounding.
The funny thing is, this is the Zelda they all wanted. When WW was revealed everyone had a heart attack over the fact that it wasn't the uber realistic demo that Nintendo had previously shown. So angry were they that most proclaimed they would never play it. Eventually most relented and admitted that the game is fantastic. Flash forward a few years and Nintendo gives them the Zelda they said they wanted and all they can do is complain about how it's "just another Zelda", which only furthers the idea that gamers simply have no idea what they really want. They don't get what they want, they complain. They get what they want, they complain even louder. You just can't win no matter what you do.
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 14, 2007, 05:03:22 AM
Post by: Nephilim on January 14, 2007, 08:53:28 AM
Post by: MarioAllStar on January 14, 2007, 09:00:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games
Bill talked about potential in general, not just potential for good looking games. With Super Smash Bros. Melee and (I think) Pikmin coming out at launch, the GameCube did have good games availible from day one.
Post by: Bloodworth on January 14, 2007, 09:21:13 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 14, 2007, 10:02:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
LOL, what? Okami got it because Twilight Princess is "just another Zelda"? Okami is a freaking Zelda clone. Not that it isn't a great game, but c'mon.
Not to mention that Okami has you playing AS A WOLF BEAST!
I think the reason people went gaga over it was because of the graphical style and character design. Had it been done in a typical design, people would've dismissed it as a Zelda clone.
And this is further proof that you truly can't please people. When WW was released, they wanted a realistic Zelda and better gameplay. They made TP, and now people are bitching that its too much of the same...
Post by: MaryJane on January 14, 2007, 12:25:20 PM
Twilight Princess is JUST another Zelda game!
Don't you remember turning into a wolf in the original Zelda? Or walking on ceilings Majora's Mask? One of my fondest memories is sword fighting on horseback in Link's Awakening. Water bombs and combining the arrows with bombs were both done in Ocarina of Time. And you'll remember the ball and chain from Wind Waker no doubt!
All Nintendo did was rehash ideas from older Zelda's, put them in a pot together and say HEY! HEY! HEY!(navi
) it's a new Zelda.PFFFFT! Give me a break Nintendo, the next Wii Zelda better at least feature motion controls! Maybe that would set it apart from the rest.
Post by: KnowsNothing on January 14, 2007, 12:32:43 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on January 14, 2007, 01:42:38 PM
Its funny how people keep saying its amazing that we got TWO Zelda this generation when we ALWAYS get two Zelda for every console except SNES.
I also think some people are putitng too muchn into IGNS reviews, which is a site I never visit anywyas so could careless.
Also regardless of sucess and whatnot the PS3 is still the most impressive systems wether you like it or not. Maybe it doenst impress you but I think thats alie fi you say it doesnt. YES as gamers we all care abot games and all that bS but that doesnt mean the systesm isnt impressive. Hell I HATE playstation but am still imnpressed by allit can do,. If your not then your lieing and thats the truth.
I hate PS as much as most people here, but its ignroant and stupid to sya its NOT impressive hardware. As a gamer i can mroe about games and so far it doenst have ANY that impress me besides graphics, so I agree with the not liking it based on games, but seriously you can not say its not impressive or powerfull or has no potential, and as mucha s we dont like to think about it, there is the real chance that it will get some great looking game everyone loves that will boost its sales.
thats my rant im done take care and have fun.
Post by: SixthAngel on January 14, 2007, 03:09:17 PM
I don't hate Playstation, I just don't like the price that goes along with the ps3. I am not impressed with any of the potential I have seen for the ps3 (or 360) as far as gaming goes. It gives hd and better graphics. What will the better graphics and hd let me do that current systems can't? I can't think of anything. The Wii hardware has the sensorbar and the motion sensing where I see the real potential to be.
On a side note I think a misspelling every once in a while is okay but why don't you type your posts in word or something with a spell check then copy and paste it.
Post by: denjet78 on January 14, 2007, 03:15:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Also regardless of sucess and whatnot the PS3 is still the most impressive systems wether you like it or not. Maybe it doenst impress you but I think thats alie fi you say it doesnt. YES as gamers we all care abot games and all that bS but that doesnt mean the systesm isnt impressive. Hell I HATE playstation but am still imnpressed by allit can do,. If your not then your lieing and thats the truth.
I hate PS as much as most people here, but its ignroant and stupid to sya its NOT impressive hardware. As a gamer i can mroe about games and so far it doenst have ANY that impress me besides graphics, so I agree with the not liking it based on games, but seriously you can not say its not impressive or powerfull or has no potential, and as mucha s we dont like to think about it, there is the real chance that it will get some great looking game everyone loves that will boost its sales.
thats my rant im done take care and have fun.
Am I supposed to read that or spell check it?
Anyway, XBox was the most impressive system last generation. It was so vastly superior to everything else out there that it's no wonder it completely conquered the entire industry within a year and left Sony and Nintendo in it's wake.
Oh.
That's right.
It didn't.
The whole point is these are games systems first and should be reviewed by a games site as such. Not as mega all-in-one hardware, which is apparently how IGN is looking at it. Right now, Wii has the most potential for games. Now do you see what I said there? I said potential in regards to games. Sure the PS3 is impressive but how is it impressive for games? What does it bring to the table besides making them look a little prettier than they did last year? The hardware, on it's own, has almost zero potential in regards to games. It definitely doesn't have any more than the 360. It's up to the developers to do something with the hardware, which just happens to be almost the exact same as it was last generation, and the generation before that. Same with the 360. What does it do besides make games look better than before?
If you still think the PS3 has more "potential" than the Wii and deserves to be recognized for it by a "games" site then you, and they as well, severely need to rethink your priorities. These are games systems after all, aren't they? And that's what makes this whole thing just that much more idiotic.
Post by: Jin-X on January 14, 2007, 04:24:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games
Rogue Squadron says high.
Post by: Artimus on January 14, 2007, 05:42:48 PM
Post by: Sessha on January 14, 2007, 06:44:06 PM
RE and Twilight Princess showed that the gamecube could pump out some nice looking games. If the Wii can produce things 2 to 3x better then that I am actually excited. Graphics were never a selling point for me. Earthbound was a pretty bad looking game when it was released. But it was so damn cool.
PS3 could have been a very nice choice this generation if they took out the Blueray player. I think they really shot themselves in the foot with this. It increases overall cost and what it brings to the table allienates a lot of potential PS3 buyers.
And about potential I forgot because I haven't looked at an upcoming release for PS3 in a long time. But the main 2 are MGS and FF. Good games in their own right (I never got into MGS I was raised in an island in the east guess which one) But for people to spend $600 for it now is a little ridiculous. It seems that Sony seems to have taken a stand that best graphics > everything. You would think they would have looked at the PS2 and seen why that was a success.
I can't see how with all of the bad press Sony recieved over PS3 that it recieved "____" of the year unless it was Tool of the year. ok this kind of turned into a rant without my knowledge and falling in line with my other rants none of the facts are backed up and the spelling is atrocious. Sorry for reading but you read it you can't unread it
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 14, 2007, 08:40:38 PM
Post by: Kairon on January 14, 2007, 10:50:53 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on January 15, 2007, 05:29:43 AM
1. The people who really praise it usually come across as having a chip on their shoulder about Zelda. So often Okami praise comes alongside Zelda bashing and usually it's really weak Zelda bashing, based on the weak storyline and such. I generally don't get along with "story first" gamers. They usually come across as pretentious jerks who will go crazy over some import-only dungeon crawler with really tedious gameplay and them skip over a true classic because the storyline is very basic but the gameplay is amazing. Or there's a general bias against games people have actually heard of. So when those gamers are all "Okami is the best ever" my instinct is to rolls my eyes.
2. It's a Zelda-clone. I never like Zelda-clones. They never seem to quite get it right. They always try to "improve" things by making things more complex. They don't realize that Zelda isn't just a real time RPG. The design is really tight. The reason there's no stats or tons of different equipment is because Zelda doesn't waste time. It tries to make everything essential, so you can just play the game and enjoy it without thinking about what items to equip or whatever. Nintendo games in general tend to avoid making things too complicated. Few companies do this right so few do a Zelda-clone right.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 15, 2007, 10:23:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Actually... I'm sorta surprised that they didn't pick Gears of War. If I was a hardcore gaming site, I would've.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Gears of War doesn't belong anywhere near Game of the Year in my opinion. I'd be willing to accept Oblivion, but nto Gears of War which I felt was severely overrated with a relatively shallow single player mode, with multiplayer being its main draw (which is not what game of the year should be).
Post by: Adrock on January 15, 2007, 04:36:20 PM
Post by: IceCold on January 15, 2007, 04:44:33 PM
Post by: Mario on January 15, 2007, 07:11:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-XQuote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games
Rogue Squadron says high.
Super Monkey Nads also crushes your balls.
Post by: JonLeung on January 16, 2007, 01:57:27 AM
I say the Wii should've gotten Console of the Year for 2006 for a number of reasons - including a solid launch. But since the PS3 didn't launch as well as anybody expected, I say save any praise for the PS3 for a year when they actually do act on their promises.
Any current console has the potential to be Console of the Year for 2007 (or 2008, or 2009, or 2010), but 2006 belongs to the Wii. Or at least it's more deserving than the PS3, sheesh.
Maybe they wanted to be "fair" and give everyone the honour of Console of the Year for at least one year each generation, and they doubt the PS3 will last another year. :P
Post by: segagamer12 on January 16, 2007, 09:49:52 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on January 16, 2007, 07:54:43 PM
QuoteOkami gets it right. If you own a PS2, do yourself a favor and pick it up.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
2. It's a Zelda-clone. I never like Zelda-clones. They never seem to quite get it right. They always try to "improve" things by making things more complex. They don't realize that Zelda isn't just a real time RPG. The design is really tight. The reason there's no stats or tons of different equipment is because Zelda doesn't waste time. It tries to make everything essential, so you can just play the game and enjoy it without thinking about what items to equip or whatever. Nintendo games in general tend to avoid making things too complicated. Few companies do this right so few do a Zelda-clone right.
With that being said, I too have little comprehension as to why some people condemn TP for being just another Zelda but then turn around and praise Okami like it's the second coming. I don't like dissing Okami because it really is a fantastic game, but Twilight Princess does so many things better. Combat, gameplay variety, dungeon design, etc., it's just too much to give the nod to Okami unless you're purely looking at it from a visual style standpoint. However, Okami as GotY runner up seems pretty alright to me.
