New Wii footage

[mckmas8808]

You're talking to one such person.

I've owned consoles since the Colecovision and Atari 2600. Graphics are very important, but if the games of the new generation was the same as they were in the current one, but just with better graphics, that's just not appealing.

The big selling point for me with the Wii is the virtual console, the new ways in which games can be interacted with given the new controller, and the low price. If the Wii were like the Xbox 360 and PS3, i.e. graphics glitzed up, but the same controls and gaming paradigms, it'd be rather uninteresting for me.

Maybe I'm not the typical hardcore gamer anymore, but the Xbox 360 and PS3 don't hold any games that interest me enough to buy the system. But that's because they seem to be Xbox/PS2 games with prettier graphics.

If I do pick one up, it'd be after they drop below $200. I personally don't see the value at $400+.

Aren't you the one that says we need to wait and play the games before we make opinions of them?

I can assure you that the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have games this holiday season that just couldn't be done on the current gen systems. You won't be dissappointed. The 360 and PS3 will blow whatever games the Xbox and PS2 are doing now out of the water.

Mass Effect, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, Assassin Creed, etc. Again trust me you won't be dissappointed.

 

[Natoma]

Aren't you the one that says we need to wait and play the games before we make opinions of them?

I can assure you that the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have games this holiday season that just couldn't be done on the current gen systems. You won't be dissappointed. The 360 and PS3 will blow whatever games the Xbox and PS2 are doing now out of the water.

Mass Effect, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, Assassin Creed, etc. Again trust me you won't be dissappointed.

I didn't make any negative opinions of the games without playing them. I never said the games suck or anything like that. I said that I wouldn't spend $400 on games that were using the same control schemes as the last generation, but with prettier graphics.

Prettier graphics just doesn't motivate me all that much. If they did, I'd stick to high res computer gaming.

The primary motivators with respect to the Wii for me are the Virtual Console (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that), the new controller (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that), and the low price (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that).

Would I invest is a 360 or PS3 if they dropped to around $200? Yea, I could see that.

 

[expletive]

You're talking to one such person.

I've owned consoles since the Colecovision and Atari 2600. Graphics are very important, but if the games of the new generation was the same as they were in the current one, but just with better graphics, that's just not appealing.

The big selling point for me with the Wii is the virtual console, the new ways in which games can be interacted with given the new controller, and the low price. If the Wii were like the Xbox 360 and PS3, i.e. graphics glitzed up, but the same controls and gaming paradigms, it'd be rather uninteresting for me.

Maybe I'm not the typical hardcore gamer anymore, but the Xbox 360 and PS3 don't hold it any games that interest me enough to buy the system. But that's because they seem to be Xbox/PS2 games with prettier graphics.

If I do pick one up, it'd be after they drop below $200. I personally don't see the value at $400+.

Well i think if the new consoles offer nothing more than glitzy graphics then you may be onto something but i guess ive been sold on the fact that with big budgets there may actually be better stories, more immersive environments, better physics, online innovations, to go along with the spectacle of the graphics.

I just dont see the Wii bringing games like Gears of War, Mass Effect, Halo, MGS, FF, etc to me as a gamer and i'm not ready to forego what i'm certain will be thrilling experiences for things like Wii tennis, red steel, or Elebits. Metroid may something i would like but it appears those games are going to be in the vast minority.

But Nintendo is not targeting me as their primary audience and i get that. They want me to buy the Wii as my 2nd console and then have my female cousin or parents buy a Wii as their primary. So in a sense theyre right on track.

I understand its different strokes though...

EDIT:didnt mean for it come across that i wouldnt enjoy some of those wii games, just that i wouldnt put them above the others i mentioned...

 

[Natoma]

That's perfectly understandable. But all the things you listed can be had on the PC.

Like I said, if the Wii were taking the same path as the xbox 360 and PS3, I'd most likely be sitting this generation out.

But then, as I've said before, that's just me. The thing with the prior generations is that they brought something immensely different than the last.

NES brought a level of graphics (parallax scrolling was a huge innovation) and control far superior to the prior generation. Battery backups introduced with games like the original Zelda opened up doors that were not there previously with respect to story telling and enormity of games that were created.

SNES/Genesis brought the same thing.

N64/PS1 brought the same thing.

PS2/Xbox/Gamecube brought the same types of games as we were saturated with during the prior generation, but with prettier graphics and a shift of more franchises to 3D from 2D. I was a little bored with that generation, but not so much that I didn't purchase a PS2 and Gamecube.

The 2D to 3D shift brought enough new gameplay elements to justify, imo, the plunge.

Coming into the PS3/Xbox 360/Wii generation, if they had been more of the same, it would've been 'meh' for me. But the Wii promises something different, which is why I'm very interested in getting it.

I expect something compelling for my gaming dollars, and prettier graphics just doesn't cut it for me. That's why I rarely invest in the latest iteration of Madden or UT games, games that have a new version every year but barely improve on anything.

It gets stale after a while, particularly since I've been gaming for almost 25 years now. I'm 29 fyi.

 

[expletive]

It gets stale after a while, particularly since I've been gaming for almost 25 years now. I'm 29 fyi.

I see your side of it but i still get excited when i see games like GoW, i guess you cant take the graphics-whore out of the boy... (i'm 34 so i've been through it with you )

 

[Natoma]

I see your side of it but i still get excited when i see games like GoW, i guess you cant take the graphics-whore out of the boy... (i'm 34 so i've been through it with you )

Oh don't get me wrong. The graphics are amazing in games like that, and it does get my blood pumping. But pumping enough to shell out $400+ for something that I'd get sensitized to (greater graphics) after a few gaming sessions?

Gameplay sustains the game for me, not the graphics.

I'd rather play them on someone else's system than buy it myself. When it gets substantially cheaper, then I'll consider it. Hell, it may come out on PC, which I'm upgrading in a little while after having this one for 3 years, so I can get it then. My 9800 Pro is getting long in the tooth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The primary motivators with respect to the Wii for me are the Virtual Console (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that), the new controller (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that), and the low price (neither Xbox 360 or PS3 have that).

I'm a little confused at this.

1) What does the Virtual Console bring you? Old games. Games you've played before. Yet you're saying you're bored of the old game styles and want something new?

2) Is it the 'small game' idea you like? The simplicity of yore? Doesn't Live! Arcade and what's suggested of PS3's online services provide that too?

3) Hasn't PS3 got a new controller that can bring new or improved gameplay to games? In your list of things consoles through the generations have brought to improve gaming, adding motion has to be as large an improvement as the more buttons and sticks from the past. Moreso even IMO as the motion is probably easier to pick up than a second thumbstick. Some of the gameplay elements from Wii are certainly easily transcribable to DS3.

4) Aren't we also getting camera based Guesture Recognition on XB360 and PS3, including augmented reality? Isn't that something to get excited about?

For me, it seems the only reasons to look as Wii as different to PS3 and XB360 are price, and announced software. A lot of the other consoles abilites exist more as potential and we have yet to see how they get adopted in the software. If guesture recognition on XB360's camera can be used effectively in Wii-like games, but no games are written for it, it's not worth getting XB360 for it's guesture recognition abilities. On the second case, the Wii is cheap, and the others can't compete in that department! But then you trade cheap for better looking graphics and more stuff happening, with potential for new and advanced games. eg. Something like a fluid-dynamics based puzzler using EyeToy to control liquids would be beyond Wii because of the cheaper components not having the abilities to enable that.

There is another point to Wii over the others which is a pick-up-and-play ergonimic. The very design of the controller is such that it encourages different games. You can't effectively use the DS3 for a tennis racket even if hardware-wise it's capable, 'coz it looks stupid! But I do feel you're selling the other platforms short. It's more a case of software than hardware. They're capable of doing new and exciting things and bringing a fresh air to the pasttime. It depends on whether developers create the software or not. The Wii has the benefit in that devs are looking to create new software for it, whereas they're happy (or required by the publishers) to recycle the same-odl same-old for the conventional platforms.

 

[Blade]

Powderkeg: Please. You're stereo-typing me to make the route to your point ("mainstream gamers care about graphics more than hardcore gamers") easier, and it's really sort of flawed for several reasons. Reasons that I feel are obvious, but if you would like for me to explain, I will. PM me, perhaps.

I understand your point but I don't agree with it, overall. To each his own.

 

[Natoma]

I'm a little confused at this.

1) What does the Virtual Console bring you? Old games. Games you've played before. Yet you're saying you're bored of the old game styles and want something new?

There were many classic games that I didn't have a chance to play because they were on systems I didn't have, or I just never got around to them. And considering the games are being priced anywhere from Free - $10, I consider that economical.

Certainly more economical than the $50-$80 I'd have to shell out for a new next-gen game.

2) Is it the 'small game' idea you like? The simplicity of yore? Doesn't Live! Arcade and what's suggested of PS3's online services provide that too?

Not at all. Some of my favorite games of all time include Zelda: Wind Waker and World of Warcraft, games that wouldn't be considered small or simple by any stretch of the imagination.

3) Hasn't PS3 got a new controller that can bring new or improved gameplay to games? In your list of things consoles through the generations have brought to improve gaming, adding motion has to be as large an improvement as the more buttons and sticks from the past. Moreso even IMO as the motion is probably easier to pick up than a second thumbstick. Some of the gameplay elements from Wii are certainly easily transcribable to DS3.

The PS3's late addition of the motion sensing controller defintely raised an eyebrow for me. However, the system wasn't designed from the ground up with that, so it will take time for games to take advantage of it. Not only that, but the PS3's motion sensing isn't as fully fleshed out as the Wii's is. So I doubt that games will translate all that well.

As for adding buttons to the controllers. If you notice, controllers changed with the introduction of the 2 button controller of the NES, the 6 button controller of the SNES, and the analog stick & rumble of the N64. Each opened up new ways to interact with games, but controllers haven't changed outside of that when left to Sony, Microsoft, and Sega.

Hopefully MS will get on the bandwagon as well and introduce their own motion sensing controller.

4) Aren't we also getting camera based Guesture Recognition on XB360 and PS3, including augmented reality? Isn't that something to get excited about?

You mean the eyetoy? There are always gimmicks that are tacked onto a system during its lifetime.

The numerous lightguns Nintendo introduced. The dance pads. Powerglove. Eyetoy. "Thought" Helmet, and so forth and so on.

For me, it seems the only reasons to look as Wii as different to PS3 and XB360 are price, and announced software. A lot of the other consoles abilites exist more as potential and we have yet to see how they get adopted in the software. If guesture recognition on XB360's camera can be used effectively in Wii-like games, but no games are written for it, it's not worth getting XB360 for it's guesture recognition abilities. On the second case, the Wii is cheap, and the others can't compete in that department! But then you trade cheap for better looking graphics and more stuff happening, with potential for new and advanced games. eg. Something like a fluid-dynamics based puzzler using EyeToy to control liquids would be beyond Wii because of the cheaper components not having the abilities to enable that.

The problem is that those control systems aren't default, thus they'll never gain widespread usage. The Wii's controller is.

There is another point to Wii over the others which is a pick-up-and-play ergonimic. The very design of the controller is such that it encourages different games. You can't effectively use the DS3 for a tennis racket even if hardware-wise it's capable, 'coz it looks stupid! But I do feel you're selling the other platforms short. It's more a case of software than hardware. They're capable of doing new and exciting things and bringing a fresh air to the pasttime. It depends on whether developers create the software or not. The Wii has the benefit in that devs are looking to create new software for it, whereas they're happy (or required by the publishers) to recycle the same-odl same-old for the conventional platforms.

And that is precisely why the PS3 and Xbox 360 currently do not interest me.

Something Yamauchi said a few years ago rings true in what you've stated. Developers have gotten lazy in part because the console makers have given them the opportunity to get lazy. Why come up with something different if the same control systems are in place and it's prettier graphics?

Take the same control system, repackage it with glitzier graphics and a couple of other new things, and voila, you've got a million sales. See Madden, UT, etc.

I think it's the fault of the developers in large part here for being lazy. I also think that's one reason why I've become steadily jaded with gaming. It's usually the same old same old.

That's why the Wii interests me so much. Developers can't be lazy with the Wii. They have to come up with new things, and it seems that many are only too happy to try.

I wish the Xbox 360 and PS3 well. We need the Sony's and Microsofts of the world fully engaged in the console market in order to do well. But we also need the Nintendo's to push the envelope and keep the developers from getting stale.

For some, the Sony's and Microsofts offer just what they want. Bigger explosions and more graphics and all this and all that. For other's the direction Nintendo is offering suites them just fine.

I just happen to be the latter.

 

[Natoma]

Now that I think about it, the current realities of the businesses is what dictates their strategies. For Sony and Microsoft, gaming is another way for them to create a revenue stream. For Nintendo, it's the only way for them to create a revenue stream.

So where Sony and Microsoft have the luxury of playing it relatively safe and rehashing, with more bells and whistles, Nintendo has to innovate every time out or go out of business. They don't have the resources to play the rehash game, so economics dictate that they innovate.

Sony and MS, seeing an idea work, copy it and market it to the masses. Is that a bad strategy? No. It just depends on where you are on the spectrum. In fact, it's because of the Sony's and the Microsoft's that the console market is where it is today in terms of its widespread market appeal.

I suppose one could liken it to the Mac vs PC.

 

[mckmas8808]

Natoma your logic is WAAAAY off. Shifty basically answered everything that I questioned about what you were saying.

The PS3 and 360 is and will bring something that the PS2 and Xbox didn't. Why is Wii Sports so so much better than Bioshock? Oh because I can swing a remote.

 

[Natoma]

I'm not quite sure I am following the logic here, when was the last time the PC controls changed...the introduction of the mouse. Which then begs the question what are you getting from PC games other than improved graphics, that you haven't gotten in previous years. Its ok to prefer PCs to consoles, but it is unfair to demand that they implement a new control scheme every 5 years, something that you don't demand from PC games.
​

That was the point I was making exactly NucNavST3. I was saying that what was desired from the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is answered by the PC market.

You got the point I was making, but thought I was advocating that point for myself rather than merely illustrating it. See the difference?

 

[Natoma]

Natoma your logic is WAAAAY off. Shifty basically answered everything that I questioned about what you were saying.

And I answered Shifty's questions. Care to plunge in here?

The PS3 and 360 is and will bring something that the PS2 and Xbox didn't.

Which is..... Better graphics on the same game paradigms. Summarized, that's not what I want out of gaming. I want something different in order to shell out for more. See my earlier posts for more detail.

Why is Wii Sports so so much better than Bioshock? Oh because I can swing a remote.

Why would you compare sports to a game that isn't sports related?

 

[mckmas8808]

Which is..... Better graphics on the same game paradigms. Summarized, that's not what I want out of gaming. I want something different in order to shell out for more. See my earlier posts for more detail.



Why would you compare sports to a game that isn't sports related?

The PS3 controller has motion tech too, so what happens if a game like Mercury (PS3 verision) comes out for it? Would game like this change your mind?

And how can you get MGS4 and FFXIII on a PC?

 

[Natoma]

The PS3 controller has motion tech too, so what happens if a game like Mercury (PS3 verision) comes out for it? Would game like this change your mind?

This was my answer with respect to the PS3's motion tech, to shifty geezer

The PS3's late addition of the motion sensing controller defintely raised an eyebrow for me. However, the system wasn't designed from the ground up with that, so it will take time for games to take advantage of it. Not only that, but the PS3's motion sensing isn't as fully fleshed out as the Wii's is. So I doubt that games will translate all that well.

As for adding buttons to the controllers. If you notice, controllers changed with the introduction of the 2 button controller of the NES, the 6 button controller of the SNES, and the analog stick & rumble of the N64. Each opened up new ways to interact with games, but controllers haven't changed outside of that when left to Sony, Microsoft, and Sega.

Hopefully MS will get on the bandwagon as well and introduce their own motion sensing controller.

And how can you get MGS4 and FFXIII on a PC?

Well, I've never been interested in the Metal Gear series, and I lost interest in the FF series after they went realistic in FFVII.

It's all about the games you like to play, and those games don't interest me. Imo, they're derivative. But it isn't my opinion that purchases those games and those systems for you. It's you and your opinion.

In the end, that's all that matters right?

 

[Powderkeg]

Powderkeg: Please. You're stereo-typing me to make the route to your point ("mainstream gamers care about graphics more than hardcore gamers") easier, and it's really sort of flawed for several reasons.

You think that's flawed? Only because saying so fits your defense.

Casual gamers buy games primarily based on 1 of 3 reasons.

1. Their friends tell them how great a game is.
2. The cover art appeals to them. The classic "Hey, this looks cool" when they pick up the box.
3. What they see on the screen on a kiosk or at a friends house.

Casual gamers aren't that informed. They don't know the in's and out's of a controller design beyond how it feels in their hands, they don't know what the gameplay is like unless they've already played it, and they don't read online gaming sites or gaming magazines and compare review scores before buying a game. They buy whatever looks or sounds cool.

And if you doubt that for one second try explaining how Enter the Matrix sold over a million copies, or how games like Gundam get sequel after sequel when every single one has been complete crap.

 

[Powderkeg]

I'm not sure I understand the problem... Since you shoot at where the crosshair is, and not necessarily where the center of the screen is, why is it bad to have to move away from the center? In what way is dual analog better in this regard?

Simple example.

You've just finished shooting at a guy on a 3rd floor balcony. Another guy starts shooting at you from the ground. You have to overcompensate your aiming down to lower your view point enough to see him before you can shoot him.


Or, take shooting out of the equation. You have to do major aiming adjustments to make minor adjustments as to where your screen is centered in the environment. If you want to tilt your view down a mere 5 degrees you have to aim below the screen to do it.

 

[darkblu]

Or, take shooting out of the equation. You have to do major aiming adjustments to make minor adjustments as to where your screen is centered in the environment. If you want to tilt your view down a mere 5 degrees you have to aim below the screen to do it.

powderkeg, you're way past being ridiculous. how often would you want to "tilt your view down a mere 5 degrees" when you have the freedom to cover a large targeting area with your aim without bulging your view one bit? this is not your precious dual analog/nailed reticle, i thought by now you should have realized that.

 

[one]

The PS3's late addition of the motion sensing controller defintely raised an eyebrow for me. However, the system wasn't designed from the ground up with that, so it will take time for games to take advantage of it. Not only that, but the PS3's motion sensing isn't as fully fleshed out as the Wii's is. So I doubt that games will translate all that well.

Can you elaborate in which points it is not fleshed out? Do you mean the lack of an IR pointer? For sports games such as golf or tennis, you don't need that function as the IR pointer cannot be used when the pointer is out of the range of the sensor bar. Even for FPS games, you may be able to use the PS3 controller as a 3-D mouse with appropriate calibration.

 

[Natoma]

Can you elaborate in which points it is not fleshed out? Do you mean the lack of an IR pointer? For sports games such as golf or tennis, you don't need that function as the IR pointer cannot be used when the pointer is out of the range of the sensor bar. Even for FPS games, you may be able to use the PS3 controller as a 3-D mouse with appropriate calibration.

There's no detection of the Z-Axis. You couldn't use it as a 3-D mouse because of that.