Newsweek, with a little help, takes on Wii as 'GameCube 1.5'

I really don't care about Wii interior, but I care about goog games which IMHO Wii lacks. I'm not interested in stupid mini games and especially in sport games like Tennis or Bowling. Those are much better in reality. Why would I want to do something in limited form in small living room if I can go out and play those game with friends.
What I expect from games in great story or nice gameplay so different from anything that I can do in real life.
The same thing goes with nintendogs etc. I understand Japaneas for who it's difficult to have a real pet for many reasons, but I can't understand popularity of those games in Europe or US.
Wii is nice hardware but for me way overpriced and it would be nice if Wii would play DVD movies.

BTW. I own GameCube and really enjoy this console and GC's is so intuitive this differently shaped buttons. In RE4 you simply don't have to think about placement of X or Y button. You grab the gamepad for first time and when you see big and small B and A buttons you are sure where to hit. I wonder why Sony and Microsoft keep using the old PSX scheme which 4 same buttons... I remember playing PES2 on PSX with my friend who owns the console and as I played the game only with him I very often hit the wrong button i.e. Pass instead of Shoot.

 

Depending on the definition, that would be true if every component had a performance-/ capacity-increase by 50%. Which isn't the case, either. Memory capacity and bandwidth was increased by a factor of 3 to 4 for example. This increase also fixed one of the most important bottlenecks of the Gamecube architecture.

 

The #1 factor in investing in a console is the game library. Hardware power doesn't buy you much without games. And judging by Nintendo's absolutely apathetic marketing for its core franchises (why aren't they advertising the crap out of Mario Galaxy?!), and the unenthusiastic 3rd parties, I expect Wii's 3rd party library to actually be worse than Gamecube's. That ultimately is way more important then the fillrate of its GPU.

 

Not to interrupt a lively discussion, but I'm still kinda interesting in the hardware details.

It seems very odd to me that the EFB on the Hollywood has not been increased at all from the flipper. As it is Wii games have to render in anamorphic 16:9 resolutions like and 640x448 (in Metroid Prime 3's case).

The article states that there is 3.1MB of memory, but I don't remember the .1 ever being specified for the GCN. Is it possible that a 640x448x32 (24rgb+8a) buffer would fit? Wii games in general I think have less banding issues than GCN titles.

 

I agree. As a consumer the software is what turned me off. It is difficult to imagine publisher support being worse than the GCN, but if 3rd party (and even some 1st party) software doesn't take off, then that is what will happen.

As for the Wii being a cheap toy... it is $250. That isn't cheap. That is more than the GCN, N64, SNES, and NES every costed. While it is true some will look at it as a cheap toy, many traditional gamers look at it as an investment question. Will it have 10-15 games I really want this gen? Does it cover all the genres with a lot of variety in them? Just because I like shooters doesn't mean I like Halo or Metroid. Is the console worth the investment?

As a GCN owners, that is the catch for me. I already have a GCN and have already seen what the GCN can--and cannot--do. So the only added dimension in gameplay for me would be the Wii-mote. And it does bring variety and new experiences. But will I see rocking animation systems like Madden or Euphoria products, DMM or BFBC style world destruction, or large scale battles and draw distances as a number of new games have shown? Even something as subtle, but valuable, as the NPC dialogue system in Mass Effect... these things really aren't achievble on the Wii.

You either create a new experience with the Wii-mote, or you really aren't going to get a totally new experience. Not that every game needs to do this (and most "next gen" games are 'more & better' than totally new paradigms) but it is dissappointing that with the Wii you only have one option. The Wii could have been crafted in such a way that developers could have chosen how to push the design envelop--why do we have to choose between more aggressive/progressive computation design or intuitive input? Why couldn't we have both?

As a long term investment the Wii all comes down to whether you like and buy into the Wii-mote. That is totally an opinion issue at this point. A classic game like Madden with Wii is more approachable to some, especially the uninitiated, but the already present fanbase will get more consistant (thus better) results from a gamepad. In this sense Wii does expand the market, but in doing so can alienate some established gamers.

And I think that is where some backlash comes from. The tension.

Of course some people don't care... my parents are getting a Wii. Why? To exercise. And because it looks fun to them. They even asked me what games they should get. They haven't had a console in the house since I left home and they the Wii is perfect for them--my mom is the type who would LEEEEAAAAAN when playing Mario Kart to get her kart to turn faster! Based on their past purchases I get the feeling they will buy 2 games and... never buy another. More interesting, and on topic, is that my dad is all onboard with my mom's desire for a Wii... because he just bought a 42" HDTV and wants something to show it off. They haven't played on a Kiosk and have only seen the marketing videos which mainly contain smiling people whipping the remote around. I had to explain to them while the Wii is new and only $50 less than a 360, it is essentially a Gamecube in terms of graphics and they wouldn't be getting a system that would show off how great their new HDTV is.

From their perspective of having purchased me a NES, SNES, seen my N64 I imported when I was in high school, and having played a little on my GCN they just assumed that the new ones always look better and that it is Nintendo, which is basically a Playstation or Sega with Mario and Link instead of Crash and Sonic. They were kind of surprised to learn it isn't HD like the new PlayStation. But they are pretty ignorant about consoles.

But they are getting a Wii. Because it looks fun.

 

I don't think it's about being a cheap toy or not though; I just think it's viewed in two separate ways by two disparate groups of people. For the first group - composed of the majority of this forum - it is viewed as a console, in the traditional console light, with pros and cons weighed against it, and indeed the "investment" factor comes into play to a degree.

But there is an entirely separate crowd out there that has been drawn to the Wii, that doesn't even use the word console - who may not even know what it means - and that is largely indifferent to game libraries, will never consider the Wii against the 360 or PS3 in terms of pros or cons, and views the purchase as an expenditure on entertainment rather than as an investment in technology. Truly what they want is Wii Sports, things like Wii Fit upon their arrival... these are what they understand the system to be. Whether they use it continuously or tire of it, I don't think they'll ever for the most part look back and regret the move, because this group was only ever looking for very basic output from the machine to begin with.

The Wii definitely is progressing in two markets right now, the traditional console market, and a second - perhaps more significant to its success - mainstream market where its simply lumped in to the mess of iPods, movie expenditures, kids demands, edutainment, and the rest of the junk. When these folk go to purchase it, they are not in their minds going in order to purchase a video game system per se, they are very specifically searching out the Wii.

 

This brings up an interesting question. I wonder whether the type of consumers who have been snatching up all these Wii consoles like crazy will buy many games for it. I would love to see how many people bought a Wii and only have Wii Sports. It will be VERY interesting to see whether these "casual gamers" buy enough games to make the Wii a success for the game developers.

Wii is uncharted territory. There has never been a console that has depended on so-called "casual gamers" to the degree Wii does. You can't read a single thread about the Wii without hearing about how someone's parents, or grandma, or sister, or girlfriend has picked up a videogame for the first time because of the Wii.

I honestly think there is a very good chance that the Wii will have 2 "classes" of buyers: a. the "casual gamers" who buy 2-3 games and that's it, and b. the Nintendo fanatics who buy Nintendo consoles almost exclusively for the first-party games (in other words, the same group who bought the Gamecube and N64).

At any rate, the Wii is a great experiment, and I love it that I can sit back and watch the show unfold

 

Most people just forgot to mention it, but it's was there as well. The GCN had 2.1 MB of framebuffer plus 1MB texture cache.

 

At the moment, the attach rate is supposedly >4. So that's either most people buying 3 or 4 games for their system, or a few people buying absolutely everything and everyone else just playing Wii Sports and Wii Play (obtained when they bought their second controller)

Actually if Wii is all about social gaming, why doesn't it come with two controllers as standard?

 

Then why did GCN games render in 24-bit RGBA (banding galore bleh) when a 640x480*(32rgba+24z) buffer fits in 2.1MB?

 

Because that way Nintendo can charge for the extra controller.

 

Because everyone should own a Wii and then they can bring their own controller to which ever friend's house they are bringing the Wii. Duh.

Also, they might not have been comfortable with a retail package over 300$/euro.

 

If the X360 is all about live gaming over the 'net, why doesn't it come with wireless networking? Easy: manufacturers tweak features to hit the price points they want.

It's not good or bad; just is.

IMO this article more than adequately proves that the Wii's popularity is not because of the console's raw power. I guess it really turns out that doing something (waving hand to bowl or swing a sword) is more enjoyable to many people than emulating something (pressing A to bowl or swing the sword).

In my case I opted for Wii because it is different, and I'm already into PC gaming for the high-rez high-fidelity stuff. If I'd grown up as a console gamer I'd probably choose X360 or PS3, but I'm not.

 

Errr...

Because you can play online with a wired setup..?

Because wireless networking is slow(er)?

Because LIVE is only a subset of the vision the console stands for..?

Flawed counter-arguement i'd say..

 

Well you can buy another controller for the wii, probably cheaper than trying to buy and run a long network cable, or having someone drill your walls.

Even old 802.11b is faster than 10Mb cable can run

The wii controller is only a subset of the vision the console was made for. (ease of use, simple fun gaming, etc)


Its a valid counter argument.

 

For starters a network cable will cost you about £5 pounds (30m) & it costs nothing to run it along the skirting boards or under the carpet..

Who uses ethernet slower than 100Mb/s these days?

The Wii controller is the absolute embodiment of the vision of the console.. without it do you honestly think the console would be where it is today..??

Valid... But flawed..