Mr. Bananagrabber Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 The fact is, when one developer says the Wii is actually pretty good and not that underpowered it's posted up here as 'proof', when another says the opposite it's pulled to pieces and labelled as 'lies'. The fact is this guy likes his games to look good, throw around nice graohics and utilise processor heavy AI. The Wii can't do that. So he doesn't like it. Makes sense. I imagine the game industry is diverse and large enough to accomidate developers with many different philosophies and goals (besides to make money, of course). With all 3 machines targeting very different audiences and developers, there's something for everyone to love and to hate. Although calling a machine only a few months old "shit" is more than a bit silly.
Cube Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Spore does actually look good though. Not according to the screenshots on IGN.
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Graphically i'd say it looks good. But design wise...
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 What is Spore exactly. (Without being bothered to check out links etc...)
Aimless Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 I think personally though its the whole package, I want decent graphics, decent audio, decent gameplay, and decent control. The way I see it is this 2 consoles are pushing three of those parts and devalueing a new way to play. While one company is trying to deliver on gameplay and control fronts, but devalueing graphics and audio. As you say the two other consoles are focusing on pushing the envelope as far as graphics and processing power are concerned, so why do we need a third? I find myself saying this time and time again: the Wii is fit to purpose. It's purpose is to make people, ordinary non-gamers, play games and have fun. HD doesn't make games more fun, 7.1 surround sound doesn't make a difference to your gran, and my mum isn't going to be found mouthing off on Xbox Live. Hi-def graphics, premium audiophile equipment, and online play, these are things that interest gamers who can afford to invest hundreds into their hobby, not the people that Nintendo are trying to draw into the fold. Would I prefer the Wii to be more powerful than the PS3? Sure, more power is always good so long as people use it right. But the people out there who are suddenly buying Wiis as their first console having played Wii Sports at a friends house, would they want to be spending over £400 to play some virtual bowling in their front room? And would they want to buy a new HDTV to really get the most out of their investment? The 360 and PS3 are good machines for gamers, but the Wii is for everyone, gamer and non-gamer alike. Complaining that it isn't a supercomputer is like deriding a toaster for not playing DVDs.
The Lillster Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 The mug looks like Billy off Power Rangers. LOL Seriously though, we all knew that the wii was going to be an underpowered console, ok maybe not PS2-type graphics low, but still a lot lower than the other two. So if you bought it and think the graphics are shit, well then thats your fault, you knew the Wii was going to be underpowered. If Nintendo did go the HD route, then that would mean game production would be a lot more expensive. And since MS and Sony have a lot more money than Nintendo, it would be hard for them to compete. Plus why would you want three consoles, pretty much exactly the same (bar a few exclusives)? The Wii is trying to be different, and as a side effect the graphics look like shite, deal with it! If you want power and beautiful graphics, get a PS3 or 360! It's as simple as that really!
Fierce_LiNk Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 As you say the two other consoles are focusing on pushing the envelope as far as graphics and processing power are concerned, so why do we need a third? Agreed, and I've been thinknig about that quite a lot lately. What's the point in having three systems virtually identical to each other? As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 and 360 are really similar to each other, with the Wii being the most different. It's all about choice really. Where's the choice in games and variety if you end up purchasing systems which all have similar or identical features to each other? People act like change or differentiation is a bad thing. And it kinda annoys me when people say "oh, Wii should be more like the 360"...nooooo. It's what it is, and that's what makes it unique. If you really wanted a system that similar to a 360, then get a 360.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 If Nintendo did go the HD route, then that would mean game production would be a lot more expensive. Namco's head honcho said to break even on PS3, you must sell around 500 000 copies. This isn't really easy feat, especially if you aren't backed by big company that can spent idiotic sums to advertisement and hyping your product. It is even worse that most companies can't even survive one or two flops. It's no big wonder that developers who are most excited about next generation are those who have strong financial backing and lots of time to develop their product. Like Maxis who is supported by EA.
The Lillster Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Agreed, and I've been thinknig about that quite a lot lately. What's the point in having three systems virtually identical to each other? As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 and 360 are really similar to each other, with the Wii being the most different. It's all about choice really. Where's the choice in games and variety if you end up purchasing systems which all have similar or identical features to each other? People act like change or differentiation is a bad thing. And it kinda annoys me when people say "oh, Wii should be more like the 360"...nooooo. It's what it is, and that's what makes it unique. If you really wanted a system that similar to a 360, then get a 360. I agree with you and Aimless 100% read my post above if you don't believe me.
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 read my post above if you don't believe me. Lol. Alright! Alright! I believe you. *Wink*
DCK Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 I find it a pretty weak statement actually. He rants at Nintendo for making games fun instead of artistic. What exactly is the point of games? A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. Also, it's stupid that he feels limited by the hardware in his artistic design ideas. Point me one game on the PS3/360 that is more artistic than Okami - the hardware only brings in more and more realism; not the reason why we play games. Remember, it's all games we are talking about. Video games.
ZeldaFreak Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 As you say the two other consoles are focusing on pushing the envelope as far as graphics and processing power are concerned, so why do we need a third? I find myself saying this time and time again: the Wii is fit to purpose. It's purpose is to make people, ordinary non-gamers, play games and have fun. HD doesn't make games more fun, 7.1 surround sound doesn't make a difference to your gran, and my mum isn't going to be found mouthing off on Xbox Live. Hi-def graphics, premium audiophile equipment, and online play, these are things that interest gamers who can afford to invest hundreds into their hobby, not the people that Nintendo are trying to draw into the fold. Would I prefer the Wii to be more powerful than the PS3? Sure, more power is always good so long as people use it right. But the people out there who are suddenly buying Wiis as their first console having played Wii Sports at a friends house, would they want to be spending over £400 to play some virtual bowling in their front room? And would they want to buy a new HDTV to really get the most out of their investment? The 360 and PS3 are good machines for gamers, but the Wii is for everyone, gamer and non-gamer alike. Complaining that it isn't a supercomputer is like deriding a toaster for not playing DVDs. No what I meant was 360 and ps3 were focusing on graphics, audio and gameplay. Whilst we is just focusing on slightly new controls and gameplay. I never actually mentioned online play.
DCK Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 No what I meant was 360 and ps3 were focusing on graphics, audio and gameplay. Whilst we is just focusing on slightly new controls and gameplay. I never actually mentioned online play. Can you give me a concrete example from the current 360/PS3 titles (announced or released) that have new gameplay that can only be done on an HD console?
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 I find it a pretty weak statement actually. He rants at Nintendo for making games fun instead of artistic. What exactly is the point of games? Also, it's stupid that he feels limited by the hardware in his artistic design ideas. Point me one game on the PS3/360 that is more artistic than Okami - the hardware only brings in more and more realism; not the reason why we play games. Remember, it's all games we are talking about. Video games. And the winner of post I agree with the most goes to....
ZeldaFreak Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 I find it a pretty weak statement actually. He rants at Nintendo for making games fun instead of artistic. What exactly is the point of games? Also, it's stupid that he feels limited by the hardware in his artistic design ideas. Point me one game on the PS3/360 that is more artistic than Okami - the hardware only brings in more and more realism; not the reason why we play games. Remember, it's all games we are talking about. Video games. Ok a game that is more atistic than Okami, well I wouldn't say its necesseraily better I would still say its on a par. And the game is ... Blue Dragon
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Can you give me a concrete example from the current 360/PS3 titles (announced or released) that have new gameplay that can only be done on an HD console? And this ladies and gentlemen ^^ is what we call "Pwnage" or "Ownage" if you will.
ZeldaFreak Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Can you give me a concrete example from the current 360/PS3 titles (announced or released) that have new gameplay that can only be done on an HD console? LittleBigPlannet and Dead Rising. And I wouldn't class the consoles as HD consoles. They also give alot of power to throw around how many enemies can be on screen, how big the enviroments are, how the physics work on and between characters and objects in the virtual world.
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 LittleBigPlannet and Dead Rising. And I wouldn't class the consoles as HD consoles. They also give alot of power to throw around how many enemies can be on screen, how big the enviroments are, how the physics work on and between characters and objects in the virtual world. Do you know what Gameplay is? (No offence)
DCK Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Ok a game that is more atistic than Okami, well I wouldn't say its necesseraily better I would still say its on a par. And the game is ...Blue Dragon The game looks really nice, I agree, but comparing it with Okami is far out to be honest. It has nice cel-shading, but where does the art go from there? It reminds me of Tales 360, nothing more.
Aimless Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 No what I meant was 360 and ps3 were focusing on graphics, audio and gameplay. Whilst we is just focusing on slightly new controls and gameplay. I never actually mentioned online play. I was using your comment as springboard, not having a go at you. What I wanted to get across was the reason why the Wii isn't as powerful as the other consoles, because a lot of people don't quite seem to have grasped it yet. It isn't "copping out", it was taking the plunge with a new concept to try and make gaming a more profitable and successful market. It was a big gamble — Nintendo would still have made profit if they had gone down the bigger-better-faster route, I'm sure — but the risk seems to be paying off, at least so far. We shall see how well it plays out in the long run.
ZeldaFreak Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Do you know what Gameplay is? (No offence) What you don't like LittleBigPlannet because it doesn't have gameplay. And Dead Rising was a good game. You couldn't actually do that on the wii or other previous consoles. I would stop drinking the coke if I was you. And DCK I didn't say Blue Dragon was better I said it was on par with it. It uses a clay cell shading style of art for the game. It doesn't look anything like tales 360.
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 What you don't like LittleBigPlannet because it doesn't have gameplay. And Dead Rising was a good game. You couldn't actually do that on the wii or other previous consoles. Thats new genre, not gameplay. I would stop drinking the coke if I was you. Im a Pepsi man!
ZeldaFreak Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Thats new genre, not gameplay. Im a Pepsi man! Dead Rising isn't a new genre its an action survival horro game. Same as okami isn't a new genre its just an action adventure game.
ReZourceman Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Dead Rising isn't a new genre its an action survival horro game. Same as okami isn't a new genre its just an action adventure game. ......Dead Rising doesnt have new gameplay...thats what Im trying to get across.
Recommended Posts