Hellfire Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Sounds about right Still. Once Super Paper Mario comes out, I have a feeling everything i've ever said will become null and void. I don't think spm will make much use pf the wiimote :P Galaxy on the other hand...
Zell Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I think it will be more "waggle" in SMG. The real innovation in Galaxy comes from the gameplay, not from the wii-mote.
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I don't think spm will make much use pf the wiimote :P Galaxy on the other hand... Yeah, but SPM looks so much cooler. Come to think of it, there's a helluva lot more games out this year on the Wii then I previously thought.
DCK Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I think it will be more "waggle" in SMG. The real innovation in Galaxy comes from the gameplay, not from the wii-mote. Have you been watching the gameplay? It's used to slingshoot and distract bullet bills, to name two. The Wiimote isn't the basis of the new gameplay, but it does innovate by expanding the gameplay.
The Bard Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I really doubt it, but then I don't qualify as an expert.
4q2 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I think the whole who will sell most subject is pointless as far as this generation goes. I dont think the Wii will be staying in the market for the same lifespan as the 360 or ps3, it cant. As far as I am concerned I dont think the PS3 will utilise the power it supposedly has to even 80% within the next 5 years, by which point any contenders will most likely already be banding around a new bunch of specs to make the gullible foam at the mouth. PS3 will sell more when/if Sony decide its time to charge a reasonable price for what will amount to little more than a games machine in most peoples living rooms as opposed to the all singing dancing media machine it is supposed to be. (Same applies to the 360...most setups I know of are switched on to simply play a game). Either way, the only thing I am interested in seeing is serious support for the Wii, and if it can keep the lead it is doing for now, that should be easy. I have bought the machine all I want is a good choice of software for it. As to the controller being a novelty aspect of the Wii, from a personal pov, its won me over. I played Zelda TP with a control system that felt right to me (at no point was I wishing I could just plug a cube controller in), SSX Blur seems spot on and as good as a joypad to control. Im sure if the system is thought out correctly the Wiimote can apply itself to anything a standard pad could and add plenty more for good measure.
Kurtle Squad Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 The thing is though, i know i keep saying it, but as more and more people get HD-TV's there gonna realise the Wii looks abit poo on them They look fine from what I've seen.
pedrocasilva Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 What's the differnce between them and people who are happy to listen to anything Nintendo say. The people claim that Nintendo are the only ones innovating, and are happy to ignore all the sequels that are almost exactly the same but with added waggle.Dunno, but did you knew a lot of games in Ps2 ran at 320x240? (including FF-X) DC did all games in 640x480 by comparison. What was the diference? diference is everyone had 480i TV's back then and today not everyone has a 480p let alone HD. But... it was still Sony doing that, aparently resolution didn't mattered back then. Sony's point in "look it's HD" is to sell HDTV's, same for bluray. It's like a trojan horse embedded. I'm obviously not against HD mind you, but it's a extra. I also don't think wii looks shit if the TV has good upscale, otherwise why would Nintendo display it on HDTV's when it comes to conventions? Thing is... they're not 600€ LCD's, they're 1500€ instead, but looks great. It's not because Nintendo said, mind you, like said we've had HD on PC for a while and I still prefer gaming on a console; I also don't care much about what TV I play them, I actually prefer wasting 600€ (cheapest HD sets) on games; but if I'd buy a HDTV the quality would have to be optimal so it would be more expensive than that.
Hellfire Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Have you been watching the gameplay? It's used to slingshoot and distract bullet bills, to name two. The Wiimote isn't the basis of the new gameplay, but it does innovate by expanding the gameplay. Exactly, most people think that the only think the remote does is make you spin.
Zell Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Have you been watching the gameplay? It's used to slingshoot and distract bullet bills, to name two. The Wiimote isn't the basis of the new gameplay, but it does innovate by expanding the gameplay. Exactly, most people think that the only think the remote does is make you spin. I do know that and yes they expand the gameplay, but I'd hardly call those examples "innovation".
Hellfire Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, manipulating moving objects while you run an jump around is done in every game.
ShadowV7 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, manipulating moving objects while you run an jump around is done in every game. Couldn't help but laugh at that : peace:
Cube Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 This may just be me...but I find that even a simple waggle can add a lot to a game.
Fierce_LiNk Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Does for me. I haven't seen a game they couldn't be done on any other machine Hmm, it depends on where you stand and where you look from, or more simply, your outlook on the whole thing. Take, for example, Wii Sports. Watch the screen. Ok, tennis, golf, boxing...simple games that have been done on other systems. Probably with more depth, licenced names, huge advertising, more attention to detail when it comes to graphics, etc. There's no Mike Tyson in Wii boxing, as the characters have been replaced by Miis. From that viewpoint, they're just tennis games, boxing and golf, etc. Nothing outta the ordinary. Take a step back, look at the gamer. That's the Wii. You may be able to play sports games on other systems, but nowhere near in the same way as you play WiiSports. Added waggle? Maybe, but it makes a change from the button bashing that we're all used to. Quite a refreshing change, I feel. You need a context. Online gaming has been done on PCs for years, for example. You can claim it is the future, but because of the fact that it has been done in the past, does that make your viewpoint any less right or wrong? Games have been done in the past, for quite a long time now. If something can be done to breathe new life into this form of entertainment, surely it should be applauded? Aiming, for example, has been done in the past. We've been playing shooters for years, but now we're getting to the point where we can get greater accuracy in home console gaming by just pointing at the screen. I'll post more on this when I get this bluddy essay done.
Hellfire Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 This may just be me...but I find that even a simple waggle can add a lot to a game. What're you wagglin' ?
Zechs Merquise Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 there is no point in getting a Ps3 anymore becouse all the good games that where suposed to be on ps3 are all coming to 360 too and even for the graphics it doesn't bother me i like wat nintendo has done for the wii i enjoy the wii more than My 360. Very good point, the 360 is going to have literally all the PS3 killer apps as well as it's own as software manufacturers can't ignore an installed userbase of over 10 million in favour of exclusivity with a user base of less than 2 million. But seriously, there is no formula for a winning console, the NES was weaker than the master system, the SNES more powerful than the Megadrive, the PS1 more powerful than Saturn but less powerful than N64... and a head start doesn't always lead to victory, just look at the Dreamcast.
DCK Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Awesome post Fierce - gaming is more than just watching a screen; the waggle actually takes it out of there. You can pretend it doesn't matter whether something is controlled with a button or a shake, and the on-screen result doesn't necessarily change either; but the action is far more involving and that's the whole point. Likewise the better graphics of the other systems do have a certain degree of influence in the sense that great graphics can make a game more involving. For those systems you could also argue (with truth, actually) that there aren't any games that we haven't seen before. But the graphics do make a change. In my opinion however, the 'waggle' is far more effective in that, because it's more refreshing than the predictable graphics update and the Wii is capable of doing some good stuff, too.
The Lillster Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Even if the PS3 does have massive sales in 2 - 4 years, doesn't mean Wii will stop selling. People keep saying the PS3 will do extremly well when the price comes down, but by that time, there will be a lot more AAA games on 360 and Wii. I think if the PS3 is succesful, it will be because it is the cheapest Blue-Ray player on the market. Plus it can be used as a server, which is cool. IMO etc... some crazy statistic like 1/4 homes in the usa have a ps2 in them, i strongly believe most of these people will stay with what they are familiar with and get a ps3 when it lowers in price... So basicly your saying because PS2 did so well, that makes PS3 instantly succesful? (When they lower the price of course LOLZ) As i've said before, the PS3 will do well, no doubt about it, but I don't see it doing as well as PS2. Especially since the competion is a lot more prepared this console generation. Last generation PS2 was the obvious choice, but this time the choice won't be so obvious.
Recommended Posts