The Peeps Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I've had my Wii since launch day and I have no intention of selling it. I also have an xbox 360. Currently in my Wii collection: Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Excite Truck, Wii Sports, Mario Kart. Have traded in: Mario Strikers, Red Steel, Sonic and his secrect ring, super monkey ball, metroid prime, no more heroes, smash bros brawl Currently in my xbox360 collection: Halo 3, Banjo Kazooie nuts & bolts, Rock band, Rock band 2, Quantum of Solace, Gears of War 2, Fable 2 Have traded in: gears of war, burnout revenge, guitar hero There are few games that have grabbed my attention on the wii, most of the ones I've had have come from Nintendo themselves as usual. The best games I play of any generation are always Nintendo games. Usually I want a good game with a decent storyline or an unrealistic but fun racer, not brain training, not wii fit, not wii music and not any crappy minigame collection. This is why I got a 360. Fable 2 may be the best game of this generation I've played (so far). I love the wii and I love the controls but until we get more games that aren't focussed on the controls and are focussed on a plot then I'll be using my 360 and PC more. The online aspect is just so much better developed on 360 and PC, online is the standard and not just a bonus.
RedShell Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Yep, I do indeed own a Wii. (since launch day) Bet that surprised a few people ey? Got 32 games in total, so needless to say I'm more than happy with the little white box of innovation.
Nolan Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 And X360 and PS3 games are artistic? This is one my personal pet peeves about all videogames... [RANT-INCOMING] I find it always hilarious when kids come to explain me how stuf like Mass Effect, Halo, Okami, No More Heroes or Metal Gear* are "artistic" games. I guess if cardboard characters, aturday cartoon plots, and dialogue that would be laughed out from any other medium is artistic, yes, videogames are artistic masterpieces. I mean, seriously. I really believe that standards are detoriating as younger folk doesn't either read or watch anything else than gasoline-filled blockbuster movies. Even hollow philosophical waxing of Dark Knight was seen as intelligent and deep. [/RANT-INCOMING] * Excepts at least one angry Metal Gear fanboy come to tell me how I don't understand Kojima's masterpiece. Well now I'm curious as to what you find artistic.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Well now I'm curious as to what you find artistic. If we are talking about movies, stuff like Elephant Man, All About Eve, Thin Red Line, Fight Club, Godfather, and heck, even Hero (although its artistic sensibilities come mostly from direction). I think that the problem that I have with videogames is that they try too much emulate other mediums without really succeeding in it. Artistic videogames are possible, but it requires that developers understand that they are not doing movie, or writing a book, but a videogame. Really hard to explain what I'm driving at. Edited March 13, 2009 by Teppo Holmqvist
Zechs Merquise Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 And X360 and PS3 games are artistic? This is one my personal pet peeves about all videogames... [RANT-INCOMING] I find it always hilarious when kids come to explain me how stuf like Mass Effect, Halo, Okami, No More Heroes or Metal Gear* are "artistic" games. I guess if cardboard characters, aturday cartoon plots, and dialogue that would be laughed out from any other medium is artistic, yes, videogames are artistic masterpieces. I mean, seriously. I really believe that standards are detoriating as younger folk doesn't either read or watch anything else than gasoline-filled blockbuster movies. Even hollow philosophical waxing of Dark Knight was seen as intelligent and deep. [/RANT-INCOMING] * Excepts at least one angry Metal Gear fanboy come to tell me how I don't understand Kojima's masterpiece. Spot on, and especially about Metal Gear, I love those games, but the dialogue is nonsense and hard to follow. If films were presented in such a convoluted way they'd flop, end of.
Eenuh Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Have had mine since launch day (well, got it a day early, heh). It's the only console of this generation that I own, but then again it's been like that for every generation, never owned anything other than Nintendo consoles. The reason is that they just seem to have the most games that appeal to me. I don't like first person shooters and racing games, so there's not that much for me on the other consoles. I don't own that many games (something like 10 I think), but I never do for any console, except for the handheld ones. I still love the Wii though, and do plan to buy more games in the future. =)
Daft Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 And X360 and PS3 games are artistic? This is one my personal pet peeves about all videogames... [RANT-INCOMING] I find it always hilarious when kids come to explain me how stuf like Mass Effect, Halo, Okami, No More Heroes or Metal Gear* are "artistic" games. I guess if cardboard characters, aturday cartoon plots, and dialogue that would be laughed out from any other medium is artistic, yes, videogames are artistic masterpieces. I mean, seriously. I really believe that standards are detoriating as younger folk doesn't either read or watch anything else than gasoline-filled blockbuster movies. Even hollow philosophical waxing of Dark Knight was seen as intelligent and deep. [/RANT-INCOMING] * Excepts at least one angry Metal Gear fanboy come to tell me how I don't understand Kojima's masterpiece. Mass Effect "artfully" tells a story (Annoyingly, it was much more impressive when they showed it at E3). Granted I thought it was poor compared to KOTOR but I know I'm in a minority there. Halo...I wouldn't say that was artistic, but it is certainly blockbuster epic at points. Metal Gear Solid, personally I love it (played them all for the first time a month before 4 came out). Again, it's an epic piece of story telling. In terms of how it comes across in terms of media it is more akin to Watchmen. Although nowhere near as good. It is not meant to be a film, or a book, or even your run of the mill game. It is it's own game. People's need to assign things to a category never ceases to amaze me. It's a unique thing among games and I'm amused by people who complain about it, these are usually the kinds of people who complain there are too many FPSes. Whatever you say though, Yoji Shinkawa's art is awesome and the game as a whole has wonderfully executed production values. Conceptually, and in many ways structurally, MGS is just leagues ahead in gaming. It has a lot of faults. In fact is has a myriad. That doesn't stop it from getting a lot of things right, however. To be honest, I would hardly have brought up any of those games when referring to art (Especially not MGS because it's like Marmite). What exactly does Nintendo bring to the medium? The thing about the games you mentioned is that as much as some people don't want to admit it, it is technologies that are going to elevate gaming. Things like better physics, AI and more obviously graphics. It's much easier to perk someone's interest with Killzone or Heavy Rain than it is something that looks acceptable but not really. As for actually achieving the status of art, it isn't going to happen for a while, but you only have to play flower to see the potential. I agree that literary standards are simply appalling among most people who play games (Most people here, included). That doesn't mean that the medium isn't capable of producing something that can make you think. Your issue with philosophy is a bit strange, granted I'd rather read source material, but since philosophy is usually explained through an appliance there is no reason why the Dark Knight, or whatever, can't act as a gateway to explain quite complex ideas. In the end we're talking in relative terms, these games are masterpieces relative to this rather introvert audience. These games are only a prelude to what a lot of people hope will be a Citizen Kane of video games. To have a black and white view of the matter is rather close minded but then sweeping generalisation are by their definition inaccurate and ultimately stupid and futile. Essentially, Nintendo is not interested in this at all. They might be trying to expand the audience but Tarkovsky is hailed as one of the greatest directors of all time and many people cannot even sit through his films, let alone apply concepts to them.
Pookiablo Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I've had a Wii since launch (which incidentally was my 20th birthday, hence why it's now such a huge success!) and although it's at home with the family I do enjoy using it. It's second only to the most amazing invention ever, the N64!
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) In the end we're talking in relative terms, these games are masterpieces relative to this rather introvert audience. These games are only a prelude to what a lot of people hope will be a Citizen Kane of video games. Well, at least you gave me solid answer, can't complain about that. I do appreciate all kinds of games, but like I said before, I think that for videogame be art, it must stop pretension of being something else, and embrace its own strong points. I'm not against having artistic ambitions, but I'm strongly against "cool kids" and cool, kewl = art thought process. Perhaps we should do another thread for the debate, as if we continue here, we are going to quickly threadcrap this thread. Edited March 13, 2009 by Teppo Holmqvist
Daft Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Well, at least you gave me solid answer, can't complain about that. I do appreciate all kinds of games, but like I said before, I think that for videogame be art, it must stop pretension of being something else, and embrace its own strong points. I'm not against having artistic ambitions, but I'm strongly against "cool kids" and cool, kewl = art thought process. Perhaps we should do another thread for the debate, as if we continue here, we are going to quickly threadcrap this thread. Fair enough, but I do find that criticism of MGS to be a bit hypocritical since it really is something that could only been done, arguably well or badly, through games. Even if not, there really aren't any games like it. (Just to be clear, I'm not discussing whether it is good or bad, mainly it's approach) If someone uses Bioshock as an introduction to objectivism or The Matrix as a way of discussing Foucault, I really don't see the problem tbh. I won't say anything else on the matter, if I can help it.
Dan_Dare Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I'm with Daft- particularly in the point that technology is going to push gaming forward- not the wii. Wii fans seem quick to decry 360/ps3 owners as shallow graphics whores, but that's total bullshit. I got my 360 because it offers cutting edge online support, a fantastic library of games and the power to actually support games that push the boundaries of what we can expect from the medium in the future. I don't have a ps3 but the same applies. Look a Heavy Rain- potentially capable of rewriting the rule book on what we want from the medium, and utterly impossible on a wii. The raw horsepower of proper next gen machines isn't just about graphics- it's about animation, sound, physics, AI and all the rest that makes a cohesive gaming experience. The wii can't provide any of these things and THAT is why I don't have one. oh and the controller is a gimmicky piece of crap. Roffle.
Nicktendo Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) I'm with Daft- particularly in the point that technology is going to push gaming forward- not the wii. Wii fans seem quick to decry 360/ps3 owners as shallow graphics whores, but that's total bullshit. I got my 360 because it offers cutting edge online support, a fantastic library of games and the power to actually support games that push the boundaries of what we can expect from the medium in the future. I don't have a ps3 but the same applies. Look a Heavy Rain- potentially capable of rewriting the rule book on what we want from the medium, and utterly impossible on a wii. The raw horsepower of proper next gen machines isn't just about graphics- it's about animation, sound, physics, AI and all the rest that makes a cohesive gaming experience. The wii can't provide any of these things and THAT is why I don't have one. oh and the controller is a gimmicky piece of crap. Roffle. But, the Wii is at the cutting edge of technology, Wii motion plus and the even the remote itself provides a completely different input method. One that delivers a much more immersive user experience. Pressing buttons is so 1995. And while your points are entirely valid in regards to sound, physics and AI. More often than not the emphasis is on realism. Gaming is clearly splitting off into 2 different directions and I'm much happier with where the Wii is going. A few examples: PES 2009/FIFA 09 - The 'next gen' version offers greater opponant AI, better ball physics, a wealth of online modes, enough options for the gamer to play for weeks on end but B is still shoot, A is still pass and R is still sprint, similar in design to the days of the Mega Drive/SNES era. Where as the Wii version of the game offers IR control of the whole team, not just individual players. In depth tactical movement on-the-fly. Easily cutomised direction of passes/shots. To me, the Wii version clearly is the more immersive version because the other stuff just doesn't matter as much. It's a videogame, I don't care if the Graphics are "realistic" or the sound is authentic, if the ball moves in a way that simulates a real football, or if Rio Ferdinand makes decisions like his real life counterpart. If I wanted a realsitic game of football, I'd get some friends together and go outside. If I wanted a fun game of football, I'd boot up my wii, which I find to be much more 'immersive' than the next gen counterpart. The same applies to shoot 'em ups you can have all the AI, sound, realism, graphics and technology in the world but if you don't have the fullest possible control over what your doing, is that innovation? Is that pushing technology? No that's improving every aspect the hardware constraints allow. So while enemies may be smarter and there's more explodable stuff in the environment which reacts realistically, it's still just a similar FPS but with a massive online mode, replacing the need for any AI anyway. Essentialy the same skills are still involved in mastering it than in 1999. Not everyone has 40inch HDTV's with 7.1 Dolby surround sytems. Infact I'd bet that less than 20% of PS3/XBOX's userbase have this or the equivilent, yet they're the ones who moan about the Wii not pushing technology. They are simply looking at the fact that the Wii looks a bit naff on their expensive TV's, sounds crappy and isn't stiving towards a realistic immersive experience, when in fact, it is... Ultimatly, I'd take any FPS or Sports Game (2 of the main driving forces behind the 'next gen' consoles) on a Wii anyday before a Xbox or PS3 because they provide a much more immersive and fun experience, in my opinion of course. :wink: Edit: Also, is it just me, or is the majority of online gaming a little bit pointless? Oh, look at me I'm ranked 171 in the world on COD5, I'd better play for 2 hours everyday to keep and/or improve my ranking. Where's the sense of achievement? I find online gaming so dull, unless it's with friends of course. But nothing compares to having 4 people in the same room. I can understand co-op games online but everything else is just a little well, futile, if you ask me... Edited March 13, 2009 by Nicktendo
Cube Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 While the Wii Remote helps in immersion (when developers use it correctly), it isn't the be-all and end-all, it needs to be a mixture of things. I often never think about the controller once I've gotten used to a game. I just think about what I want to do in-game and my hands automatically do the necessary things.
Daft Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) But, the Wii is at the cutting edge of technology, Wii motion plus and the even the remote itself provides a completely different input method. One that delivers a much more immersive user experience. Pressing buttons is so 1995. And while your points are entirely valid in regards to sound, physics and AI. More often than not the emphasis is on realism. Gaming is clearly splitting off into 2 different directions and I'm much happier with where the Wii is going. A few examples: PES 2009/FIFA 09 - The 'next gen' version offers greater opponant AI, better ball physics, a wealth of online modes, enough options for the gamer to play for weeks on end but B is still shoot, A is still pass and R is still sprint, similar in design to the days of the Mega Drive/SNES era. Where as the Wii version of the game offers IR control of the whole team, not just individual players. In depth tactical movement on-the-fly. Easily cutomised direction of passes/shots. To me, the Wii version clearly is the more immersive version because the other stuff just doesn't matter as much. It's a videogame, I don't care if the Graphics are "realistic" or the sound is authentic, if the ball moves in a way that simulates a real football, or if Rio Ferdinand makes decisions like his real life counterpart. If I wanted a realsitic game of football, I'd get some friends together and go outside. If I wanted a fun game of football, I'd boot up my wii, which I find to be much more 'immersive' than the next gen counterpart. To be fair, it is quite hard for a lot of people to organise a full on football match as an alternative. Even harder to then go on and win the Premiership or Champions league. The best thing about the latest FIFA is the 'Be A Pro' mode, where you are one player on the pitch. You need very good AI for that to be any good. Also it really isn't hard to customise a pass or a shot in ProEvo or FIFA. Predicting how the AI reacts is where the challenge is. The same applies to shoot 'em ups you can have all the AI, sound, realism, graphics and technology in the world but if you don't have the fullest possible control over what your doing, is that innovation? Is that pushing technology? No that's improving every aspect the hardware constraints allow. So while enemies may be smarter and there's more explodable stuff in the environment which reacts realistically, it's still just a similar FPS but with a massive online mode, replacing the need for any AI anyway. Essentialy the same skills are still involved in mastering it than in 1999. Taking Halo as an example, simply because it's explicitly seen here, playing the game on Normal and on Hard presents an amazing amount of difference. It is basically a completely different game. The AI works amazingly well and achieves the ability to offer different situations with a set gaming environment. Of course the underlining experience is going to be the same but the variations, the unpredictability, is what makes the game fun and engrossing. Also you may have online on the Wii but it is nowhere near as devolped as either PS3 or 360 and that in unison with the superior hardware allows the game to change over time. I don't see how you don't have full control. On the Wii you point, on the other two you push a stick. As soon as you get used to it, and really it only take a bit of time, it becomes seamless. If anything you have way more buttons on the latter two consoles. I'm not sure it would even be possible to map Killzone 2's controls to the Wii. Not everyone has 40inch HDTV's with 7.1 Dolby surround sytems. Infact I'd bet that less than 20% of PS3/XBOX's userbase have this or the equivilent, yet they're the ones who moan about the Wii not pushing technology. They are simply looking at the fact that the Wii looks a bit naff on their expensive TV's, sounds crappy and isn't stiving towards a realistic immersive experience, when in fact, it is... I don't have any sound set up and I've played my PS3 on a 15 year old CRT and it still looks a lot better than the Wii. Edit: Also, is it just me, or is the majority of online gaming a little bit pointless? Oh, look at me I'm ranked 171 in the world on COD5, I'd better play for 2 hours everyday to keep and/or improve my ranking. Where's the sense of achievement? I find online gaming so dull, unless it's with friends of course. But nothing compares to having 4 people in the same room. I can understand co-op games online but everything else is just a little well, futile, if you ask me... Well if you are obsessed with how high you are ranked in the world....well I think that's a bit weird, and I really doubt many people do it, but if you do enjoy that challenge then why not? If I meet up with friends it is never to play games tbh so online just offers a way to play together which is a lot easier. A headset really does do wonders. I often never think about the controller once I've gotten used to a game. I just think about what I want to do in-game and my hands automatically do the necessary things. Well exactly. Doing motions with the Wii-mote is more likely to break my immersion than pressing a button my finger is on or next to. Edited March 13, 2009 by Daft
Dan_Dare Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 But, the Wii is at the cutting edge of technology no it's not. Wii motion plus and the even the remote itself provides a completely different input method. One that delivers a much more immersive user experience. no it doesn't. Pressing buttons is so 1995. ...and it's been perfected. I certainly don't feel more immersed in a game when a vague waggle of a badly designed tv remote makes my character jump instead of pressing a button. The same applies to shoot 'em ups you can have all the AI, sound, realism, graphics and technology in the world but if you don't have the fullest possible control over what your doing, is that innovation? Is that pushing technology?No that' s improving every aspect the hardware constraints allow. Any gamer with any skill or experience shouldn't even notice the controls after about five mins. Lets go to Halo again: I never, ever press the wrong button- to me that's far, far more involving that a bit of faux immersion from a wii remote. Not everyone has 40inch HDTV's with 7.1 Dolby surround sytems. Infact I'd bet that less than 20% of PS3/XBOX's userbase have this or the equivilent, yet they're the ones who moan about the Wii not pushing technology. They are simply looking at the fact that the Wii looks a bit naff on their expensive TV's, sounds crappy and isn't stiving towards a realistic immersive experience, when in fact, it is... only it's not, is it? Also, is it just me, or is the majority of online gaming a little bit pointless? Oh, look at me I'm ranked 171 in the world on COD5, I'd better play for 2 hours everyday to keep and/or improve my ranking. Where's the sense of achievement? I find online gaming so dull, unless it's with friends of course. But nothing compares to having 4 people in the same room. I can understand co-op games online but everything else is just a little well, futile, if you ask me... umm....so jumping around in a giant mushroom collecting stars as a cartoon plumber is less futile? Just seemed an odd point you made there.
Ashley Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Got mine a few days before release and have since amassed 29 games, think MadWorld will be the 30th. There are periods when I don't play it and while I'd like a 360 and PS3 I don't think I can really justify the price. I enjoy the Wii and its more social aspects. oh and the controller is a gimmicky piece of crap. Roffle. You just don't like it because you have special hands Well exactly. Doing motions with the Wii-mote is more likely to break my immersion than pressing a button my finger is on or next to. Weirdly when I was playing Left 4 Dead last week with jayseven whenever I was vommited on I wanted to shake the controller. I have become so used to actions like that that it feels weird to have to press a button...maybe im weird.
Dan_Dare Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 You just don't like it because you have special hands shhh! seriously though, even with simpler games like...uhh...wii bowling! It's not that good, is it? It's a bit naff really.
EchoDesiato Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I got my Wii since launch, and I got my PS3 last summer together with MGS4. They both complement each other very well. The Wii gives me Nintendo games (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, ...) and the rare 3rd party gem (No More Heroes, de Blob, Mad World, ...). My PS3 gives me HD goodness (since when is being a graphics whore bad?), awesome games (Dead Space, RE5, Mirror's Edge, ...), a good and free online service, Blu-ray... I wouldn't want to get rid of either, but I can't deny how my Wii is my least played console of this generation. And I would've gotten a 360 instead of my PS3 if it weren't for MGS4, free online and Blu-ray.
Daft Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Weirdly when I was playing Left 4 Dead last week with jayseven whenever I was vommited on I wanted to shake the controller. I have become so used to actions like that that it feels weird to have to press a button...maybe im weird. You can't do anything about that anyway. When a Boomer gets you, you're a zombie gigolo.
Ashley Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 You can't do anything about that anyway. When a Boomer gets you, you're a zombie gigolo. I know, but I just felt like I should try something, pointless as it was. Other than sit there thinking "not as hot as Grace Park" like I did everytime I saw/heard the name Boomer. shhh! seriously though, even with simpler games like...uhh...wii bowling! It's not that good, is it? It's a bit naff really. The simple stuff can just add something to it. Like de Blob. Trying to make him jump (and he can be a bastard) it just adds a different layer of engagement to flick the Wii remote, as well as feeling more like you put effort into it (theres a theory of more effort = more fun but I can't remember the name but if I did I'd totally say it now!) rather than just pressing a button. But as said, I suppose I've become used to it.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 *snip* And here we have total douchebag and narrowminded graphics whore ruining whole discussion. Where in the hell you pounced anyway?
Daft Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 more effort = more fun What type of effort? Physical? Mental? I'd argue, successfully, that mental effort is a much more important contribution to any game.
Recommended Posts