Restored faith in nintendo?

[Zechs Merquise]

I only replied to your first load of nonsense yesterday as shockingly I had to go and play COD on the Wii. However there are some real gems in the second post you made too.

 

I am pretty sure I didn't say that since I did own a Wii. I have owned every Nintendo console apart from the 3DS. I hated the Wii as the graphics were terrible and the controller just didn't work for me. The GameCube controller and the Xbox 360 controller were so much better, but that is just my opinion. Nintendo had to re-release the controller with motion plus because it was so bad.

 

The claim that any console has ‘terrible graphics’ is nonsense. Every console has technical limitations – but it’s not down to the console how good a game looks, it’s down to what the developer does with the hardware. What’s more, graphics aren’t all about the number of polygons, shaders, textures and the complexity of the models and game world. Graphics are also about art style and direction. A game like Red Steel 2 or Kirby’s Epic Yarn can be far more visually appealing than a generic shooter that pushes powerful hardware to the limit yet is painted in drab greys and browns and is actually pretty mundane.

 

By your supreme logic, if the Wii has ‘terrible graphics’ then by extension the SNES must have the most awful graphics imaginable! Well fire up Yoshi’s Island on the SNES and you’ll see a game that looks so beautiful and has such a charming style you might re-consider your absurd position on this issue. If you think the ‘graphics were terrible’ on the Wii you clearly never played Mario Galaxy, Skyward Sword, Muramasa, Red Steel 2, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Madworld, Xenoblade, Goldeneye 007, Punch Out, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Rayman Origins etc etc. The Wii pushed developers to actually come up with inventive and pleasing art styles that were very different to the cookie cutter visual styles being churned out in brown and grey on the other systems.

 

I wonder were you one of the people who got all butt hurt and angst ridden when Kirby’s Epic Yarn won the award for best looking game at E3 when it was unveiled?

 

I didn't say that Sony and Microsoft need to think twice about plowing money into consoles with decent specs. I hope they do because the Xbox 360 and PS4 were bargains for the consumer, unlike the Wii, which was a rebranded GameCube (you could buy one for £79.99) with a new controller.

 

A bargain and being affordable are two very different things though aren’t they? A brand new Ferrari for £100,000 might be a bargain – but it’s still not affordable. What’s more, why were the PS3 and XBOX360 such bargains? What did they offer that was so new? They were just expensive ways of playing existing games in a higher visual fidelity. That’s all well and good, but the Wii was a lot cheaper and offered new exiting experiences that engaged people in gaming that previously weren’t interested.

 

The case could easily be made that buying something that simply allows you to do the same thing you’ve done before in the same way as you’ve always done it but with better graphics is not that much of a bargain after all.

 

Thanks kav82, you are welcome to call my post one of the most retarded and uninformed you've ever seen, but it's quite similar to what everybody else here is saying, apart from the fan boys.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you have CoD on the Wii? Don't you have an Xbox or PS3?

 

Anyway, you guys are welcome to feel outraged by somebody giving their opinion. I might buy a Wii U at some point, but I don't even know where I would put the controller when not using it, so can't fathom even owning one at the moment. I'll probably get the next Xbox or Playstation and rely more on my PC.

 

People play COD on the Wii because it offers a different experience. Until you’ve played COD using the Wii remote you can’t possibly understand just how limiting a control pad actually is. The Wii offers a different and unique experience – something that the Wii U will do.

 

But if you’re not even creative enough to think of where to put the Wii U controller when you’re not using it, then you’re hardly going to understand any of the deeper points I’ve made in my post.

 

 

[Cube]

Until you’ve played COD using the Wii remote you can’t possibly understand just how limiting a control pad actually is.

 

As someone who has played many FPS games on Wii, PC and 360/PS3, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Zechs Merquise]

As someone who has played many FPS games on Wii, PC and 360/PS3, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

Well… When you play an FPS on the PC and you’re using the mouse and keyboard the WASD keys govern your forward, backward and left and right. The mouse aims your weapon and causes you to turn as you take the curser to the edge of the screen. However the aiming reticule is free so you can quickly point your weapon anywhere on the screen without angling your entire view at what you’re aiming at. The stability and precision of the mouse also means aiming is far more accurate.

 

When using the Wii remote it’s set up in much the same way. The nunchuck allows you to move forward, backward, left and right just as the WASD keys do on the keyboard. The remote pointer acts like the mouse and gives you a free floating reticule. In many Wii games you can set what is called a ‘dead zone’. The dead zone is an area which when the mouse reticule is within that area your view what turn. This allows the reticule to move within the dead zone without causing you to move from your current trajectory. When you move outside of that zone you begin turning. This allows you to run in one direction and shoot to the left or right without angling your entire view at what you are aiming at.

 

When you a standard control pad the experience is very different. You use the left thumb stick for moving (it’s the WASD keys) and the right one for aiming. However the reticule is constantly fixed in the centre of the screen. This means that if you are to aim at anything your entire screen must look at what you’re aiming at. This lack of free reticule makes it feel as if you’re ‘piloting’ or ‘driving’ your character rather than running freely and angling a weapon. This means that rather than singly aiming a weapon you actually aim your entire perspective at what you are shooting at.

 

The other big difference between the mouse keyboard/Wii remote style of aiming and the thumb sticks is that the thumb sticks are much less accurate. This can be seen by the fact that when using a pad there’s always a significant degree of what is known as aim assist. This is the magical force that causes your gun to almost twitch toward an enemy. This is because developers give the player a small helping hand as thumb sticks aren’t as smooth or precise.

 

So essentially, whilst thumb sticks are still perfectly serviceable and many enjoy playing with them, they do not allow for the same speed or accuracy when aiming or allow a free floating reticule. Instead the sticks rely on auto-aim and a fixed reticule which never moves from the centre of the screen.

[jayseven]

Zechs you seem to strive in taking apart someone's argument simply by taking it at face value rather than actually understanding what was being said. You also like to portray your opinion as fact.

 

graphics aren’t all about the number of polygons, shaders, textures and the complexity of the models and game world. Graphics are also about art style and direction.

By saying "also" you agree that polygons, shaders, textures and teh complexity of teh models and game world are contributing factors that are important when considering the quality of graphics. Your suggestion that art style and direction are more important is fair enough, but it does overlook the fact that polygons, shaders, textures, and the complexity of the models and game world are things that would fall under the umbrella of direction/style. By suggesting that style/direction are of the utmost importance you are indeed recognising that these other factors are very important as well.

 

Yet you are kind enough to acknowledge -- and indeed reword the actual point that was made; the other consoles have - and I quote you - more "powerful hardware". By definition, more powerful hardware would offer a grander scope to the art direction or style of any game in development. Would you disagree?

 

By your supreme logic, the best console is the one which appeals to the broadest, newest market. I therefore propose that we ONLY make games in chinese from now on, because by default these will be the best games ever made, due to 'appealing' to the greatest proportion of people in existence.

 

The case could easily be made that buying something that simply allows you to do the same thing you’ve done before in the same way as you’ve always done it but with better graphics is not that much of a bargain after all.

The case could even more easily be made to argue that buying a Wii U to play games that are already available elsewhere, but with a better controller, is not much of a bargain either.

 

I understand that you feel that you have chosen to be a nintendo-only gamer, and that's fine. But an experience being 'different' is not necessarily better. A different experience can be novel, humorous and temporarily quaint. If I choose to drink a coffee from a thimble rather than a cup then it will be a different experience. Sure, it won't be as high-caffeination or as easy to hold, but it's a different experience, therefore totally worth paying £5 for the thimble alone.

 

if you're not creative enough to read between the words and understand what another's opinion is expressing, then you're hardly going to understand the deeper points of my post.

[Rummy]

@Deathjam I'm apathetic to a lot of video gaming these days! I have so much backlogged for my Wii(yet to finish Xenoblade, which is without doubt absolutely awesome, I just don't wanna see it end); but the handheld in the form of the 3DS is keeping me going, somewhat. My faith in Nintendo console-wise is still pretty weak, and I've not even been bothered enough to keep up with the Wii U news, its pricepoint is a major no-no for me considering how much gaming I *don't* do at the moment. I can't believe they haven't even got Pikmin 3 ready for launch day, and generally a lot of what they do constantly annoys me more and more that I care less and less for them. I feel like I've put my faith in Nintendo so many times and been let down, that I just can't even be bothered this time. I'll wait and see them mess it all up, as they constantly do, and let us all down again.

[Cube]

Zechs, I fully understand how the three methods are different. It's just that they are all as enjoyable as each other, and all have advantages and disadvantages. For long gaming sessions, I would always choose a standard controller.

[Zechs Merquise]

Zechs you seem to strive in taking apart someone's argument simply by taking it at face value rather than actually understanding what was being said. You also like to portray your opinion as fact.

 

I’m not sure how I should take his argument at anything other than face value? I don’t portray my opinion as anything other than what it is – an opinion. I will make no apology for articulating it in such a way that is clearly demolishes a post that is so full of rubbish it’s untrue. If you go back to the original post that I am clearly commenting on' date=' you will say that the original poster claimed to ‘hate’ the Wii because it ‘had terrible graphics’. If anything is a ludicrous statement attempting to masquerade as truth it is that.

 

By saying "also" you agree that polygons, shaders, textures and teh complexity of teh models and game world are contributing factors that are important when considering the quality of graphics. Your suggestion that art style and direction are more important is fair enough, but it does overlook the fact that polygons, shaders, textures, and the complexity of the models and game world are things that would fall under the umbrella of direction/style. By suggesting that style/direction are of the utmost importance you are indeed recognising that these other factors are very important as well.

 

Clearly, I never once stated that art direction was solely what made a game look good – hence my use of the word ‘also’. Obviously games can look better as hardware improves – I never said graphics haven’t improved. My point clearly illustrated that there is more to graphics than just the number of polygons etc. By the logic of the original poster the games with the ‘best’ graphics would always be on the most powerful system and all other systems would be redundant. That is not the case – as illustrated by the awards that Kirby’s Epic Yarn won for its visual appeal, which wasn’t down to power, but artistic direction.

 

Yet you are kind enough to acknowledge -- and indeed reword the actual point that was made; the other consoles have - and I quote you - more "powerful hardware". By definition' date=' [i']more powerful hardware[/i] would offer a grander scope to the art direction or style of any game in development. Would you disagree?

 

Often power does equate to a more grandiose game world. However I would argue that some of the best looking games this generation were on the Wii – simply because due to the Wii’s hardware it forced developers to think more creatively about how to present a stunning looking game. What’s more there’s more than one way to use a console’s power. Just take the BF3/COD argument. BF3 may look better in stills, it might look slightly more realistic and have slightly better models and environments – but it runs at 30fps. COD runs at 60fps. I know which I’d rather have. The point of all this is quite simple, in the race to have the prettiest games I feel people have focused increasingly on power and trying to push realism – but sometimes this ends up producing either cookie cutter games or a situation where developers lose sight of what makes a game good. The BF3 and COD example is typical of the later. DICE pushed the graphical limits of the console, great stuff, but I’d rather have a shooter look slightly less photo realistic and move more smoothly as that affects the gameplay.

 

By your supreme logic' date=' the best console is the one which appeals to the broadest, newest market. I therefore propose that we ONLY make games in chinese from now on, because by default these will be the best games ever made, due to 'appealing' to the greatest proportion of people in existence.

 

The case could even more easily be made to argue that buying a Wii U to play games that are already available elsewhere, but with a better controller, is not much of a bargain either.

 

I understand that you feel that you have chosen to be a nintendo-only gamer, and that's fine. But an experience being 'different' is not necessarily [i']better[/i]. A different experience can be novel, humorous and temporarily quaint. If I choose to drink a coffee from a thimble rather than a cup then it will be a different experience. Sure, it won't be as high-caffeination or as easy to hold, but it's a different experience, therefore totally worth paying £5 for the thimble alone.

 

You see what you’ve done there is taken my argument and run it out to an illogical extreme to try and prove some bizarre point.

 

But however you try to belittle my point it still stands. Nintendo offered a different experience. When other console manufacturers were only concerned with the way games looked, Nintendo decided to approach the way we experience games and the way they play.

 

You go on to say this might be ‘quaint’ and different may not be better. Well if that was the case then why did Microsoft and Sony spend millions (if not billions) playing catch up and developing their own ways of doing what Nintendo pioneered?

 

if you're not creative enough to read between the words and understand what another's opinion is expressing' date=' then you're hardly going to understand the deeper points of my post.[/quote']

 

And finally you end your criticism of my post on a strange point – that I should look for hidden depth in the original post. I’m not creative because I didn’t understand the point that someone ‘hated’ the Wii because it had ‘terrible graphics’. I understand all right. Someone took one look at the Wii and discounted it because it wasn’t on paper as capable as other consoles.

However in reality this person never experienced some of the best-selling and most critically acclaimed games of this generation. Mario Galaxy, Monster Hunter 3, Skyward Sword, Xenoblade, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Country Returns… I could go on.

 

Maybe if the original poster had looked for the depth in those Wii games rather than judging them beforehand off a spec sheet he wouldn't have missed out on so many amazing gaming experiences.

[Kav]

If you've not read Pyxis' initial post then arguing against Zechs' post is moot.

 

I understand what you're all trying to get at but seriously, Pyxis' post is just trash.

[jayseven]

I’m not sure how I should take his argument at anything other than face value? I don’t portray my opinion as anything other than what it is – an opinion. I will make no apology for articulating it in such a way that is clearly demolishes a post that is so full of rubbish it’s untrue. If you go back to the original post that I am clearly commenting on, you will say that the original poster claimed to ‘hate’ the Wii because it ‘had terrible graphics’. If anything is a ludicrous statement attempting to masquerade as truth it is that.

Clear demolition of untrue rubbish is, in itself, an opinionated statement that makes no sense, nor bears any relevence to reality.

 

The Wii having 'terrible graphics' is not a ludicrous statement masquerading as truth. It is an opinion, catwalking as opinion. This is what I mean when I said that you needed to look at the OP's comment "creatively".

 

 

Clearly, I never once stated that art direction was solely what made a game look good – hence my use of the word ‘also’. Obviously games can look better as hardware improves – I never said graphics haven’t improved. My point clearly illustrated that there is more to graphics than just the number of polygons etc. By the logic of the original poster the games with the ‘best’ graphics would always be on the most powerful system and all other systems would be redundant. That is not the case – as illustrated by the awards that Kirby’s Epic Yarn won for its visual appeal, which wasn’t down to power, but artistic direction.

Yet you shun someone else saying that those elements are important. That's what I was pulling you up on.

 

I still think it's fair to say that "the best graphics" tends to equate to highest poly count/most realistic. When we are talking about games with art/style we don't insult it by just saying 'best graphics ever!' do we? We stress the way it's so great; colourful, dream-like, charming, etc. Even by your own opinion, the 'best' looking games could've looked 'better' on a higher-powered console. That's all the argument is, so why fight it?

 

P.S. What awards did KEY win? What games won it in previous years? Just wondering.

 

Often power does equate to a more grandiose game world. However I would argue that some of the best looking games this generation were on the Wii – simply because due to the Wii’s hardware it forced developers to think more creatively about how to present a stunning looking game. What’s more there’s more than one way to use a console’s power.

Would it be fair to say that a game's graphics =/= a game's greatness? Then why so fierce to state that the wii has the best-looking games of a generation? We both understand that this is still just your opinion (which you have already agreed is not something that equates to fact or truth, therefore you are aware that just because you prefer the wii games it doesn't mean they're BETTER)?

 

Just take the BF3/COD argument. BF3 may look better in stills, it might look slightly more realistic and have slightly better models and environments – but it runs at 30fps. COD runs at 60fps. I know which I’d rather have. The point of all this is quite simple, in the race to have the prettiest games I feel people have focused increasingly on power and trying to push realism – but sometimes this ends up producing either cookie cutter games or a situation where developers lose sight of what makes a game good. The BF3 and COD example is typical of the later. DICE pushed the graphical limits of the console, great stuff, but I’d rather have a shooter look slightly less photo realistic and move more smoothly as that affects the gameplay.

Don't care.

 

You see what you’ve done thre is taken my argument and run it out to an illogical extreme to try and prove some bizarre point.

Well spotted! yes, that was what I did. I took your 'logic' and made it ill. Just as you did to Our Precious OP.

 

But however you try to belittle my point it still stands. Nintendo offered a different experience. When other console manufacturers were only concerned with the way games looked, Nintendo decided to approach the way we experience games and the way they play.

... So? No matter how you belittle my belittling, my point still stands.

 

You go on to say this might be ‘quaint’ and different may not be better. Well if that was the case then why did Microsoft and Sony spend millions (if not billions) playing catch up and developing their own ways of doing what Nintendo pioneered?

Are you seriously saying that different DOES mean better?

 

Are you also saying that money making = the best? Because these are statements that should go on record.

 

And finally you end your criticism of my post on a strange point – that I should look for hidden depth in the original post. I’m not creative because I didn’t understand the point that someone ‘hated’ the Wii because it had ‘terrible graphics’. I understand all right. Someone took one look at the Wii and discounted it because it wasn’t on paper as capable as other consoles.

However in reality this person never experienced some of the best-selling and most critically acclaimed games of this generation. Mario Galaxy, Monster Hunter 3, Skyward Sword, Xenoblade, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Country Returns… I could go on.

 

Maybe if the original poster had looked for the depth in those Wii games rather than judging them beforehand off a spec sheet he wouldn't have missed out on so many amazing gaming experiences.

I get the impression there's some running knowledge about certain posters on this board that I am not familiar with, but the post we're referring to didn't attempt to spin facts like you did, and stuck firmly in the first person - they were explicit in demonstrating their personal opinion. I appreciate that you wanted to prove them wrong, but I don't agree that you do it the best way possible.

 

(it's 12 midnight for me - so I hope my post makes sense. I feel we're stretching the fight out across several fronts, but I'd be interested in debating with you again. in the vein hope that I could get you to admit something)

[Deathjam]

@Deathjam I'm apathetic to a lot of video gaming these days! I have so much backlogged for my Wii(yet to finish Xenoblade, which is without doubt absolutely awesome, I just don't wanna see it end); but the handheld in the form of the 3DS is keeping me going, somewhat. My faith in Nintendo console-wise is still pretty weak, and I've not even been bothered enough to keep up with the Wii U news, its pricepoint is a major no-no for me considering how much gaming I *don't* do at the moment. I can't believe they haven't even got Pikmin 3 ready for launch day, and generally a lot of what they do constantly annoys me more and more that I care less and less for them. I feel like I've put my faith in Nintendo so many times and been let down, that I just can't even be bothered this time. I'll wait and see them mess it all up, as they constantly do, and let us all down again.

 

I started my post saying my faith was only somewhat restored, and that I am trying to be cautious, but really all that has happened is that Nintendo have made some initial choices that have caught my interest, and made me more willing to gamble on another console. I guess that is the extent of my 'faith'.

[Zechs Merquise]

Clear demolition of untrue rubbish is' date=' in itself, an opinionated statement that makes no sense, nor bears any relevence to reality.

 

The Wii having 'terrible graphics' is not a ludicrous statement masquerading as truth. It is an opinion, catwalking as opinion. This is what I mean when I said that [i']you[/i] needed to look at the OP's comment "creatively".

 

Yet you shun someone else saying that those elements are important. That's what I was pulling you up on.

 

Firstly, I don’t know where you get the nonsense from that anything is masquerading as truth. Let’s make this nice and simple – when people write a post on an internet forum it is their opinion. Truth refers to statements of fact. I never stated the OP was raising any points and calling them facts, I just pulled his arguments apart and showed his opinions up for what they are – poorly constructed attacks on Nintendo which are illogically formed (as I will further prove in this post).

 

One fact I did state is that consoles can’t have terrible graphics. Consoles may have different specs, but it’s down to the developers how they use them.

 

I still think it's fair to say that "the best graphics" tends to equate to highest poly count/most realistic. When we are talking about games with art/style we don't insult it by just saying 'best graphics ever!' do we? We stress the way it's so great; colourful' date=' dream-like, charming, etc. Even by your own opinion, the 'best' looking games could've looked 'better' on a higher-powered console. That's all the argument is, so why fight it? [/quote']

 

Why fight it? Because I don’t agree with it – the most powerful consoles don’t always produce the best looking games and the best looking games aren’t always the ones that are the most realistic or have the highest polygon counts. Sometimes a creative developer can utilise less powerful hardware and produce a stunning game. Just take Skyward Sword – the effect used when the scenery moves into the background makes it feel like you’re actually in a world that has been painted. Objects at distance become dabbled, then as they come into vision they take shape – just as an artist would paint individual leaves on a tree in the distance. I’ve never seen this effect before and I thought it was wonderful. This was on the less powerful console – which is the point, it’s not just about power under the hood, it’s how developers use it.

 

P.S. What awards did KEY win? What games won it in previous years? Just wondering.

 

Kirby's Epic Yarn won numerous awards following its E3 2010 appearance' date=' including the prestigious Game of the Show award from GameSpot and the G4 television show Reviews on the Run. GameSpot also nominated it for the Best Wii Game, Best Platformer and named it as Best Graphics.[21'] The game received the award for Best Overall Game from Nintendo Life as well.[22] Additionally, it won the Best Graphics award from GameTrailers, beating out notable contenders like Crysis 2, Killzone 3, and Gears of War 3.[23] GameTrailers also awarded it the Best Platformer title.[24] It was named Best Wii Game by 1UP.com,[25] Nintendo World Report[26] and Kotaku, and awarded Best Character Design by Kotaku as well. It was also ranked #95 in IGN's "Top 100 Modern Games".[27] – from Wikipedia.

 

Now as OP clearly can’t bear to play the Wii due to all the terrible graphics – it’s funny that a Wii game won awards for graphics ahead of games that appeared on technically superior machines. I used this example to prove that although a machine may be more powerful it doesn’t necessarily produce better graphics as there is more than just raw power behind a game’s graphical appeal – this is the artistic direction.

 

Would it be fair to say that a game's graphics =/= a game's greatness? Then why so fierce to state that the wii has the best-looking games of a generation? We both understand that this is still just your opinion (which you have already agreed is not something that equates to fact or truth' date=' therefore you are aware that just because you prefer the wii games it doesn't mean they're BETTER)? [/quote']

 

I said all along that graphics don’t mean the game will be great. But my other point was that great graphics don’t necessarily come from processing power but artistic direction. I then went to point out – to someone who is gleefully telling everyone that he didn’t play the Wii because the graphics were ‘terrible’ that he not only missed out on great gameplay but also on playing some beautiful games (which clearly he views as important). Again, it’s obviously my opinion as I wrote in a post under my name. Every time I articulate myself I don’t put a disclaimer on it to state it’s just my opinion, that’s inferred from that fact that I’m the one giving the opinion.

 

Are you also saying that money making = the best? Because these are statements that should go on record.

 

No' date=' but there’s usually two tests of whether something is a success – critical and commercial. Nintendo have ticked both boxes with a large number of releases on the Wii. And as is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so not only have Nintendo enjoyed critical and commercial success they’ve also been copied by their competitors! Hence my point being two fold – firstly OP has missed out on highly acclaimed games – secondly the companies he clearly loves and thinks are doing it the ‘right’ way are now busy copying Nintendo!

 

I get the impression there's some running knowledge about certain posters on this board that I am not familiar with, but the post we're referring to didn't attempt to spin facts like you did, and stuck firmly in the first person - they were explicit in demonstrating their personal opinion. I appreciate that you wanted to prove them wrong, but I don't agree that you do it the best way possible.

 

(it's 12 midnight for me - so I hope my post makes sense. I feel we're stretching the fight out across several fronts, but I'd be interested in debating with you again. in the vein hope that I could get you to admit something)

 

I haven’t spun any facts, just stated my opinion. As it’s me stating it, I don’t need to post tags at the end of every sentence reminding people they’re my opinions. I have nothing to admit, I have been clear and concise and proved my points on several levels with a mixture of facts and logical truthful statements which happen to be my opinions!

[dazzybee]

Can i just say zechs and jay that I've actually really enjoyed your little debate, and kudos to the both of you for intelligently and without resorting to sniping and tuning ugly expressing your opinions and objections. Refreshing.

[markderoos]

Yeah, it definately beats counting sheep! :p

 

No, just joking with you guys, nice to see a debate not slipping into foul language and blind hatred!

[jayseven]

Firstly, I don’t know where you get the nonsense from that anything is masquerading as truth. Let’s make this nice and simple – when people write a post on an internet forum it is their opinion. Truth refers to statements of fact. I never stated the OP was raising any points and calling them facts, I just pulled his arguments apart and showed his opinions up for what they are – poorly constructed attacks on Nintendo which are illogically formed (as I will further prove in this post).

 

One fact I did state is that consoles can’t have terrible graphics. Consoles may have different specs, but it’s down to the developers how they use them.

I disagree with the sentiment you offer. It is certainly true that if you take today's games and hold them to yesterday's then you'll find positives, and also in each generation you have well- and poorly-designed games. However, I do agree that posts are largely formed from the opinion of the poster, and I feel that this heavily taints the post itself, as we are about to find is the case with your post as well.

 

(i.e. that you are often also illogical)

Why fight it? Because I don’t agree with it – the most powerful consoles don’t always produce the best looking games and the best looking games aren’t always the ones that are the most realistic or have the highest polygon counts. Sometimes a creative developer can utilise less powerful hardware and produce a stunning game. Just take Skyward Sword – the effect used when the scenery moves into the background makes it feel like you’re actually in a world that has been painted. Objects at distance become dabbled, then as they come into vision they take shape – just as an artist would paint individual leaves on a tree in the distance. I’ve never seen this effect before and I thought it was wonderful. This was on the less powerful console – which is the point, it’s not just about power under the hood, it’s how developers use it.

This all boils down to how one quantifies the 'best looking game'. I need you to realise that you are biased. Yes, the best looking games aren't always the most realistic or have the highest polygon counts (seriously, do people still count polygons?). Yes, sometimes a creativ dev can utilise less powerful hardware. BUT the point stands; couldn't that game have looked better on a higher-spec console? The argument isn't that good games ONLY exist on other consoles.

 

Kirby's Epic Yarn won numerous awards following its E3 2010 appearance, including the prestigious Game of the Show award from GameSpot and the G4 television show Reviews on the Run. GameSpot also nominated it for the Best Wii Game, Best Platformer and named it as Best Graphics.[21] The game received the award for Best Overall Game from Nintendo Life as well.[22] Additionally, it won the Best Graphics award from GameTrailers, beating out notable contenders like Crysis 2, Killzone 3, and Gears of War 3.[23] GameTrailers also awarded it the Best Platformer title.[24] It was named Best Wii Game by 1UP.com,[25] Nintendo World Report[26] and Kotaku, and awarded Best Character Design by Kotaku as well. It was also ranked #95 in IGN's "Top 100 Modern Games".[27] – from Wikipedia.

2011 Gamespot winner (and IGN's) was Uncharted 3. How does that fare when you're talking about polygons and generic games? Did you check those sources?

- a nintendo magazine rated it well

- it was only nominated for some awards. Other games won

- best wii game is not accounting for other consoles, either!

- 95 out of 100 isn't BAD but it does kind of suggest that there are 94 better games out there, which suggests that your list of "best games this generation" is going to pale in comparison to other consoles

 

What I'm saying here is simple; I agree that graphics do not have to be uber-realistic. I am not saying KEY is rubbish. I am not saying that developers are incapable of taking advantage of whatever hardware they have in front of them. I am stating a fact, not an opinion; the wii is not as good as the other consoles at producing graphics. That is the argument. KEY could've been made with the 'constraints' of the other consoles, while Uncharted 3 could not have been made. It would've had to 'suffer' a hit to the graphics department. This does not mean it would be a WORSE game. I just need to understand that you are actually capable of recognising facts such as this.

 

Now as OP clearly can’t bear to play the Wii due to all the terrible graphics – it’s funny that a Wii game won awards for graphics ahead of games that appeared on technically superior machines. I used this example to prove that although a machine may be more powerful it doesn’t necessarily produce better graphics as there is more than just raw power behind a game’s graphical appeal – this is the artistic direction.

I do not doubt this. But you have to recognise thatobjectively it is entirely fair to say that the graphics for the wii are worse than the other consoles. When I say that you spin what is said I mean that you decline to recognise the facets of truth in what was said and instead decide to zoom in on the other elements that are more to your liking.

 

I said all along that graphics don’t mean the game will be great. But my other point was that great graphics don’t necessarily come from processing power but artistic direction. I then went to point out – to someone who is gleefully telling everyone that he didn’t play the Wii because the graphics were ‘terrible’ that he not only missed out on great gameplay but also on playing some beautiful games (which clearly he views as important). Again, it’s obviously my opinion as I wrote in a post under my name. Every time I articulate myself I don’t put a disclaimer on it to state it’s just my opinion, that’s inferred from that fact that I’m the one giving the opinion.

It is your added tones to situations, like stating he "gleefully" did this, which further my point that you aim to project your opinion as fact.

 

We agree that graphics are not the be-all and end-all. OP's statement is still relevant because I believe it is fair enough to say that the wii's graphics are worse than the other consoles.

 

I do not ask that you put a disclaimer, I just ask that you recognise that the power of using particular words conveys information in a particular way. I also ask you to recognise that whilst you so vehemantly demand that your opinion status be seen, you similarly are as quick to ignore the opinion element of others. If you understand that OP's comment was just, like, his opinion, man, then why did you have to react so sincerely - why did you have to make such an effort to prove him wrong?

 

In regards to him missing out on great gameplay - I'm arguing that anyone who just owns one console is going to miss out on great gameplay everywhere. I'm sure we can agree on that.

 

No, but there’s usually two tests of whether something is a success – critical and commercial. Nintendo have ticked both boxes with a large number of releases on the Wii. And as is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so not only have Nintendo enjoyed critical and commercial success they’ve also been copied by their competitors! Hence my point being two fold – firstly OP has missed out on highly acclaimed games – secondly the companies he clearly loves and thinks are doing it the ‘right’ way are now busy copying Nintendo!

Nintendo has been the most commercially successful console of this generation, but you have to realise that this is largely born from expanding their userbase into areas which previously were not interested. While this benefits Nintendo, this has not directly benefitted the gamer. Sure, more Nintendo-money means that there's more chance of seeing a great new Nintendo game that does appeal to the core gamer, but it cannot be ignored that the wii is to blame for the shift, for the watering down of this generation.

 

I agree that other consoles are imitating - I also stress that people who own other consoles think it is a negative thing. While Nintendo has successfully expanded their userbase (how would you describe this new userbase? What demographics are now included?), they have also lost much of their core, who have moved to other consoles.

 

I motion that just as graphics aren't definitions of great games, that money making is also not the sole marker of great consoles.

 

I have missed out on just as many wii games as the OP, and I've simply not seen enough justification for buying a wii in order to experience them. I can enjoy an array of experiences and games without investing in a wii -- and I'd gladly argue (perhaps elsewhere?) that other consoles have a larger choice of good games.

 

I haven’t spun any facts, just stated my opinion. As it’s me stating it, I don’t need to post tags at the end of every sentence reminding people they’re my opinions. I have nothing to admit, I have been clear and concise and proved my points on several levels with a mixture of facts and logical truthful statements which happen to be my opinions!

I have issue with how you form your argument, because you lie by omission and because your zealotic nature means you come across as fairly blinkered. I also think you are incredibly defensive of the Wii.

 

You have spun facts. By adding "gleefully" and other modifiers to how you describe factual things, you alter them to become opinions. By shading every element of truth with a fragment of opinion you serve up watered down, soupy arguments. I agree that you can be clear and concise, but I think that arguing requires the ability to use your eyes and ears as well as your mouth and hands to communicate.

 

@dazzybee and @markderoos thank you for your comments One of my mantras is an argument is not the same as a fight.

[pratty]

I don't know if my faith is any more restored, or even lost to begin with. Nintendo are just being Nintendo, there's good and bad. Sure they make some unpopular and baffling decissions sometimes, but overall I haven't really felt let down by a Nintendo console. The good has always outweighed the bad, and I expect that to continue with Wii-U.

 

I think the idea of one console to rule them all is just a gamer's a pipe dream. Each console will have exclusives worth playing, aswell as unique features. People who felt they didn't need a Wii just because of how technically inferior it was missed out on some amazing games. More fool them if they think specs are everything.

 

Will the Wii-U lose 3rd party support when the PS4 and 20 are released? Maybe, but it doesn't have to happen, the PS2 didn't suffer because of the Xbox, and with the economy in the gutter maybe the (relatively) cheap and cheerful approach to software/hardware this gen is more prudent.

[Zechs Merquise]

I disagree with the sentiment you offer. It is certainly true that if you take today's games and hold them to yesterday's then you'll find positives' date=' and also in each generation you have well- and poorly-designed games. However, I do agree that posts are largely formed from the opinion of the poster, and I feel that this heavily taints the post itself, as we are about to find is the case with your post as well. [/quote']

 

If you feel that posts that are largely formed from the opinion of the poster ‘taint’ the post then you are entirely missing the point of having a discussion forum. People have discussion forums (which this is) to impart their opinions on games and gaming. By your logic we’d only ever state facts. If all this forum did was serve as a place for gamers to post purely factual statements then I’m sure less people would use it. What’s more, plenty of my post was in factual and logical – as I will explain again.

 

This all boils down to how one quantifies the 'best looking game'. I need you to realise that you are biased. Yes' date=' the best looking games aren't always the most realistic or have the highest polygon counts (seriously, do people still count polygons?). Yes, sometimes a creativ dev can utilise less powerful hardware. BUT the point stands; couldn't that game have looked better on a higher-spec console? The argument isn't that good games ONLY exist on other consoles. [/quote']

 

This is what I have been saying all along – great looking games can be a mixture of technically stunning environments or artistically driven, creative hand drawn sprites. Look at Muramasa – it certainly isn’t pushing polygon counts or realistic environments but looks jaw beautiful. And are simply reinforcing my point – a console doesn’t have ‘graphics’ (as OP mistakenly stated), consoles have specs which allow for developers to create games. In theory a more powerful console should produce better looking games – but in reality that is not always the case. My point also went on to state that due to the Wii being less powerful it forced developers to think creatively and push the art in games and come up with different styles.

 

2011 Gamespot winner (and IGN's) was Uncharted 3. How does that fare when you're talking about polygons and generic games? Did you check those sources?

- a nintendo magazine rated it well

- it was only nominated for some awards. Other games won

- best wii game is not accounting for other consoles' date=' either!

- 95 out of 100 isn't BAD but it does kind of suggest that there are 94 better games out there, which suggests that your list of "best games this generation" is going to pale in comparison to other consoles[/quote']

 

Firstly, Kirby’s Epic Yarn won numerous awards – I’m not going around the internet searching for every single one. Secondly, I never stated it won the best looking game award from every site. It did however win the best looking game award from Gametrailers and Invisible Walls which is one of the largest most respected sites on the internet and IW is one of the most listened to gaming podcasts on the net. What’s more, Gamespot awarded it Game of the Show – which basically proves my other point that Wii games must not be automatically inferior to games on the PS3 or the 360 which OP stated.

 

What I'm saying here is simple; I agree that graphics do not have to be uber-realistic. I am not saying KEY is rubbish. I am not saying that developers are incapable of taking advantage of whatever hardware they have in front of them. I am stating a fact' date=' not an opinion; the wii is not as good as the other consoles at producing graphics. That is the argument. KEY [i']could've[/i] been made with the 'constraints' of the other consoles, while Uncharted 3 could not have been made. It would've had to 'suffer' a hit to the graphics department. This does not mean it would be a WORSE game. I just need to understand that you are actually capable of recognising facts such as this.

 

Of course I am capable of understanding the Wii doesn’t have the same specifications as the PS3 or 360. I never said it did. I simply pointed out the following:

 

1) Consoles don’t have ‘graphics’ – they have specifications.

2) Not all Wii games look ‘terrible’ in fact many are very good looking and some look better than games on the ‘HD consoles’

3) The Wii has forced developers to be creative to make games look special.

4) If someone has discounted the Wii this generation they have missed out on a lot of good gameplay experiences – and that’s really what gaming is about.

 

I do not doubt this. But you have to recognise thatobjectively it is entirely fair to say that the graphics for the wii are worse than the other consoles. When I say that you spin what is said I mean that you decline to recognise the facets of truth in what was said and instead decide to zoom in on the other elements that are more to your liking.

 

I have repeatedly said right from the beginning that consoles have specifications – not graphics. The higher the specification is the better looking the game – or so we are lead to believe. However I have stated that isn’t always the case. What’s more OP said the Wii had ‘terrible’ graphics. The Wii has produced some stunning looking games which have won awards for their visual style and flair. I haven’t tried to ‘zoom in’ on anything. I’ve merely stated that there’s more to graphics than just pushing a game closer to realism through sheer processing power. Hence why when I fire up my SNES Yoshi’s Island still looks incredible!

 

It is your added tones to situations' date=' like stating he "gleefully" did this, which further my point that you aim to project your opinion as fact. [/quote']

 

I shall have to congratulate my schooling and English teachers for furnishing me with the vocabulary to paint my arguments in more vivid and engaging tones!

 

We agree that graphics are not the be-all and end-all. OP's statement is still relevant because I believe it is fair enough to say that the wii's graphics are worse than the other consoles.

 

That wasn’t OP’s original argument. OP came onto a Nintendo forum to tell Nintendo fans that the graphics on the Wii were ‘terrible’. No one is saying that the specification of the Wii matches the PS3 or 360' date=' it clearly doesn’t. In theory all PS3 and 360 games should apparently look better than Wii games – in practice this is far from the truth as there is more to graphics than just the processing power of the system. And if we both agree that graphics are not the be-all and end-all then how come you are not also criticising OP?

 

I do not ask that you put a disclaimer, I just ask that you recognise that the power of using particular words conveys information in a particular way. I also ask you to recognise that whilst you so vehemantly demand that your opinion status be seen, you similarly are as quick to ignore the opinion element of others. If you understand that OP's comment was just, like, his opinion, man, then why did you have to react so sincerely - why did you have to make such an effort to prove him wrong?

 

Again, I shall have to contact my English teachers and commend them on giving me the skills to put across my opinion in such a way. I HAVE proved OP’s opinion to be at best misguided and childish because I have slowly and methodically moved through his arguments and pulled them to pieces – just as several others have.

 

In regards to him missing out on great gameplay - I'm arguing that anyone who just owns one console is going to miss out on great gameplay everywhere. I'm sure we can agree on that.

 

Yes – I’ve owned a Wii' date=' 360 and a gaming quality PC this generation. However I’ll make no secret of it that I prefer gaming on my Wii. I don’t enjoy gaming on Sony machines as I hate the dual shock controller, however I’m not going on the Sony board telling everyone that the PS3 has ‘terrible’ controllers and because of that every PS3 game should be discounted as rubbish – that would be idiotic.

 

Nintendo has been the most commercially successful console of this generation, but you have to realise that this is largely born from expanding their userbase into areas which previously were not interested. While this benefits Nintendo, this has not directly benefitted the gamer. Sure, more Nintendo-money means that there's more chance of seeing a great new Nintendo game that does appeal to the core gamer, but it cannot be ignored that the wii is to blame for the shift, for the watering down of this generation.

 

I agree that other consoles are imitating - I also stress that people who own other consoles think it is a negative thing. While Nintendo has successfully expanded their userbase (how would you describe this new userbase? What demographics are now included?), they have also lost much of their core, who have moved to other consoles.

 

No, what you mean is a small and very vocal section of gamers who frequent forums and discuss gaming are against the moves MS and Sony have made to imitate Nintendo. In fact as Kinect has sold nearly 20 million units there’s an awful lot of MS fans who have embraced that move – around 30% of XBOX360s now have a Kinect unit attached. Whilst there will always be people who are against a move they see as pandering to ‘casual gamers’ there are many more who have embraced that move.

 

I think Nintendo has expanded its user base to include everyone. The Wii had a massively far reaching appeal. I felt Nintendo catered well for everyone as I’m someone who plays games almost every day and I had a lot of fun with my Wii! You say Nintendo have lost touch with the core gamer, however when Nintendo last released a ‘core system’ – the Gamecube – people ignored it.

 

The PS1 and PS2 had just as much shovel ware – if not more – than the Wii, but they are seen as ‘core systems’. I would happily claim that those on forums are largely Nintendo bashing. I remember in the days of the N64 (before ‘core’ and ‘casual’ were the terms being bandied about) Nintendo were the ‘kiddy’ company. Now Nintendo are the ‘casual’ company. Well I’m sorry, but the Nintendo haters have always had a name for Nintendo and Nintendo fans.

 

It’s funny how when Nintendo fans had the Gamecube and N64 we were playing ‘kiddy’ consoles. Now we have the Wii Nintendo have somehow fallen from grace and left their roots behind and the Wii is a ‘casual’ console.

 

I motion that just as graphics aren't definitions of great games' date=' that money making is also not the sole marker of great consoles. [/quote']

 

I agree – I already stated there are largely two factors that measure success, commercial and critical performance. Both of these things contribute to what makes something successful or ‘great’.

 

I have missed out on just as many wii games as the OP' date=' and I've simply not seen enough justification for buying a wii in order to experience them. I can enjoy an array of experiences and games without investing in a wii -- and I'd gladly argue (perhaps elsewhere?) that other consoles have a larger choice of good games.[/quote']

 

That’s your choice. I think the Wii has offered some great gaming experiences – if people miss out on them, well that’s fine. But come on a Nintendo forum and start claiming spouting off about the Wii having ‘terrible graphics’ and thus all the Wii games are inferior and don’t recoil in shock when someone comes back at you over this.

 

I have issue with how you form your argument' date=' because you lie by omission and because your zealotic nature means you come across as fairly blinkered. I also think you are incredibly defensive of the Wii.

 

You have spun facts. By adding "gleefully" and other modifiers to how you describe factual things, you alter them to become opinions. By shading every element of truth with a fragment of opinion you serve up watered down, soupy arguments. I agree that you can be clear and concise, but I think that arguing requires the ability to use your eyes and ears as well as your mouth and hands to communicate.[/quote']

 

I haven’t lied by omission or spun anything. I presented facts to back up my arguments – as anyone does. There’s no rule that states when debating you have to source and present facts on behalf of the person you’re debating with.

 

I’m obviously going to defend the Wii and Nintendo. I’m a Nintendo fan on a Nintendo forum discussing Nintendo gaming – really what did OP expect. Now if I went onto a Sony forum and started attacking the PS3 with the kind of hyperbole used by OP, I’d expect posts in reply to be critical of my stance.

Again, I’m not going to apologise for arranging my arguments in a more compelling and authoritative manner – that’s just using the language well and having debating skills!

 

@dazzybee and @markderoos thank you for your comments One of my mantras is an argument is not the same as a fight.

 

I’m also pleased people have enjoyed this debate!

[Lens of Truth]

I applaud Zechs here for trying, however forcefully, to counter the same old status-quo stuff about the Wii having "bad graphics", "bad controls", "no games" etc (largely from folk who haven't even given the console the time of day).

 

It's gotten that way that even on a Nintendo forum it takes a degree of gumption to stick up for the much maligned console that did things a little differently and in the process saved Nintendo.

 

The ethos of the Wii has clearly alienated many gamers and fans. SD and motion controls have been a hump many couldn't get over. For anyone willing or eager to accept the (mostly very moderate use of) new styles of play and the lack of ballbusting "AAA" "mature" titles it's been a treasure trove of varied genres, strong first party entries and quirky 3rd party games.

 

What I really don't get is the need to constantly rinse and repeat the same mantras about the Wii. If it's not for you that's fine, but why is there so much resentment (not necessarily in any of the posts here), why are so many desperate for Nintendo to keep up with the Joneses, to become like Microsoft/Sony, to capitulate to the mobile phone market, or to simply to give up asap and get out? Sometimes the sheer negativity in the face of huge success astounds me. Anyone who enjoyed the Wii is written off as a mindless zealot fanboy - eg Pachter's recent backhanded (and hilariously revised) predictions of a WiiU sellout.

 

Personally, I think the recent NintendoDirect showed very little that was different from E3. I think the palpable change in feeling and buzz is really just the idea of the WiiU slowly sinking in, a couple more details and a few of sops to the 'hardcore'.

[jayseven]

This is hurting my head.

I’m not going to apologise for arranging my arguments in a more compelling and authoritative manner – that’s just using the language well and having debating skills!

You're quoting me but not answering any of my questions. You're applauding yourself when I'm actually criticising your use of language.

 

The argument, boiled down;

- Pyxis is worried that the Wii U's hardware will be bested by the other consoles.

Do you agree this is likely?

 

- Wii U will have ports from 360/PS3

is this likely?

 

- If/when the next generation of other consoles arrive, the Wii U will not be capable of running ported games.

Could this be true?

 

In regards to your tome of a reply; I seek that you recognise, understand, respect, and acknowledge the other side of the argument. It reads more like you are eager to quickly drown the opposing sentiment with hyperbole and tangents!

 

i.e. Please answer direct questions. "Did you check the sources?" "no because checking all the sources is a lot of effort" -- This includes a short answer ("no") and an explanation. Your answer does not sound like a "no", but it is. Which is why I say you 'spin' your responses.

 

And if we both agree that graphics are not the be-all and end-all then how come you are not also criticising OP?

 

Lastly; Do you think successful = great?

 

If you would like me to do a play-by-play response to your lengthy post then I will - but it will take a while.

[Kav]

I'm just going to say one thing (completely in jest by the way) in regards to this "discussion" you're both having...

 

NERDS!

 

 

Anyhoo, I was joking as I said, but it does just seem like you're both nitpicking at the slightest of things now.

[Hero-of-Time]

I'm just going to say one thing (completely in jest by the way) in regards to this "discussion" you're both having...

 

NERDS!

 

 

Anyhoo, I was joking as I said, but it does just seem like you're both nitpicking at the slightest of things now.

 

[Zechs Merquise]

This is hurting my head.

 

You're quoting me but not answering any of my questions. You're applauding yourself when I'm actually criticising your use of language.

 

The argument' date=' boiled down;

- Pyxis is worried that the Wii U's hardware will be bested by the other consoles.

Do you agree this is likely?

 

- Wii U will have ports from 360/PS3

is this likely?

 

- If/when the next generation of other consoles arrive, the Wii U will not be capable of running ported games.

Could this be true?

 

In regards to your tome of a reply; I seek that you recognise, understand, respect, and acknowledge the [i']other[/i] side of the argument. It reads more like you are eager to quickly drown the opposing sentiment with hyperbole and tangents!

 

i.e. Please answer direct questions. "Did you check the sources?" "no because checking all the sources is a lot of effort" -- This includes a short answer ("no") and an explanation. Your answer does not sound like a "no", but it is. Which is why I say you 'spin' your responses.

 

Lastly; Do you think successful = great?

 

If you would like me to do a play-by-play response to your lengthy post then I will - but it will take a while.

 

There really isn't much point going any further as we're just going round in circles. Now you're also simply paraphrasing the the OP and making out as if his points were completely well made and put over in reasonable manner not likely to raise any eyebrows on a Nintendo forum.

 

Also, I am applauding myself because your criticism of fine debating and good use of language skills is amusing me!

[jayseven]

Fair enough - here's where we shake hands, tip our hats and meet again down the road, eh?

[Diageo]

 

 

 

Lastly; Do you think successful = great?

 

If you would like me to do a play-by-play response to your lengthy post then I will - but it will take a while.

 

I don't know why you keep asking this. He's said it repeatedly that to be great' date=' a title needs both critical acclaim and successful sales.[/color']

[are1981]

My faith in Nintendo never took a big plunge, but...

 

There really isn't much point going any further as we're just going round in circles. Now you're also simply paraphrasing the the OP and making out as if his points were completely well made and put over in reasonable manner not likely to raise any eyebrows on a Nintendo forum.

 

Also, I am applauding myself because your criticism of fine debating and good use of language skills is amusing me!

 

Fair enough - here's where we shake hands' date=' tip our hats and meet again down the road, eh?[/quote']

 

...my faith in you has finally been restored.

[jayseven]

I don't know why you keep asking this. He's said it repeatedly that to be great, a title needs both critical acclaim and successful sales.

Just trying to understand my own stance on what makes a game 'great' - I don't think a great game needs to be successul critically or monetarily, but they are good indicators, this I am [nitpicking,] questioning the 'need' bit.

 

It's irrelevant now!