::Grill 13 Restaurant:: NEW Pictures on the Menu!

[ElenaMason]

Firstly, I'm still recovering from being sick so if I don't make sense in any of my points, then bare with me. @_@...hard to focus on s**t right now, but I kept reading these posts and it caught my interest to make my own response.

You know Canas, its refreshing to see someone "equally" equate the quality of the newest systems out there instead of this whole console war bashing crap that people love to jump on. Like you I considered each system so to equally have its own ups and downs with its own good games and bad. I'm more of an Xbox series fan, but I eventually I plan on getting a PS 3 as well in the future for several reasons. One of them being that if I'm going to fork out money in the future for a blue ray disc player, it might as well be something that I can play games on at the same time. There are some PS3 games out there I want so might as well, right?

I love an object that has multiple purposes of use biggrin And the whole technological build you know, as advanced as we are in graphics now, I'm dieing to see how much further we can go in graphics. I mean why not? If something can be made so realistic that you can't tell the difference between a game's cut scene and a real movie with real people....I say go for it.

The one thing I have always appreciated being born in the mid 80's is that I was born into an age when technology started to really get off its feat. With the dawning of the internet, before my birth, and the dawning of 8-bit graphics, I've been able to sit back and watch over the years how amazing gaming graphics have reached. Its like a euphoria to me. I mean take the clothing textures used in Devil May Cry 4. The leather on Dante's coat actually LOOKS like leather. Hell screw that.....Credo's jacket....the embroidery stitching on his jacket actually LOOKS like embroidery.

Another game that so far not a computer on the public local market can handle the highest graphic settings, is Crysis. The game was purposely made to push the limits of what the highest graphics card out there can handle as far as textures go. The amount of detail and shadowing affects and water and just everything in that game is breathtaking. I can get my computer to handle the graphics on the level just under its highest setting, its just trully a masterpiece what they are accomplishing out there.

So to say to just stop now.....why? Although I must agree as far as fixing the consoles go, that they should perfect what is already out there first, before pursuing bigger goals and as you said Bio, xbox 360 system still needs kinks worked out so I totally agree with you on that one. Too bad about your Toshiba laptop cuz I owned an S151 Satelite for 5 years and it was always good to me. On the 5th year the HD finally died on me. so maybe you happened to get that one bad seed out of a thousand good ones? It happens even to the best of companies. But god as much as I love the 360 series, my xbox 360 totally forked me over from the first time they came out. I remember bringing it home and the first time out of the box gave me that red circle of death crap. But when I was going to take it back, I got it to turn on properly. And for quite a few years I had to struggle with always turning it on. Eventually Microsoft advertised about letting you send it in for free to fix it, so I did and they said they fixed it, and it worked fine at first, but then it started screwing up again. But turns out I later found out that it was the HD screwing up and not the system itself. At least I don't think it was the system. The HD is detachable and when I tried using my HD on my friend's xbox, it would have the same damn red circle ring crap again.

The elite systems don't seem to have that problem though (as far as I've heard). I hope to get an elite system in the future.

Quote:

What I didn't like about the Wii Campaign, and the overall message that people started convincing themselves of, for some reason is that... It's like, "I choose gameplay over graphics." Okay, that's fair, but that's like implying that using a standard controller isn't fun anymore. Since when? It might not be Nintendo's fault, necessarily, but that's the excuse the Wii fanboys gave. "I'd rather the game be fun."
At what point did video games with standard controllers stop being fun?
I mean, you might disagree about the Wii aspect of the article... But seriously... If the Wii is Nintendo's final generation, would you be satisfied with that? Or would you someday want to see a Zelda game that looks like Sould Calibur 4. (only using that game because Link was in SC2 for the NGC) The article is saying that Sony and Microsoft don't NEED to make another generation of consoles.

And quite frankly, I think Nintendo does.

Honestly, as successful as the Wii might be, it's not exactly overflowing with A titles. It's the casual market and little kids that made it as successful as it is. That's the truth. I'm not saying it's a bad console. I'm just saying that it's third party support is s**t.

god FINALLY! someone who AGREES WITH ME! I never cared for the Wii system and I don't deny its a cool system, but as you said, its highest titles aren't really A ranks. And I'm much more content with regular controls versus the controls I've tried for the Wii. Maybe its because of what I grew up with and its what I'm used to, and the Wii has its moments, but all I really saw was the target market of kids. It has some games that are fun for party plays, but thats kinda it. And I find that a bit disappointing.

You know what surprises me? Is the amount of people that DON'T own a "regular" xbox system. I mean I'm not trying to bash the PS2 system (and yes I know I know I mentioned before that I used to bash the system), but now adays I mean you can look back now and see that both the xbox and ps2 system have an equal amount of awesome games for it. And most of my friends say that "well the xbox games you can play on the 360 now" um......heLLOOO. Not ALL the xbox games are backwards compatible on the 360 system, even the elite version. Hell if ALL my xbox games could be played on the 360 system I wouldn't need it now would I? Guess its my own personal taste though, but I have a crap load more xbox games then I do 360 games. Maybe cuz the xbox has been out longer I don't know, but I just find it kinda odd, you know? Or am I missing something here? Is the regular xbox system just really not liked at all? Seems people are all over the 360 and yet they bashed the regular xbox?

And its not like the system is singled to one genre of games. It has racing games, sports games, rpg's, i think even some RTS', FPS'....it has pretty much everything. Just like the PS 2 system.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Well, like I said, they could upgrade the graphics and push them even further, and make video game characters look indistinguishable from real life. But to do that, it would probably take like, 10 years to make a single game. You wanna wait ten years for a game to come out? And then it'll probably cost like $200. It would be unprofitable, and inefficient. I mean, frankly, as much as I love the PS3's graphics. I already think waiting 3-5 years for a game to come out is a little long for my taste.

As for the Xbox. I'm sure a lot more people would own the Xbox if Microsoft didn't cut it off. I mean, look at the PS2. The PS3 has been around for over three years now, and even though the number of PS2 games coming out is getting smaller, they ARE still coming. Heck, the new Silent Hill will be gracing the PS2 in January. So even among my essentials, the PS2 is still getting releases.
With the Xbox, they just said, "That's it. No more. Buy a 360, or don't get any new games."
Same with Nintendo. Let's face it, not that many people own a GameCube either. And the Wii is fully backwards compatible, and they STILL cut the Gamecube games off.
So basically, so far, the PS2 is 9 years old, and STILL getting support.
Xbox and the GameCube got like, 6 years barely.

And for the record, yes, Xbox had a few really awesome games on it. But the ration of good games on PS2 comparing to Xbox is way higher.
It's like comparing the PS1 and the N64. The Nintendo 64 had some timeless classics, but the PS1 had way more of them. Same with SNES to Sega Genesis. It's a numbers game.

Sidebar: Hey is... Gaia back to normal?  

[ElenaMason]

Biohazard EXTREME

Well, like I said, they could upgrade the graphics and push them even further, and make video game characters look indistinguishable from real life. But to do that, it would probably take like, 10 years to make a single game. You wanna wait ten years for a game to come out? And then it'll probably cost like $200. It would be unprofitable, and inefficient. I mean, frankly, as much as I love the PS3's graphics. I already think waiting 3-5 years for a game to come out is a little long for my taste.

As for the Xbox. I'm sure a lot more people would own the Xbox if Microsoft didn't cut it off. I mean, look at the PS2. The PS3 has been around for over three years now, and even though the number of PS2 games coming out is getting smaller, they ARE still coming. Heck, the new Silent Hill will be gracing the PS2 in January. So even among my essentials, the PS2 is still getting releases.
With the Xbox, they just said, "That's it. No more. Buy a 360, or don't get any new games."
Same with Nintendo. Let's face it, not that many people own a GameCube either. And the Wii is fully backwards compatible, and they STILL cut the Gamecube games off.
So basically, so far, the PS2 is 9 years old, and STILL getting support.
Xbox and the GameCube got like, 6 years barely.

And for the record, yes, Xbox had a few really awesome games on it. But the ration of good games on PS2 comparing to Xbox is way higher.
It's like comparing the PS1 and the N64. The Nintendo 64 had some timeless classics, but the PS1 had way more of them. Same with SNES to Sega Genesis. It's a numbers game.

Sidebar: Hey is... Gaia back to normal?

Nah. Wouldn't want to wait that long for a game to come out either...then again the amount of time it takes for a sequel for any game seems to get pushed to that waiting limit. Guild wars is a good example of that. The campaigns came out pretty fast. Actually I think they came out too fast if that sounds silly enough, but I've been waiting for Guild Wars 2 since....I think since a couple of years ago. So its approaching that 3 year wait limit already.

Not sure if it was you or maybe it was someone else, but didn't someone mention quite a few posts back that it took forever for the sequel to Uncharted to come out?

But the cost for the game, without a doubt is my breaking point. I mean 60 bucks I think is well over enough to pay for any game. Even if it IS a new console system and the games require higher standards of what it needs to be run, but if the games got up to 70 or 80 or 100 or more I'd have to really.....REALLY want that game to even "consider" that type of price. So I totally feel yah on that one.

As far as the xbox system goes, so they stopped manufacturing games for it? Now that you mention it, that does sound familiar. That would explain a lot. And its really too bad because it really is a good system. I hope they don't cut off the 360 system as quickly because they still need to work out the kinks for one, but as you were mentioning before, the graphics it can handle right now? I could see a crap load more games being made for it so hopefully they won't just drop it off the line like that in the next 5 years or so.

And what happened to Gaia? lol I'm guessing something went screwy with the post making? Man the things I miss while I was sick.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Actually, no, it only took 2 years for the Uncharted sequel. But with sequels on the same system, it's easier, because they already had the PS3 figured out, and they just improved on what they already had.
But Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, took pretty much 4 years. Because they were switching to a new generation of consoles, and had to figure out how to make the most out of the system.
And if I remember correctly, I saw the very first screenshot of Final Fantasy 13 in like, 2004/2005, back when it was only a test demo of their new White Engine so it's 6 years in the making.

And yet, people spent $80 on Nintendo 64 games. Including myself. Why oh why didn't I just get a PS1 right off the bat?

Well, think of it this way. If they don't bother making a new generation at all, and just keep the PS3 and 360 as they are... There won't be a need to cut off support at all. I mean, I think generally speaking, PS2's biggest setback was the need for a network adapter. Not that I cared, I didn't play online anyway. (Even though it would've been nice to get some Outbreak File 2 online, when it came out.)
But now that every system has pretty much all it needs, and the new software and hardware compatibility comes with firmware upgrades. We're set.  

[Canas Renvall]

I think I'm about to be sick...

Akira Yamaoka left Konami... crying What has this world come to? D:  

[MadamTarantula]

Canas Renvall

I think I'm about to be sick...

Akira Yamaoka left Konami... crying What has this world come to? D:

WHAAAAAAAT?! burning_eyes  

[Canas Renvall]

^ My initial reaction exactly.

I believe Oberon said it best: "How canst thou thus for shame, Akira?"

It's just a rumor for now, but from a "reliable source at Konami Japan". So I'm really scared that it's true. The horror! gonk  

[ElenaMason]

damn....you do make some valid points in there. damn it i fell into the same trap again that I sometimes do. who am I kidding judging the titles on the Wii system? I've only played about one Wii game and it wasn't originally for the Wii. Stupid bias....well actually never was really bias against the system to begin with. Wii has a ton of titles that looked pretty good now that I think about it at least when I look back and remember the games that came out for it since the system first came out. Just I never personally cared for the system, but I never held that personal preference against the system itself. The games it has however, well, yeah most of them ARE family oriented, which is fine. If that's what they want to make their target audience than I say go for it. But yeah, as you said Stranger, there are adult oriented titles for it too.

Not to use it as a main example, but its the only one that comes to mind; Umbrella Chronicles isn't exactly for the kiddies. I know there are other titles there too, but I can't think of their name right now.

[edit] in regards to PC gamers, thats how I started out when I was 7. sure my brother was all over the NES system and Sega Genesis when it came out, but I loooooooooved playing on the PC, mainly for Lemmings, Doom, and Blood. So I guess I kind of conditioned myself to be a lover of graphic enhancements....sorta spoiled myself doing that too so I'm used to automatically expecting and looking forward to up to date graphics because I upgrade my computer (for the most part) to keep up with whats out there today, but I still play the older games even if their graphics aren't up to date, but so what? A good game is a good game right?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Canas Renvall

I think I'm about to be sick...

Akira Yamaoka left Konami... crying What has this world come to? D:

Meh. It's not like there's a Team Silent anymore. So it's not as if he belonged to any particulat development team. I mean, hell, the past 3 Silent Hill games, he's been working with Double Helix and Climax.

So now he's not bound to Konami. That doesn't mean he'll never work with them again, it just means that right now he's freelance.
And who knows, maybe he's gonna start his own development company, and simply use Konami as publishers. Except he'll also be able to use other publishers as well, if he wants.

Thee Stranger

Multiplayer Deathmatch and Online Co-op have been around for a looong time, man. They're no fad. They're here to stay.

That's not really what I mean. Yes, there's been plenty of games with those aspects in the past. But now, it's like, mandatory. You'd get awesome games like Uncharted 2, that would lose up to 2 points from their rating, just because they don't have Multiplayer.
We live in a, "What kind of a game doesn't have multiplayer?" society.

Thee Stranger

Yeah. I do choose gameplay over graphics. Here's an example that would probably apply to you: RE2 VS RE4. Yeah, graphics definitely help, but the gameplay is what makes or breaks a game. I could really care less what it looks like, so long as it's not a complete eyesore. I never found the Gamecube's graphics to be an eyesore before, and I certainly don't now. So as far as I'm concerned, the Wii's graphical capabilities aren't an issue. They look fine. s**t, I can still go back and play PS1 games and enjoy them, and those graphics are completely horrendous now. Especially on an HDTV. You know, if it was really so important to me to be on the cutting edge of graphical capabilities, again, I'd be a PC gamer. Because the PS3 and 360 are already outdated in comparison. So, no. To me, graphics aren't a huge deal. And I specifically pointed out that, no, motion controls are not always better. No, standard controllers certainly are not bad. And motion controls simply don't work for certain types of games that standard controllers do. But they are something new, unique, and fun. At an affordable price. And that's what people went to the Wii for. That's why it was a success. And what's the saying go...? "Today's kids/casual are tomorrow's hardcore"? Something like that. Gotta start somewhere.

Again, dude, I never said that fraphics are more important. I'm just saying that the standard controller is tons of fun. I never sat down, playing something like... Silent Hill, let's say, and said, "Man, this just isn't immersive enough. If only I could actually move around and actually aim."
Or whatever. One could argue that innovation is essential. But frankly, I don't give a rat's a** about motion controls and you know that. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. I owned it, and the thing is... It's NOT a way to be fit. Maybe the Balance board helps, but so far I haven't seen a single person or news article, who says, "I lost fifty pounds on the wii exercise regime!"
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but the opinion in question is not, "What kind of controls you prefer?" the opinion in question is, "What do video games mean to you?"
And to me, for the most part, they mean interactive storytelling. And in that respect, I'd choose a point and click adventure game like Still Life over any motion control title.


As for that, "Today's kids are tomorrow's hadrcore." I'll address it below.

Thee Stranger

Would I be satisfied if this was Nintendo's final generation? As long as Nintendo still made new games and were supporting the system, yeah. I'd likewise be satisfied if this was Sony or Microsoft's last generation, so long as new games were still coming for their respective consoles. I just play games. That's all I'm in it for. All this other junk they throw into these systems now (that I rarely even use), are just bonuses. And Twilight Princess is a beautiful looking game, as are many other games on the Wii. Would I mind seeing a new Zelda that looked like Soul Calibur 4? No, certainly not. But I'm perfectly content with it as is.
Okay, well, graphics aside. What about the memory storage? I mean, I replaced the hard drive in my PS3, from 60 gigs to 250 gigs. You can also buy extra storage for the 360.
But the Wii limits you with so many blocks, and what happens when you run out? I mean, with all the Wii Ware and the Virtual Console... The Wii is lacking an upgradable storage unit for its games. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thee Stranger

Well dude, that's just your personal preference. You don't consider s**t like Mario Galaxy an A title; I don't consider s**t like Halo 3 and Killzone 2 A titles (even though I own Killzone 2). Many people wouldn't consider MGS4 an A title. I wouldn't say any of the consoles are overflowing with A titles by any stretch of the imagination, but they all have good games. And I hate to break this to you, but there's a s**t ton of good games for the Wii. I could run down the list for you if you'd like. But hey, it's all mostly subjective anyway. However, it's not just a "support system" by any means. There's plenty of quality s**t for it.

Okay, let me correct myself. Third party A titles. Yes, I do consider Mario Galaxy an A title. By A title, I mean a big budget production. Which mostly come from Nintendo itself, on the Wii. And even then, there's only so many Mario spinoffs one could handle. And frankly, seeing as how Twilight Princess was a launch title, and the Wii has been around for 3 years, I'd expect to see a new big budget Legend of Zelda title by now.

Thee Stranger

Yes, yes. The casual market and the little kids are a big reason why the Wii was as successful as it is. The truth is, the majority wants the simple, non-involved casual games. And hey, some of those are actually pretty fun. And I have a Wii fit, and it's a good time. But anyway, yeah, I can't deny that the casual market is a big factor here. And the reason that is, is because the Wii tries to be something for everybody. And what's wrong with that? It tries to be a family entertainment system, as well as satisfy their "core" gamer. And yes, Nintendo does deliver the goods. I'm really sick of hearing that Nintendo only caters to the casual, because it's simply not true. Nintendo's not stupid, and they know that the casual gamer also spends casually. They know they need us, and they put out plenty of the quality first party franchises we know and love. And we also have some of the third party developers targeting that audience. Ubisoft and Sega, for example, have taken their time and developed some really nice, "hardcore" exclusives for Wii that are adult-oriented, fun, and really showcase the unique abilities of the platform. But... nobody buys them! No More Heroes and GTA: Chinatown Wars for DS are perfect examples of this. So I'm just really sick of hearing people b***h about Nintendo ignoring them and not putting out hardcore games when the reality is they're the ones ignoring the third party developers attempting to support that demographic. So why bother making hardcore games for the Wii or DS at all? That's why whenever something like Madworld comes out on the Wii, I make a point to go out and buy it.

Yeah, the Wii's got its problems with its shovelware and lazy third party support, which means it's got a lot of shitty games that clutter the shelves, but so what? What console doesn't have shitty games? Wii just has a few more of them to sort through when you're looking for the good s**t. Just know what not to buy, just like with anything else.

Now, going back to that, "Today's casual is tomorrow's hardcore." That may be true, but even that statement is basically calling a Wii a starter platform. Saying, "This is fun, get into this medium! By the time you're 17, you'll be getting a PS3 and pwning noobs on Modern Warfare 3!"
I mean, to say, "Today's casual is tomorrow's hardcore" isn't that kinda like saying, "Today's Wii is tomorrow's PS3?" I mean, how old are we talking here?
When I was 10, I already had all the fatalities in Mortal Kombat memorized. I was blowing up cars in Twisted Metal, and beating up my friends in Tekken. By 13, I was into Resident Evil, as well as games like Command and Conquer, Sim City, etc. Why don't the little kids get the respect they deserve? I mean, just because a game on the Wii is for the casual market, doesn't mean that it has to be filled with big eyed characters and flowers. And that's my main problem. That's what I see a lot of, in the Wii's casual game selection. And that's my biggest problem. What's wrong with casual games? Nothing. But just because a game is casual, doesn't mean that it has to look 'Kiddy'. I mean, I actually sold Rayman Raving Rabbids to someone, and they brought it back and said, "My 10 year old son thought this was too kiddie."
Maybe artistic direction is the problem. And again, it's not necessarily the Wii's fault, it's not necessarily the developer's fault. I think it's the fault of our G-Rated parenting society. ******** them. But that non-the-less cheapens the game. And even then. Even if all your E-rated titles are cartoony and colorful and silly. To be quite honest, most of the Wii games don't even put any effort into the visuals.
I mean, the Wii has less graphical capability than the PS3 and the 360, but it's still more powerful than anything of the previous generation. So developers could at least TRY to make the game look good. And yes, I know Nintendo's first party games all look good. And there's a select few third party games that do. But what about everyone else?
And even Nintendo is partially at fault here. I could probably create all the assets for the Miis in one day. Why not put a bit more effort into their design? Not just make them a bunch of Humpty Dumpties with Terrrance and Phillip bodies. And then Wii Sports becomes the best seller (gee, how would that be? It only comes with every system), and other developers art department guys say, "hey, if a game like that is a best seller, then we don't even have to try!"

So it's not even so much that, "Most Wii games have crappy graphics," it's, "Most Wii games have crappy art direction."

Thee Stranger

Yes, and the only reason you had a Wii in the first place was for Umbrella Chronicles (correct me if I'm wrong), which you ended up hating anyway. Couple that with the fact that s**t like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. aren't included in your list of essentials and it's really no wonder that you're no longer a Wii owner. Again, because of your own personal preference. But those are essential, A titles for many people. Those games are the reason many people own a Wii.

Yeah, but right off the bat, I knew that Umbrella Chronicles was my only essential (back when I thought it would be good), but I figured, "It couldn't hurt to have a Wii as a support system, there's lots of good games on it, right? ... Riiiight?"
And then I looked at what it currently has, and picked up Twilight Princess, which I didn't get into. It seemed like a cool game, but I remember the moment I rented Ocarina of Time and started playing it. Within 5 minutes, I was hooked.
Twilight Princess might've had the design, the music, and everything else of the typical high Zelda caliber, but it does not have the magic.
So then I went to see what I might wanna get that comes out in the future. "Oh look, No More Heroes, seems pretty cool. Anything else? Nnnope!"
It's not all about the essentials.
I mean, I have Metal Gear Solid 4, Silent Hill Homecoming and Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. Nothing else on the PS3 was an essential. Not when I bought it, certainly. I got Uncharted because it seemed like a cool game. Same with Brutal Legend, same with Def Jam ICON, same with etc. etc. And now, I couldn't live without them.
Yes, you do need essentials to buy a console. But if it's the right console, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more essentials than you started with.
And yes, it is subjective. But I couldn't find 5 games on the Wii that interested me even a bit. Not at the time, not future titles. That's why I gave it up. Nothing interested me conceptually. I guess in retrospect, I really should've looked into Trauma Center, cause right now, it sounds damn interesting, but what's done is done.
And like I said, we'll be getting No More Heroes on the PS3 before long.

Thee Stranger

Well, from what I've seen, they're pretty much the same damn thing. And I don't really know anything at all about the Natal... but it looks kind of like that Eye Toy for the PS2. And if it's anything like that piece of s**t, it's gonna be pretty ********' lame.

Well, I tried Wii Motion plus, and it still felt jittery. And yes, I'm sure that when the PS3's motion controls come out, 70% of the companies who decide to make use of the motion controls in their games, will end up failing, just like on the Wii. But like I said, the only way it affects me, is if one of my essentials pigeon holes me into it.

Project Natal just looks really well done though. Like, its capabilities to recognize what you're doing, it's just kinda scary.

 

[Canas Renvall]

Biohazard EXTREME

And frankly, seeing as how Twilight Princess was a launch title, and the Wii has been around for 3 years, I'd expect to see a new big budget Legend of Zelda title by now.

It's in development now. razz Announced a few months ago.  

[MadamTarantula]

Has anyone seen the latest trailer for Shattered Memories?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

And so is the Wii controller. But the Wii controller is a fresh, new, unique thing. That's all I was saying.

I still think it's a fad. Maybe one that stuck, but to me, motion controls are a gimmick. Seriously, whenever I do hear, "unique new thing" the word 'fad' always comes to mind.

Thee Stranger

Well, I never sat down and said that to myself when I was playing PS2 either. And when I was playing NES and Genesis I never said, "Man, this just isn't immersive enough. If only my controller shook when that bridge exploded... then I'd really feel like I was in the game!" either. Doesn't mean that rumble isn't a nice feature that does add to the immersion factor. When I play Star Fox 64 now on my Wii Virtual Console and I defeat a boss and he screams before he explodes... it's just not the same without that rumble. Nowhere near as satisfying. I couldn't play the original MGS on PS3 with a standard Sixaxis controller, because the rumble largely helped make that game the unique, immersive experience it was. Would that whole Psycho Mantis scene have been anywhere near as iconic as it was without it? I think not. And you know, there's plenty of people who don't give a rat's a** about the vibration feature. But I know a lot of Sony fanboys couldn't live without it anymore. And who do they have to thank for that? Again, Nintendo. Because Sony steals all of their ideas. And don't look now, but history repeats itself. *cough*Magic Wand*cough*

Well, feel free to call bullshit on me, cause I'm not gonna bother looking for proof, cause I'm tired. But as far as I know, Sony was working on a rumble controller before Nintendo, Nintendo just got there a little faster.

Thee Stranger

And yes, motion controllers can be very immersive, not to mention a lot of fun. Let me use a Wii game that might be more in keeping with your particular tastes as an example: Madworld. In this game, you have a chainsaw on your arm. You hold down the trigger to start the chainsaw, and your controller shakes and you can hear the engine starting, and you can hear the sounds of the chainsaw not only through the TV, but the very controller you're holding as well. You can also feel it and hear it when you slash the chainsaw at your enemies in any direction, dismembering them as the red blood spews like a fountain, painting the black and white comic book-styled scenery. Now, maybe I look like a total jackass waving around my d***o controller, but when I'm playing, it feels as though I'm really holding that chainsaw and cutting people up with it. You can't do something like that on a standard controller. And something like Madworld or No More Heroes would be nowhere near as satisfying to me on a standard controller.

And yet, in oh so many cases, the motion controls can actually take AWAY from the immersion. Let's face it in a lot of cases, third (or even first) party games just don't get it right. It's like that PS2 game, Lifeline, where you tell the character what to do using the microphone like you're instructing her from another room. It's a great idea, but it was a difficult undertaking, and it wasn't pulled off well. Like so many games you mentioned. In fact, honestly, I think that's part of what kind of turned me off of Zelda Twilight Princess, is that the slashing mechanics were so imprecise, you're just randomly swinging back and forth and watch as Link does his out of sync moves. I mean, it was done well. Just not amazingly great... The thing about a controller is... When it's done right, you basically have to feel one with the controller, like you feel when you're driving a car, you become a part of the vehicle you drive.
And even in one of Nintendo's cash cows, Zelda, I didn't feel like the motion controls were a part of me. Mind you, Wii Sports actually did that well. So it's not impossible.

Thee Stranger

Maybe because you haven't looked? I don't think anyone's ever said that anything aside from the Wii exercise games are a way to be fit. And as someone who owns the Wii Fit, I can tell you personally that you can get quite a work-out out of it. There's strength training, endurance training, etc. When I finished working out for about an hour with it, doing every type of training, I could feel that I had gotten a full-body workout. Every muscle in my body had been worked. And you don't need a Wii balance board or any equipment to do any of the exercises on the Wii fit, but the beauty of it is that the game acts as your coach and tracks your progress, weight, and the sensor is able to read whether you're doing the exercise properly, which helps you improve your form. You can't get s**t like that out of a simple exercise video.

Here's an article from a dude who lost 11 pounds, and gained muscle with the Wii fit (and only the Wii fit) in less than two months: Source. And just google it and you'll find plenty of other similar stories.

Wait, explain this to me... How do you play Wii Fit without a balance board? Doesn't the Wii need to know when you're tipping over, or whatever?

Thee Stranger

Umm... you can achieve interactive storytelling just as well with Wii motion controls as you could with standard controls. In some cases, perhaps even more so. So I think the issue really is the controls and the controls alone. It's got nothing to do with storytelling.

But they aren't implementing it. How many Wii games out threre, best sellers, that only sell because of how fun the use of the Wii remote is?
And yet, somehow, the one game that's supposed to be about crazy fun, what some people consider Wii's biggest killer app, Super Smash Bros, doesn't even make use of the motion controls. How does that even make sense? What, were they just too lazy to program the motion controls?

Thee Stranger

SD cards, dude. And Micro SD cards. And memory is really never going to be an issue on the Wii, unless you're downloading a s**t ton of Virtual Console games, which I have. So I have a few of them stored on my 2gig Micro SD card, along with a bunch of PS3 backup saves, and I still have plenty of room left on it. Plus, I got another 4gig Micro SD as backup. It's not like you have all kinds of mandatory installs with your Wii games that take up all kinds of space and force you to upgrade your hard drive the more games you get. I shouldn't have to install games on my console, like it's a frikkin' PC or something.

And now you're complaining about installing games on the consoles. Sure, it's five extra minutes you have to wait, but don't make it sound like it's not worth the game. Fallout 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. Only the consoles have one clear difference: You don't have to buy a new Graphics card every time a new game comes out. That's ultimately my biggest beef with console gaming. That and the fact that no matter how good your system, most of the games won't run 100% perfect. Cinematics will jitter, sounds won't play properly sometimes, inconsistent lag occasionally. They're minor inconveniences, but they're still inconveniences that don't happen on the console. I couldn't care less about installing.
Besides, if you're gonna complain about consoles being like PCs, you should probably start with web browsers, music players and picture storage.

Thee Stranger

Well, I certainly wasn't saying that today's Wii is tomorrow's PS3. What I was saying is that it introduces them to the medium, and then they may branch off from the more casual, pick-up-and-play games to the more involved, "core" games. I find it ironic you mention Modern Warfare 3. You're probably unaware that both the Call of Duty games, Modern Warfare and World at War, are on the Wii. So anyway, yes, it very well may be the console that introduces them to the medium, just like the NES did with many people here in the 'States back in the 80s, but you're making it sound as if the Wii is merely your training wheels before you learn how to ride a bike for real, which is, of course, the PS3. That's just a veritable no-brainer right there. Because the PS3 is just the pinnacle of gaming. That's why the PS3 is now emulating the Wii's controls, almost to the point of plagarism. rolleyes

Would you rather buy Modern Warfare on the Wii, or on PS3/360/PC? Cause even when I had the Wii, I said, "You're probably gonna be able to play Ghostbusters by pointing and shooting with the remote. But I'd rather get it for the PS3 anyway, because it's probably gonna be the more complete experience. If I have to choose, I'll take graphics over motion controls." Not graphics over gameplay, mind you. And that's just the thing... I'm not saying the PS3 is the pinnacle of gaming, but what, does that mean the Wii is? Are motion controllers really that revolutionary and far out there, that the Wii is on some pedestal of video gaming experience? I don't think so. You could have just as much fun with a well designed game on the PS3, as with a well designed game on the Wii. And the motion controls don't put it ahead. They might give you something different, and if you're looking for a change in gameplay experience, it might be refreshing. But I wouldn't say motion controls are BETTER than a normal controller. They're an alternative at most.

Thee Stranger

There are plenty 13 year-olds on 360 and PS3. I've seen and heard it plenty, first hand.

Exactly! So it's not like little kids NEED the Wii to get into video games. I mean, maybe their mom can't afford a PS3, and she gets the Wii (which, as far as I'm concerned, you get what you pay for), but does that mean that the kid will never play another console? That kid will eventually get a job and get a 360 or a PS3 anyway. That's the thing. You might say "The Wii isn't a support system" but statistically speaking, it largely is. Most people who own a Wii, own it alongside another console/slew of PC games.
And those kids who only have a Wii now, will someday outgrow Pokemon, and will want something that the Wii doesn't offer enough of.

Thee Stranger

I don't know. Maybe because it's just a little avatar, and most people don't really give a s**t? They make their bodies look more realistic on some of the games, too (such as Wii fit). At least I can actually use my avatar in the games, instead of running around IMVU. *cough* I mean, Playstation Home. And Wii Sports is fun, as is Wii Play. They're not there to showcase the graphics. It's just a fun little game with cartoonish graphics to try to appeal to anyone, even people who don't normally go for videogames, and make them feel invitational and s**t. Not every casual game on the Wii looks like Wii Sports. And you know what, I think a pack-in game is ******** cool. That s**t used to be standard when you launched a console. And yeah, the reason it sold so well is because it was packaged with the Wii, which outsold the other two. Third party developer's games don't come with the Wii. So they have to try make their game stand out in graphics, gameplay, and marketing.

Still, dude. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't put some actual EFFORT into those avatars. They don't have to look real, but the faces could at least have SHAPES to them. And the arms could at least be attached to the body. There's no excuses, dude. It's just lazy.

Thee Stranger

How 'bout try...

Red Steel
Madworld
No More Heroes
Metal of Honor
Call of Duty (3, 4, and World at War)
The Conduit
The Godfather
Splinter Cell
Manhunt 2
Silent Hill
Fatal Frame 4
Obscure
Cursed Mountain (screens)
Alone in the Dark
Resident Evil (Archives, RE4, UC, DSC)
House of the Dead
Dead Space: Extraction

etc., etc., etc.

Out of those,
Red Steel
No More Heroes
The Conduit
Fatal Frame 4
Cursed Mountain
RE
House of the Dead
Dead Space

...are the only exclusives. And out of those, I know for a fact that Red Steel, plus majority of the non-exclusives that you mentioned fall into the ol' "We tried implementing motion controls, we just really suck at it."

Thee Stranger

Yup, it's subjective. Which pretty much makes this whole argument pointless. Obviously, that's your take on it. I was never trying to argue with you that you, Bio, should own a Wii. The reason you decided to keep your PS3 was for the essentials, which is why many people kept their Wii's. And plenty of good s**t other than my essentials has come out on the Wii that I had no idea was coming. Like Punch Out!!, the New Super Mario Brothers, Madworld, etc.

All this was about in the first place was the fact that the Wii should have been included in that article among its contemporaries, because it's just as much of a next-gen system as the other two. The fact that Sony and Microsoft are now following suit in Nintendo's footsteps, one step behind (while I'm not seeing any Sixaxis controllers or XMB interfaces on my Wii) only validates that point. It was obvious in the tone of the article, and the not-so-subtle slams on the other two consoles that the guy writing it was a biased Sony fanboy. And seeing that this is an IGN article, that's just not professional. It should be objective.

But the Wii went for a whole different approach, which you seem really fond of. It decided to change the gameplay instead of improving on the graphics. So how are you supposed to compare them?
"So, another reason we don't need another generation of consoles is because they already have amazing visual detail... Except Wii, it has revolutionary controls."
I mean, that's like saying, "Here's the reason why we don't need any more upgrades to our airplanes... And helicopter."

Thee Stranger

Well, I own Wii Motion Plus, and it's not jittery. And I know that Sony's motion controls are 100% rip-off either way. I just love how the Sony fanboys are raving about it now. Irony is always funny.

And good for Microsoft. At least they're doing something a little different with their motion capabilites.

Well, I don't know which games you played with motion plus. But Wii Sports Resort didn't seem any more accurate than Wii Sports. Yes, now it's got a Z-axis, so it detects when you're closer or further from the sensor bar... But that's something it should've had in the first place.

And you know, maybe Sony's motion control idea is a ripoff of the Wii. And frankly, I don't think they're denying it. But the fact is, soon the PS3 will have motion controls and amazing graphics. Which techonologically puts it ahead of the Wii. Someone will say, "I want a game where you can actually swing the controller like you would a sword." And they'll say, "Okay. By the way, would you like good graphics, or amazing graphics?"

Thee Stranger

Canas Renvall

Biohazard EXTREME

And frankly, seeing as how Twilight Princess was a launch title, and the Wii has been around for 3 years, I'd expect to see a new big budget Legend of Zelda title by now.

It's in development now. razz Announced a few months ago.

Yeah, I meant to address that, but it got skipped somehow. I wasn't aware that it had actually been announced, but I was going to say I'm sure they were working on it. And we had to wait four years for s**t like MGS4 and Killzone 2, and the PS3 didn't have any launch titles worth a s**t.

Still.
I don't really keep up with Killzone. But the very first teaser for MGS4 came out only a few months after MGS3. And after that, they kept feeding us with constant footage, trailers, gameplay demonstrations, etc. etc. etc. It's been 3 years, and only now they announce the new Zelda. For all we know, it won't be coming for another 3 years. I mean, Wind Waker aside, the only non cel-shaded, non uber stylized Zelda that the GameCube got was its swan song. Heck, it wouldn't shock me if Nintendo was on the verge of releasing their new generation console by the time the new Zelda comes out.