^^^Uh, tell me how having to buy controllers for the Wii is any different than having to buy controllers for any other system? Yes, yes, the attachments, but those will probably be cheap, and will almost certainly ship with any game that requires them either for free or for a minimal price. I honestly don't know, maybe PS3/360 controllers are significantly cheaper, but I sort of doubt it. If that's the case, well, okay, but they can't be so much cheaper that it makes the Wii seem expensive, unless they
pay you to buy their controllers.
Hm. Their Splinter Cell doesn't have online multiplayer? Well, that sucks. But as I said... the point of Wii isn't its performance, it's the controller and first-party games. You'll get a better Splinter Cell on the 360, yeah. But you won't get Zelda, Mario, etc., nor will you have the "Wiimote."
I'll concede that I don't follow this stuff as closely as you. Yeah, so 360 and PS3 will perform better. But Wii will still perform
well, and that's what counts. It's not going to be a hideous, clunky piece of crap. Now, from what you said, for ports you're better off having a 360 or PS3... but they're still significantly more expensive, obviously. And looking at the controller and first-party games, Wii gets two more points. Sure, firepower is good to have, but it's not everything. I'll believe that Wii is worse in terms of these things, but it'll take a lot to convince me that it's actually bad.
I never said people don't care about graphics. I'm saying gameplay is more important. Pretty pictures are better than ugly ones, yeah, sure. That's why graphics improved. Plus, there's the fact that packaging is most of the time what sells a product, so a game that looks nice will just sell better. But having a little fewer fps or whatever isn't going to make or break a game. It helps, yes, but solid gameplay means more.
^^When the hell did you become so pretentious? God. Calm down.
"Another crash?" Um, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't seem to recall the last video game market crash.
Yes, Codie, you can make good games with the current control scheme. The PC control scheme hasn't changed significantly in a long while, and great PC games are made all the time. There were great games for X-Box (I guess), Gamecube, and PS2. But Wii's control scheme is interesting because it's new... it's innovative, and I'm going to keep saying that no matter what pretentious crap you throw at me. The old one's fine. But maybe the new one's better... and if it's only the same, then you know what? It gets points for being new. People are interested in new things. It's human nature.
But what "the same old stuff" means is that, as far as gameplay is concerned, I can't imagine a PS3 game being all that different from a PS2 game. That doesn't mean that PS3 games are going to be bad, but to me, it sort of goes against the point of a new system. Especially one as expensive as PS3 and 360. Why not just re-release the same system with updated hardware? (Yes, I'm naive and this may be impossible, Lurch. Let me know.) So, basically, what's the point of paying 600 dollars for a new system that basically does the same thing as the old one, only a little better? I'll take my 250-dollar one that actually has new functions.
I know what words mean, Codie. For one thing, the current control scheme is, essentially, as old as the N64, not two decades old. The N64 introduced the control stick to home consoles. You couldn't play SM64 with a D-Pad. Also, the SNES introduced shoulder buttons, which increased the number of fingers that can be in use at a time.
Those are only really relevant to this discussion in that Nintendo also innovated them. Anyway, as I said about the word... you know what, I'm just going to quote myself, I don't feel like restating.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Me, right in the last post I'm not just throwing it out there because I've heard people say it or because it sounds cool, but because it's an appropriate description. |
If you want to get technical, then the Wiimote now uses your arms as well as your fingers, thus increasing the raw number of actions you can take, and requires a greater degree of coordination or skill than before because of the spatial sensitivity thing. People enjoy things that require coordination and skill because those things are basic survival skills, which translate into our brains as something enjoyable or-- dare I say it-- "fun." Also, it should feel more natural for people to take certain actions that you could do before, but felt clunky. This makes playing the game just "feel" better. So, there's my attempt to explain, briefly, why the Wii is an advancement for the better. Why it's
innovative. My God, Codie. I hope you're not that guy (read: pretentious ass***) who's saying that fun is for retards. But its synonyms are for the thinkin' man! (What a douchebag.) Then again, I guess that would fit with your current mood here. I will post what I want where I want, thank you.
Fine, fun is a slippery concept. But it's not made up. You know when you're having fun with something, or when you aren't. What you have fun doing is different between people-- for instance, I just got a huge kick out of winning two big fights in Rome: Total War, because that kind of stuff-- real-time strategic combat-- is fun for me. I'm guessing you wouldn't have liked it nearly so much, or at all. Or maybe you would, but your family wouldn't. But I still play the game because I derive enjoyment from it-- in simpler words, I have fun with it.
Certain games lean more towards "art" than "games." Say, Indigo Prophecy, or whatever pretty, story-driven RPG you want to think of. People enjoy art too, but they don't really have fun with it. I suppose that part of the enjoyment from artsier games comes from that. But you have fun with a "game." That's basically what makes a game what it is. This might come from various sources. (I read part of a book on this, so I'm not making this crap up.) We can have fun from something that makes us think: a strategy game, for instance. Chess. Rome: Total War. Whatever. If it's not thinking how to beat an opponent, it's thinking about a good story, or playing through or hearing a story that makes us think about our morals. Or we can get fun from something that physically challenges us, like sports. Practicing hand-eye coordination, skill, etc. is fun. Hand-eye coordination, timing, and more also manifest themselves in action games. Or from something that gives us social opportunities, like party games or MMORPGs. People like to think, we like to hone our bodies, and we like to talk with each other. Why? They're basic survival instincts, programmed into us by evolution. They're in our DNA. We're built to enjoy these things because they help us grow and survive as a species. There's your definition of "fun."
And don't ever post anything as pretentious as that link where I can see it again.