[Codiekitty]

Originally Posted by Prince Toad

^^When the hell did you become so pretentious? God. Calm down.

I'm sorry. Take what I'm saying with a bag of salt, because not only do Wii arguements piss me off to no extent on their own, I'm PMSing, which not only means I'm extra pissy right now, but my mind's in a haze and I'm probably misreading your posts, both in meaning and as insults, and it's also probably why I have no problems announcing that to the world right now.

"Another crash?" Um, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't seem to recall the last video game market crash.

Early 1980s? Pre-Nintendo? When people were churning out crap games by the barrel? When somebody somebody at Atari said "I can put horse**** on a cartridge and sell a million"? People stopped buying, Atari buried all those ET cartridges, and the home video game industry collapsed? Then like a phoenix it rose from the ashes? An event that needs to happen again?

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.

Because like you said, people like new things. Even if its concept isn't new, the actual system is.

I mean, people still go ga-ga over Zelda when it's mostly the same concepts over and over (push blocks, light torches, shoot statues in the eye, find the keys and unlock the doors, use the item you found in the dungeon to beat the boss), with a little dash of something new added in each time (press buttons to play music, monotonously sit in a boat while nothing happens, turn into a wolf). It's the "shiny new toy" effect.

I know what words mean, Codie. For one thing, the current control scheme is, essentially, as old as the N64, not two decades old.

They're essentially the same. Push something in a direction to get the character to move, press buttons to make them do stuff.

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.

Actually, you could play SM64 with a D-Pad. But it's easier (both to play, and probably to program) with an analog stick, which is why that change was made. It was for the better.

I want to know how the Wii controller is for the better, especially since games like Wario Ware Twisted and Touched, Kirby Canvas Curse, Meteos, and Donkey Konga all left me wanting to kill some of their staffers.

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.

So, is the focus of the controller to allow people to really swing a sword and leave it at that ("Wee, I can swing a sword!"), or to do something with being able to swing a sword and compose a well-thought out game full of challenges and an actual reason to be able to swing the sword, because from what I've seen of videos from three Wii games and what I've played of the DS, it looks like the former.

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.

I'm not him, but he pretty much says how I feel. And he's not saying "fun is for retards", he's saying "retards seek only 'fun' out of things."

[CK's note: All I can make out of these next few paragraphs is "video games are not art", but since I can barely read it in my mental haze of both hormones and fatigue, I'll hold off until morning and see if I can make anything out of it.]

And don't ever post anything as pretentious as that link where I can see it again.

I posted that link because it's how I feel about "all that matters is a game is fun" (hell, those first two posts are mine); every time somebody says that, an angel loses its wings.


Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!