Wii Launch date and price announced!

[Deku Trii]

Nintendo's Incomparable Wii Console Launches Nov. 19; MSRP $249.99

http://www.nintendo.com/newsarticle?...Slh7Sc0b&page=

[Bomby von FACEville]

That's still too expensive for poor little Malik. I'll have to buy the bootleg version from Chinatown.

[Ike]

So much for the $199 price they were planning.

[Super_Mario_1987]

I even heard $170. Oh well, it still looks pretty cool. I penciled in November 19th on the ol' calendar.

[Lurch1982]

What a ripoff. Grats Nintendo, you're the Apple of the console world: a company that overcharges for underpowered systems and sells exclusively to a niche group of rabid tools that buy anything with your logo stamped onto it who praise it as something holy.

On a sidenote, this is how you can tell this dump has gone downhill. This news hits this morning, but doesn't get posted here until midday and only elicits three responses. Just sad.

[Deku Trii]

Such a Negative-Nancy.

[Booyakasha]

I'd heard about the price thing months ago, but the release date is news. Still not getting one.

[Frumious BanderFACE]

I, however, will.

[Prince Toad]

Well, I still want one. I don't know about the price, though. I'll see around the holidays.

Oh, come on, Lurch. You don't at least see potential in the Wii? The point isn't that it has tons of processor power, but that it's an innovative way to play games. You don't have to love it, but it can't be that bad.

[Frumious BanderFACE]

[Codiekitty]

Originally Posted by Prince Toad

Oh, come on, Lurch. You don't at least see potential in the Wii? The point isn't that it has tons of processor power, but that it's an innovative way to play games. You don't have to love it, but it can't be that bad.

Every time somebody says the Wii is awesome and their only backup is "It's INNOVATIVE!", a puppy and more of my faith in humanity die.


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

[Frumious BanderFACE]

You know what I hate?


I hate it when two people keep arguing about the Wii.

Also, Codie, if people would stop talking Wii like sh*t, people wouldn't keep talking about the innovative-ness about the Wii.
Also Also, the inovative-ness of the Wii is truth. Well, atleast in one way or another.

[Lurch1982]

Apple's really innovative with productivity and ease of use or something, but I wouldn't buy one of their rampantly overpriced and underpowered machines for any reason either.

[MC Luigi]

The Wii is not overpriced. The point, according to you, is power. To me, it's gameplay, originality and price. The 360 was $400 upon release, and the PS3 will be $600. The 360 was barely worth it, and the PS3 is wayyyyyyy outta line. Wii will dominate, end of story.

[Prince Toad]

Okay, Codie... if you want to buy the same old stuff, just twice as fast and half again as pretty (and three times as expensive), go get a PS3. Nintendo knows they can't keep up in the so-called arms race between Sony and Microsoft, so they have to come up with ways around it. Hence, Wii.

As far as I'm concerned, the point of the Wii is the controller, and to a lesser degree the first-party games. I'm sorry that "innovative" is the standard word for "clever and new," which is what the controller is, at least for a major home console. We could say "clever and new" if we felt like it, but it'd sound stupid. That's why we don't. "Innovative" isn't a buzzword, at least not in this context. 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.

Lurch, I don't know a ton about computers, granted. But I've used iMacs in school and I have a PC at home, and although there are some differences, you're still operating with the same basic commands. You have a mouse and a keyboard, you double-click on something to open it on the desktop, etc. The Wii controller creates an entirely new form of input which did not, at least in a major home console, exist before-- spatial positioning. That's the "innovation," Codie. Or the "cleverness and newness," if you prefer to sound stupid. Of course, the controllers still have buttons and the nunchaku has the joystick, and the basic controller even has a good old D-Pad, so you're not totally dumping your old input systems-- the "keyboard and mouse"-- but the new form of input is what makes it interesting. And, yes, innovative. Even if it doesn't run quite as fast or quite as pretty as 360 or PS3, it's not like it's going to be slow or ugly. Trust me, the difference between graphical power on the PS3 and the Wii is not going to be significant enough not to buy the system for.

Productivity and ease of use don't mean that much to me. As long as those exist on some basic level, I care mostly about functionality. The function of a game system is for the player to have fun, and it seems like the controller's going to improve that considerably. That's the innovation I'm talking about. (Although, another of the points of Wii is to be easy to use. But that's not the point.)

[Lurch1982]

You're paying $250 for a system that doesn't have HD support and is essentially a GCN + 1/2, you're going to pay way too much for older games, and you're going to pay 60 dollars to get a functional controller (base of 40 + 20 for attachments). They claimed it was supposed to be a cheaper alteranative designed to bring people together or some garbage like that. Sure, I guess, if you don't mine cranking out 250+(60*3). Good luck finding it outside of a bundle...and once they do bundle it before and right after the launch, its simply going to make that 360 look like a good idea.

Let's look at one of the ports using the Wiimote. You get splinter cell, except it looks and performs noticibly worse than the 360 version and is missing levels and online multiplayer.

They're launching too high for what it is ($199 makes it way too appealing) and they're launching at the wrong time. I get their logic. They think that people are going to buy that with their PS3 money instead when they can't find one. It'll happen, sure, but not nearly as much as they think it will.

If you think there won't be a noticable difference, you really don't know what you're talking about. Just going with a basic specifications, it only supports up to EDTV while its competitors are running in HD out the box. Getting down to the guts, they're going to plateau the graphical and performance power very quickly.

You're lying if you say people won't care about graphics. If that were the case, nobody would have ever improved them.

[Codiekitty]

Originally Posted by Prince Toad

Okay, Codie... if you want to buy the same old stuff, just twice as fast and half again as pretty (and three times as expensive), go get a PS3.

Haven't I already said I'm not rooting for the PS3, or the Xbox 360, and especially not the Wii? But another crash?

And really, what the hell does "the same old stuff" even mean? That only crap games come from our current control scheme? That there's no way to make new and interesting games with our current control scheme?

As far as I'm concerned, the point of the Wii is the controller, and to a lesser degree the first-party games. I'm sorry that "innovative" is the standard word for "clever and new," which is what the controller is, at least for a major home console. We could say "clever and new" if we felt like it, but it'd sound stupid. That's why we don't.

Or you could make an attempt to explain what about the control system is an advancement for the better ("innovative" does not mean "new and clever", it's "new and clever for the better". "new and clever for the sake of being new and clever" is "gimmick") in video gaming rather than spew out a word that's been overused to the point of losing all meaning and expecting that to be enough to explain why everybody should abandon a control scheme that's worked for two decades and given us many great games over that time.

"Innovative" isn't a buzzword, at least not in this context. 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.

Read my above paragraph.

The function of a game system is for the player to have fun...

Read this, ponder it, and even though it won't change your mind about the purpose of video games don't ever post that where I can see it again.


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

[S1x]

I can already tell that there is enough blind fanboyism that a crash is not going to happen in the gaming market - at least, not any time soon.

The Wii has been priced $50 more than a lot of people hoped for, but the chances of it getting rid of so many people that $199 would have resulted in loads more profit is extremely minimal. There are always the Nintendo fans, but other people might see it and want to know how it works. Should it become popular with some people, it will encourage other people to try it out and help sell more later on. The truth, however, even though I don't like it, is that the number of casual gamers who drool at graphics more than anything else does outnumber other gamers, and HD will be a big advantage for the Wii's competition in terms of pulling those guys in. More intelligent people, however, will make a more justified decision, whatever it should be.

The cost is lower than that of the competition, but not by as much as people might think. The console, a couple games, and some controllers will probably total around $450. So nothing's really that cheap. Floods of sales might not be as extreme, and instead spread out more with price drops on all systems.

Yes, people have been throwing around the word "innovation" so much it's really degenerated the meaning. However, gaming companies shouldn't settle on complacency so much. Of course fresh ideas can still happen using traditional controllers and styles. The problem is that it's not as frequent anymore. It's slowly getting more and more difficult to create something truly original and appealing. How many games have you seen that are just copies of so many other ones, with only a couple elements different when you get down to the details? Games that improve on previous ones very insignificantly, or don't actually improve on them at all? Tradition is the safe route, the path that will keep enough entertained and keep sales going. Over time, the ability to improve graphics further will be less and less noticable, and then where can you go? Do you just pray that somebody will hatch a new idea that will be a success for a brief time, and then repeat?

These new ideas are a gamble. But they're a gamble worth taking, instead of just watching the gaming industry go along the same monotonous, comfortable path. The possibilities for unique things grows sharply with these kinds of concepts. And it's not like they're 100% breaking from the traditional road. After some time, the controls people are used to will integrate with the unique ones on the console. As first, the DS had quick games without much depth that basically were showing what it could do. Eventually, though, games came out that were more balanced, and used the touch screen and microphone to augment the way to play the game, instead of completely relying on that aspect. If this pattern doesn't happen on the Wii, I'll be very surprised.

To those of you that will defend the Wii to death, even though you haven't actually experimented with it yet, I'm not saying that it will automatically be a great success and will dominate the competition by a mile. I'm not a crystal ball or anything like that. My predictions are logical estimations, not solid fortunes. My true opinion of the Wii itself (and the other systems) will come when I play it.

[Prince Toad]

^^^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.

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.

[S1x]

I fold.