Wii launch date and price announced (2)

[Koga]

Continue the discussion here.

[Frumious B,]

If anyone wants to ask, this is the reason I want a Wii: The only true launch title that intrests me right now, Rayman Raving Rabbids, is coming to the Wii first. I'll probably get more launch titles, but I'll probably play mostly Rayman until Super Smash Bros Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy come out. (Rayman actually impresses me more that Mario)

[MC King Kong Mushi]

^I actually kinda expected that.
I am waiting for....................SUPER SMASH BROS BRAWL, as well as a Warioware game(whenever they Inevitably make one for the Wii)

[Prince Toad]

I don't know what good locking the other topic did, but whatever. I guess we'll continue, then.

Well, I didn't realize you were... in that state, Codie. You're forgiven. Sorry for getting pissed.

Pre-Nintendo, the video game market was in its infancy. I don't think that a crash like that will happen again, outside of extraordinary circumstances that would be more related to politics than the market itself. I don't really think the Atari crash counts.

It seems like you're the one who's saying that games are crap these days, because you're claiming that for some reason the entire market needs to die and be resurrected. I don't know why... quality games are put out on a regular basis. I don't see the connection, really.

You're not going to tell me that Ocarina of Time is the same as the original Legend of Zelda. They keep features throughout the series, yeah, that doesn't mean it's the "same old stuff" I'm talking about. If you want the stereotypical recycled game that everyone buys, well, as we all know, it's Madden. OoT does not, except in the absolute most basic of ways-- so basic as to be insignificant-- play like LoZ.

I'd say there's enough of a difference between a joystick and a D-Pad that it counts as a significant advance in the control scheme. I suppose that the Wiimote is more revolutionary than the N64 joystick, especially seeing as you had those in arcades as far back as Donkey Kong, but the N64 controller was still significant. Practically no modern games, aside from the DS, handle with D-Pads.

Well, I can't say for sure if the Wiimote is definitely better than the old control scheme. But, well, here's what I said before:

Originally Posted by Me

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.

From stuff I've read, there's going to be a slight learning curve for developers. At first, games will be a bit more gimmicky as designers mess around with their new options. (Look at Wii Sports, which consists almost purely of controller gimmicks-- and I've heard it's still pretty fun.) Once people find stuff that definitely works and takes advantage of the controller, they'll start making more in-depth games that utilize the Wii in a way that could work on no other system. Then again, the bundled title for the N64 was SM64, a classic, so if we're lucky, then we'll get great stuff right off the bat. Otherwise, I can wait, because... well, just thinking about all the possibilities, I have to imagine that someone or other will come up with a good use for it. Hell, I'm thinking about going into game design, and I'm not that young... maybe I'll do it myself.

Those paragraphs had two basic points. The first was sort of saying that describing something (like, you know, a game) as "fun" is a valid statement... not very specific, okay, but it can still be true. The second paragraph stated where we get the feeling of having fun from, which pretty much just advanced the idea that "fun" makes sense and is a valid concept for designers to aspire to achieve... a fun game.

Of course, other things can be involved as well. I said that some video games can have elements of art in them. For instance, practically any medium that tells a story is a kind of art. I also think that game design is closer to an art than a science, as opposed to programming, which is computer science. But the visual artwork, music, and writing within a game are, I suppose, forms of art. However, I think that the point of a game is to blend these things together with a game system in order to create an enjoyable experience. Fine, I suppose that not all games are entirely about "fun." Some with really good plots might leave you emotionally moved, thinking about a character with a tragic/heroic end or something like that. Or you might just become attached to a certain character. Those aren't fun things exactly, but they evoke reactions that we like to have-- even whatever grief can come from a (permanently) dead, well-developed character, because the events within the game really touched us. So, yes, I suppose games aren't always only about fun. But if you don't have fun with a game, you're not very likely to keep playing it. So games should generally be fun.

And I think that the Wii will, for the reasons described in that paragraph I quoted, help the market create a lot of fun new games. Doesn't mean that you can't have an RPG that looks and sounds good and has a good story and setting. The Wii doesn't limit you, really, except in terms of raw firepower-- and as I said, it's not going to be bad, it just won't look quite as amazing as PS3 or 360. It just changes the way you play games. Or, more accurately, creates new possibilities for ways to play games.

[Frumious B,]

Originally Posted by Prince Toad

I don't know what good locking the other topic did, but whatever. I guess we'll continue, then.

Well, I didn't realize you were... in that state, Codie. You're forgiven. Sorry for getting pissed.

Pre-Nintendo, the video game market was in its infancy. I don't think that a crash like that will happen again, outside of extraordinary circumstances that would be more related to politics than the market itself. I don't really think the Atari crash counts.

It seems like you're the one who's saying that games are crap these days, because you're claiming that for some reason the entire market needs to die and be resurrected. I don't know why... quality games are put out on a regular basis. I don't see the connection, really.

You're not going to tell me that Ocarina of Time is the same as the original Legend of Zelda. They keep features throughout the series, yeah, that doesn't mean it's the "same old stuff" I'm talking about. If you want the stereotypical recycled game that everyone buys, well, as we all know, it's Madden. OoT does not, except in the absolute most basic of ways-- so basic as to be insignificant-- play like LoZ.

I'd say there's enough of a difference between a joystick and a D-Pad that it counts as a significant advance in the control scheme. I suppose that the Wiimote is more revolutionary than the N64 joystick, especially seeing as you had those in arcades as far back as Donkey Kong, but the N64 controller was still significant. Practically no modern games, aside from the DS, handle with D-Pads.

Well, I can't say for sure if the Wiimote is definitely better than the old control scheme. But, well, here's what I said before:



From stuff I've read, there's going to be a slight learning curve for developers. At first, games will be a bit more gimmicky as designers mess around with their new options. (Look at Wii Sports, which consists almost purely of controller gimmicks-- and I've heard it's still pretty fun.) Once people find stuff that definitely works and takes advantage of the controller, they'll start making more in-depth games that utilize the Wii in a way that could work on no other system. Then again, the bundled title for the N64 was SM64, a classic, so if we're lucky, then we'll get great stuff right off the bat. Otherwise, I can wait, because... well, just thinking about all the possibilities, I have to imagine that someone or other will come up with a good use for it. Hell, I'm thinking about going into game design, and I'm not that young... maybe I'll do it myself.

Those paragraphs had two basic points. The first was sort of saying that describing something (like, you know, a game) as "fun" is a valid statement... not very specific, okay, but it can still be true. The second paragraph stated where we get the feeling of having fun from, which pretty much just advanced the idea that "fun" makes sense and is a valid concept for designers to aspire to achieve... a fun game.

Of course, other things can be involved as well. I said that some video games can have elements of art in them. For instance, practically any medium that tells a story is a kind of art. I also think that game design is closer to an art than a science, as opposed to programming, which is computer science. But the visual artwork, music, and writing within a game are, I suppose, forms of art. However, I think that the point of a game is to blend these things together with a game system in order to create an enjoyable experience. Fine, I suppose that not all games are entirely about "fun." Some with really good plots might leave you emotionally moved, thinking about a character with a tragic/heroic end or something like that. Or you might just become attached to a certain character. Those aren't fun things exactly, but they evoke reactions that we like to have-- even whatever grief can come from a (permanently) dead, well-developed character, because the events within the game really touched us. So, yes, I suppose games aren't always only about fun. But if you don't have fun with a game, you're not very likely to keep playing it. So games should generally be fun.

And I think that the Wii will, for the reasons described in that paragraph I quoted, help the market create a lot of fun new games. Doesn't mean that you can't have an RPG that looks and sounds good and has a good story and setting. The Wii doesn't limit you, really, except in terms of raw firepower-- and as I said, it's not going to be bad, it just won't look quite as amazing as PS3 or 360. It just changes the way you play games. Or, more accurately, creates new possibilities for ways to play games.

THANK YOU!

[Codiekitty]

Originally Posted by Prince Toad

I don't know what good locking the other topic did, but whatever. I guess we'll continue, then.

The fun you missed today: a longtime and "supposively" mature member kept posting pictures of some guy tearing his butt open, a butt going diahrrea, and Hitler. I initially locked the topic so he'd stop posting in that topic, because he was posting as fast as I was deleting, then he took his business to other topics, which I also temporarily locked for the same reason. I didn't feel like reopening that topic.

And the truth is, because my body still feels like it's 100 degrees everywhere I go, what I had to sludge through today (which has put me in a REALLY bad mood and considering the person it was coming from makes me want to tear the heads of anybody who tells me they so much as want a Wii, so I'm sure I'm going to say something in this post that will offend you) and that I'm really sick about arguing about the Wii (I've done it in practically every topic that's been made about it, and I'm just reiterating the same things over and over again for a different person), and since we're obviously not on the same standards for video games ("games are art" vs. "games are for fun"), I don't feel like arguing anymore. Feel free to read this as "CK's backing down because she knows she's wrong". I don't care anymore.


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

[MC Luigi]

^OMG WHERE!!!?

[Codiekitty]

Where's what? The crap that Wii fanboy pulled? It's been cleaned up by an admin, and all that's left of it is some posts discussing it.


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

[MC Luigi]

damn...

[Prince Toad]

I sort of conceded a bunch of stuff to you, but whatever. Hope you feel better.

[Codiekitty]

Originally Posted by Super Luigi 128

damn...

Trust me, you should be glad you didn't see it.

Feel free to read this as "CK's backing down because she knows she's wrong".

Okay, I want to slap myself for this one, both because of what my poor wording makes it sound like, and because of what it actually meant.


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

[CaptHayfever]

"games are art" vs. "games are for fun"

Why are those versus each other? They should be working together.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Chunky Kong12345]

I think it's more "games are for the economy/games are for how fast they run" vs. "games are for art/games are for fun".

[Codiekitty]

Maybe the problem is I don't see "fun" the same way as the rest of you. As I said in that topic:

Maybe it's another one of these "Just Me" things, but when I hear of a game being just "fun" I think of something like Katamari Damacy; a timewasting novelty that's entire premise is making the player giggle and giving them something to do for a few hours. Okay, I can't exactly put how that word makes me feel into words, but that's the gist of it.

...

I don't think it's at all wrong to have some fun while playing a game. It's just when it's "fun" and nothing else (like Katamari Damacy, or maybe Lego Star Wars based on what Seabu's said) that's it's bad.

Wheras everyone else's definition is "everything that encompasses all that is good with the game", which is too vague for me to read without getting irritated.


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

[Chunky Kong12345]

Lego Star Wars isn't just for fun. It's more nostalgia. And stuff.

[Dr. Horrible]

I don't see any trouble with some games being just fun. Tetris is and always will be one of my favorite games, and that's just fun.

[Prince Toad]

Game Informer Online

Interesting article. I can only hope he's wrong about Wii flopping.

[Booyakasha]

^That is a good article. Wii controllers are seriously going to cost sixty bucks a pop? Man alive.

[Koga]

Why should I buy a game that doesn’t look as good, controls strangely, and doesn’t have the online capabilities as the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 version?

I think this is a very good point, and exactly why Nintendo I think the Wii won't do much better than the GameCube. Personally, I've never really cared about 3rd party titles (on both N64 and GameCube I think I've less than 10 3rd party titles out of 50 games), but developers do care whether their games sell or not.

I think the Wii will attract some new gamers with the new controls, and alienate others but in the end it'll be the same niche console the GCN was with a few 1st party gems, and a lot of gimmicky crap towards the end of its lifeline.

[Prince Toad]

I thought he meant that controllers would cost 20 bucks, so to get a full four-controller setup you'd need to shell out another 60 past the price of the system, which comes with one free. But the way he says it, you might be right. Ouch.