Favorite of the launched Wii games and / or Tired of hearing about no graphics

[RTSDaddy2]

Well, I FINALLY had time to play with the Wii (it's been a busy Sunday) for more than an hour.

How do you find Wii Sports? No, it's not gorgeous graphically, but that boxing game had me sweating after the first three opponents!  Took a little bit for me to figure out bowling completely, the directions in the book didn't make sense for some reason.

As to the second part of my post, what in the WORLD do people need these days graphics wise??  Right now we're just doing typical a/v in, don't have the HD cord yet, BUT the graphics for Zelda on our flat screen TV are incredible!

We bought Cars, Zelda, and I treated myself to Madden 07, but haven't had time to play it yet. 

Personally, again, I think Wii Sports rocks!

BTW did anyone get Call of Duty 3?  I'm tempted to try it, even though "war" games are not typically my thing...this one looks impressive!

[DarkBubble]

I saw a side-by-side of COD3, PS3 vs. Wii in EGM.  Looks like Wii took a sizeable hit in graphics, but I'm sure that the gameplay and levels are probably the same.  However, aiming on the Wii version is motion-controlled, which to me sounds like a major plus in it's favor if it works right.

[javeryh]

I love Zelda... but it sure is ugly compared to Gears of War.  I'm really enjoying the Wii so far.  I've played Wii Sports (love the bowling) and Zelda and I can tell this is going to be a very unique system.  Zelda is going to be great.  I'm 2.5 hours in and I feel like I haven't done anything yet (no dungeons or even really the sense that I am on a quest yet).

[AlanS17]

My brother is totally unimpressed by the Wii because he looks at it from a graphics standpoint. He's all about horsepower, and that's why his sights are set on the PS3. There is something to be said for that argument. If it weren't for the Wii's unique controller, it would probably be dead in the water. My brother thinks the Wii controller will be more hassle than fun, though.

I'll admit that if it weren't for Nintendo's own franchises, I probably would not have gotten the Wii. At least Squaresoft is back making Nintendo console games at full pace again. The whole reason I got a PS1 instead of an N64 was because Squaresoft changed platforms.

Ultimately, I think Nintendo is better at making games than consoles. But it's part of their identity. I don't want them to turn into Sega (even though Sega made inferior consoles up until the Dreacast which oddly enoguh was the system that killed them).

The Wii isn't the most jawdropping or more impressive console, but it's easily in the race for most fun. And in the end, isn't that what games are about?

[AtomSmasher]

My brother is totally unimpressed by the Wii because he looks at it from a graphics standpoint. He's all about horsepower, and that's why his sights are set on the PS3. There is something to be said for that argument. If it weren't for the Wii's unique controller, it would probably be dead in the water. My brother thinks the Wii controller will be more hassle than fun, though.

If your brothers main concern is graphics, then I hope he's a PC gamer since PC games are generally on the cutting edge of graphics.  Neither the 360 or ps3 have anything on the horizon that look even close to as good as Crysis on the PC, which is supposed to come out first quarter of '07. 

The Wii is about great gameplay and not great graphics, I find it hard to believe anyone here would say that they are wrong considering we're all playing games made 15+ years ago.

[AlanS17]

I think the PS3 and the Wii are at opposite ends of a spectrum, but I think they also both have their place. I'm inclined to go with the Wii right now because it's cheaper, but I'll likely be getting a PS3 at some point, too.

I'm derailing this whole thread, though. Back on topic...

Which games besides Zelda and Red Steel are good? I'll be getting the Wii for Christmas, and I need to know what games I should get for it.

[shmokes]

I think it's hilarious that people talk about gameplay and graphics as though they are distinct categories with no overlap.  Graphics and gameplay are inextricably connected.  The Gameplay of Super Mario Bro. was not possible on the Atari 2600.  The Gameplay of Super Mario 64 was not possible on the SNES.  Think of the shadow system in Splinter Cell and tell me that graphics don't affect gameplay. 

What's more, other things like physics, AI, and music/sound are crucial to gameplay, and all require serious horsepower. 

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that Wii is about great gameplay.  The Wii is about great control interfaces, which is a single important part of gameplay, but it does not epitomize gameplay.  PS3 is, of course, about great gameplay.  Make no mistake, there will be a lot of great gameplay on the PS3.  But a lot of the advances in gameplay on the PS3 will surround graphics, AI, physics, and to a lesser extent the sixaxis controller. 

[lcddream]

i got monkeyball, rayman and zelda....the first 2 i have spent alot of time with the past weekend. they are both a really great time. tonight me and my girl were genuinely laughing our asses off playing some of the minigames from both of these titles. fun to play and will take some time to master....i haven't had so much fun playing video games in a while.

i guess it's because nintendo has something here with reaching non gamers...or at least making games accessible to non gamers(my girlfriend being one of them).

in monkey ball there is a racing mini game...all you need to do is hold the go button down and then steer with turning the controller. shoot wepaons with the crosspad...what was great was i didnt have to explain the controls to her....once you get what the wii is about you get the controls

[shmokes]

God, I really can't wait to get my hands on a Wii.  I'm thinking about finding somewhere with a kiosk when I'm in San Francisco for Thanksgiving just to play one.

[AlanS17]

God, I really can't wait to get my hands on a Wii.  I'm thinking about finding somewhere with a kiosk when I'm in San Francisco for Thanksgiving just to play one.

I have yet to find a demo Wii with a good game in it. I hope they have something cool loaded. All I've seen is Excite Truck.

[MajorLag]

Shmokes, I disagree. Gameplay and graphics CAN be decoupled for the most part. Sure, SMB on the 2600 wouldn't work, but then again one of the least graphical games in history, Nethack, wouldn't either. Come to think of it, Nethack is sort of the case in point for decoupling gameplay and graphics, since it can look like this or this.

[ClubNinja]

Besides the obvious Wii Sports, we have and completely enjoy:

Monkey Ball
Trauma Center
Rayman
ExicteTruck

I would recommend any of the above.  The only problem I've had is with the control in some of the Monkey Ball mini-games.  That said, I play Monkey Ball for the main game, so it's less of an issue.  If you want mini-games, go for Rayman.

[shmokes]

Shmokes, I disagree. Gameplay and graphics CAN be decoupled for the most part. Sure, SMB on the 2600 wouldn't work, but then again one of the least graphical games in history, Nethack, wouldn't either. Come to think of it, Nethack is sort of the case in point for decoupling gameplay and graphics, since it can look like this or this.

Not all gameplay is tied to graphics.  Tetris would be the same game on PS3 that it is on NES.  Splinter Cell, however, could not be played on the NES.  Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past has much better gameplay than the original Legend of Zelda, because of graphics.  Graphics often open up new gameplay possibilities.  Look at the difference between Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid.  Look at the difference between Resident Evil and Resident Evil 4, and the gameplay possibilities opened up by moving from prerendered backgrounds to fully 3D worlds.

And even with games where the gameplay is arguably exactly the same in spite of graphical differences, such as Duck Hunt vs. House of the Dead, graphics certainly make a pretty strong case for being relevant when it comes to what's important in a game.

[MajorLag]

Shmokes, I don't diagree that there is a certain graphical threshold that must be surpassed for any given game type to work, but when people are talking about gameplay over graphics they're talking about gameplay being more important then prettiness. For instance, here is a screenshot of John Madden Football for the SNES, and here is one for Madden NFL 2001 for the N64. The gameplay is practically the same, but one is prettier. The people who are saying they prefer graphics over gameplay mearly mean that if JMF were superior to MN2K1 gameplay-wise, then they would prefer to play that than look at superior eye candy while playing a worse game.

[AtomSmasher]

Graphics definately can effect gameplay, but the difference in graphical horsepower between the ps3 and the Wii is not large enough to expect games that cannot be played on both systems with just a few tweaks. 

The only games the the ps3 will be able to run and the Wii will not, are games that require a harddrive.  Right now the only game I know of is FFXI, but I'm sure there will be a few more games that will only be playable with a harddrive and cannot be converted to play without one.

[shmokes]

That's because people who care only about graphics are missing the big picture, just as you are, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.  They are ignoring control, and level design, and gameplay mechanics and focusing on a single factor.  You are ignoring graphics and focusing just on control.  My  point is that graphics is not only relevant, it is extremely relevant, especially from generation to generation because the leap in graphics is so great that it opens up previously impossible gameplay possibilities.  And that says nothing about its effect on how immersive the game is.

The Wii is a perfect example.  What use would a controller that can detect motion in 3 dimensions be on a system such as the SNES that is incapable of rendering 3D worlds.  Advances in graphics ENABLED the type of control we are now so excited about with the Wii.

Graphics open up new gameplay possibilities.  I could give you a hundred examples, including what moving to 3D meant for football games such as Madden.

Plus, as I already mentioned, the added horsepower of the PS3 over Wii goes WELL beyond graphics alone.  Physics, sound, AI, even the potential size of the world (because of the additional capacity BluRay offers) are all greatly enhanced by the PS3's muscle.

[shmokes]

Graphics definately can effect gameplay, but the difference in graphical horsepower between the ps3 and the Wii is not large enough to expect games that cannot be played on both systems with just a few tweaks. 

The only games the the ps3 will be able to run and the Wii will not, are games that require a harddrive.  Right now the only game I know of is FFXI, but I'm sure there will be a few more games that will only be playable with a harddrive and cannot be converted to play without one.

Go look at some videos of Assassin's Creed.  Look at the physics and AI at work in huge crowds of peasants.  This is the type of thing you get over the Wii with the PS3 and 360.

[AtomSmasher]

Graphics definately can effect gameplay, but the difference in graphical horsepower between the ps3 and the Wii is not large enough to expect games that cannot be played on both systems with just a few tweaks. 

The only games the the ps3 will be able to run and the Wii will not, are games that require a harddrive.  Right now the only game I know of is FFXI, but I'm sure there will be a few more games that will only be playable with a harddrive and cannot be converted to play without one.

Go look at some videos of Assassin's Creed.  Look at the physics and AI at work in huge crowds of peasants.  This is the type of thing you get over the Wii with the PS3 and 360.

I agree that its possible that the ps3 can do things with physics and AI that the Wii couldn't even begin to work on, but he was saying his brother cares mostly about graphics and as I said, the graphical horsepower between the Wii and PS3 is not so great that it will change the gameplay.  All of you examples of how graphics improved gameplay are from wildly different machines, the 2600 to the NES or the SNES to the PS2.  How about any games that the XBox could do that the PS2 could not?  The XBox was far more powerful then the ps2, yet one never had a game that the other could not do.

If we expand the agrument to include non graphics related things such as sound, AI, or physics (yes improved physics can improve graphics to an extent, but they are two seperate entities), then I agree with you.  But if we're talking solely about graphics, which is what this arguement started about, then I disagree.