When is Wii going to take off?

[shmokes]

I've been saying all along that I didn't buy the line that Sony was screwed with the PS3 and that I think eventually the PS3 will sell more units than the Wii, but I'm feeling more strongly about this all the time.  When are games for the Wii not going to suck?  I've been eagerly awaiting Tiger Woods Golf for months and it finally hits with basically a 7 out of 10 average among critics.  That ain't terrible, but for ---fudgesicle---'s sake, it's Golf!  Is there any game that could possibly be easier to translate to the Wii controller?  Super Sing sucked, but that didn't worry me too much cos it's a cartoon fantasy representation of the sport with donuts for clubs and sparkles exploding out of the ball.  But this is Tiger Woods Golf, for chrissakes.

SSX suffers the same fate.  Great franchise, great idea for a control scheme, but ultimately, the controller seems to lack the precision it needs to pull it off.

I am afraid that when the Wii controller is being used as a motion controller (i.e., not as a pointer) it simply lacks accuracy.  This is obvious when you try to putt in Wii Sports Golf.  The thing just won't register small movements.

There are obvious places where it can shine, such as Wii Sports Bowling, but so far none of these things require precision and are based just on "gestures", rather than 1:1 translation of the real-life movement into in-game movement.

The only games that are really must-haves in my opinion right now are Zelda, in which the controller shines when using it as a pointer (bow and arrow, etc.), but is ridiculous when the motion controls are used (sword slashes), and Trauma Center, which uses the pointer exclusively. 

I really hope I'm wrong.  I hope that what we have seen so far are just the products of lazy developers, and that second gen games will iron all this out and take advantage of the controller the way 1st gen games have been unable to.

[somunny]

I agree whole-heartedly.

It's  somehow selling at an amazing rate with a complete lack of software.   There are only a few games worth owning and one of them comes with the system.  Zelda is great but the rest of the games range from just okay to worthless and the online features are complete novelties.

[Zero_Hour]

I agree that there are certainly some 'issues' with implementing compelling control schemes on the Wii. The few reviews I've checked on Woods07, seem to indicate the lack of power meters more than the control scheme though, as limiting factors. And personally I find the controls for SSX to be quite good. The original SSX was one of the first titles I had for the PS2, and now Blur is one of the first I've picked up on the Wii. I'm definitely in the give-it-time camp on new consoles though, I won't push the panic button for quite a while. I didn't even seriously start to think about potentially getting a 360, until GOW hit, and I'm still debating the purchase.

And while I agree there is a need for quality titles and good control integration, I don't see how it adds up to an advantage for Sony. With all their announcements about Home, I find it to be a service I have no compelling reason to adopt (obviously, once it actually goes live, and the full feature set is dissected by end users that could change), and there is still an utter lack of games for the PS3 that make me even consider a purchase. I want a full blown Gran Turismo, not Motor Storm. Also I want a few more A-list titles as well, because no matter how much I have enjoyed the GT series, I'm not dropping 5 or 6 bills to play one good game. And I sure as hell don't want a Wil Farrel movie bundled in with my system. 

Sure this could be seen as a time when Nintendo is possibly missing an opportunity, but with over 6 million units sold in under 6 months, I think that the early install base is enough to keep momentum on their side for now, and very likely through the better part of 07. I'm still very up on the Wii as a system, and I don't even own Zelda 

[hypernova]

No no no...the real question is when will I finally get one.  Finding one's still next-to-impossible.

[shmokes]

Here's how I see it as a boon to Sony.  Sony, I think, doesn't have all that much to worry about in the long run even if Wii becomes market leader.  PS3 will do well, IMO.  There are hundreds of games in development.  Maybe if developers could tell the future and they knew that Sony would be releasing the system with a $600 price tag and would have such a chronic shortage they wouldn't have devoted so many resources to PS3, but development cycles are long, and the smart money was obviously on the Playstation brand after the success of 1 and 2.  So, anyway, I already thought the PS3 was going to eventually overtake the Wii in worldwide sales.  Gamers will go where the games are, and the Playstation brand still carries a lot of weight. 

But, the Wii has been selling so incredibly well which opens up the possibility that the Wii could potentially change overall mindsets about games.  If the Wii lived up to its potential it could conceivably make consumers think, "Why would I spend so much money on a PS3 when I can get a Wii for half the price?"

But there is only one special thing about the Wii, and that is its controller.  Aside from its controller the system is grossly underpowered.  I don't think I have seen a single Wii game that couldn't be done pixel for pixel on the original Xbox, maintaining the same Framerate.  So if everything is riding on the controller and it turns out that the controller isn't precise enough to truly replace a gamepad, well, the wind just kind of disappears out of Nintendo's sails.  It is a boon to Sony inasmuch as the Wii no longer presents a serious threat to the PS3.  It answers the question posed above with, "Well, because any game requiring precise controls cannot be done well on the Wii."

I don't know.  Maybe the great games will come.  I hope they do.  Maybe I just let myself get too excited about Tiger Woods.  But there's reason for concern.  Where are the first person shooters?  When we saw this controller everyone was talking about the mouse/keyboard superiority days being over.  But every FPS so far has sucked monkey balls and Metroid Prime 3 is delayed probably into 2008 (and this comes after the press played it and gave it the same criticisms they've been giving to all the other FPS games -- pointing and shooting is great, but turning is a ---smurfette---).

I actually want Nintendo to win.  They are my all-time favorite videogame company.  I never even owned a PS2.  But I didn't see that as very likely, even after the release of both the Wii and the PS3.  Every day that goes by without the release of any worthwhile games makes a Nintendo dominated market seem even less likely to me.

[somunny]

There's also the current general buzz regarding HD-DVD's potential demise (which may or may not be greatly exaggerated  ).  If this rumor plays out to be true and the PS3 proves over time that it can do double-duty as both a game console and a Blu-ray player, there may be a renewed interest in the PS# an an *inexpensive* hybrid.  That certainly would be a paradigm shift!

As for rooting for a winner, I'm not in favor of any one console.  I'd be happy to see them all flourish as I like to have one of each  .

[KenToad]

Did I miss something?  I thought the Wii controller had a digital pad and an analog stick as well?  And isn't the Gamecube controller compatible?  So, the Wii "magic wand" controller is really just extra and you could very well control Wii games with playstation or Xbox "precision."  Please correct me if I'm mistaken.  It will affect my enthusiasm to purchase the Wii. 

I don't own any of the next-gen consoles, so have an extremely limited frame of reference, but, to me, the problem with the Wii and, to a lesser degree, the DS, seems to be that Nintendo is pushing every developer to utilize their unique control aspects for things that just don't need innovative controls. 

In other words, why bother making an FPS with the motion detecting stuff if it can be done better with the analog stick and digital pad?  Several DS games have suffered from developers sort of haphazardly sticking in Touchscreen functions that really do not make sense. 

It could be that Nintendo execs are kind of forcing developers to use the touchscreen, etc., but, instead of producing exceptional games, the developers are mainly just throwing in sometimes awkward ways to do the same old things.

There is no way that the PS3 or Xbox360 will win the war with processing horsepower or even online support, nor will Wii prevail with a list of uniquely controlled average games.  Great games will sell the systems and they can be made for any system past or present.  Maybe they're all just trying to delay emulation in their own special ways. 

[tommy]

I normally always prefer to play the best looking games graphical 9 times out of 10, but combined with the price tags and with the Wii having "good enough" looking graphics combined with giving us a new way to play games, the choice seems obvious to me.

I wouldn't worry about Nintendo, we haven't even seen Nintendo's own best games yet that will take full advantage of the new controller system. Once these Nintendo's own great titles come out for the Wii (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) and all the Mario type games made specifically for the Wii-mote things will be great.

I think in todays gaming universe having alot of third party support is crucial for a console to be a big hit, in the same sentence if there was no TPS Nintendo would be the only console maker to be able to pull it off alone, anyother console would be in deep trouble.

[btp2k2]

Did I miss something?  I thought the Wii controller had a digital pad and an analog stick as well?  And isn't the Gamecube controller compatible?  So, the Wii "magic wand" controller is really just extra and you could very well control Wii games with playstation or Xbox "precision."  Please correct me if I'm mistaken.  It will affect my enthusiasm to purchase the Wii. 

Yes, the gamecube controller can work on the Wii, but only for playing GC games....you cannot use the GC controller to play Wii Sports, for example.

[shmokes]

That's not necessarily true, though.  The developer of the new Smash Bros. has suggested making it playable only with a Gamecube controller.  But once you take the great controller out of the equation you are left with basically an Xbox.  There is simply no reason to own a Wii besides its unique controller.  While using the controller you have the nunchuck which adds an analog stick, but you then only have one button + one trigger immediately reachable on the right hand.  There is the d-pad and the +/- buttons, but you have to move your entire hand in order to reach them, and the +/- buttons are too small to be used practically in the heat of battle.

Trust me, in order for the wii to be a true success the motion controllers have to be great.  It cannot rely on traditional controllers, because when it does it is just a VASTLY underpowered Xbox 360 or PS3, not capable of even competing in the realms of graphics, sound, physics or AI.

[TOK]

My main concern with the system before launch was that the controller would be a gimmick. After the first wave of cartoony, simple games, the novelty of it wears off, then you're left wanting a deeper experience and the controls are getting in the way.

I've stayed on the fence with this a long time, and I feel Nintendo ultimately made a mistake by under-powering the Wii. After the next round of price cuts and the release of a few more titles, Sony is going to start to hit its stride. It was too expensive at launch, but a price war between MS and Sony is inevitable.

[SithMaster]

A star wars jedi game would work.

[AtomSmasher]

My main concern with the system before launch was that the controller would be a gimmick. After the first wave of cartoony, simple games, the novelty of it wears off, then you're left wanting a deeper experience and the controls are getting in the way.

I've stayed on the fence with this a long time, and I feel Nintendo ultimately made a mistake by under-powering the Wii. After the next round of price cuts and the release of a few more titles, Sony is going to start to hit its stride. It was too expensive at launch, but a price war between MS and Sony is inevitable.

Sounds like the same exact complaints people made about the DS when it first came out.

[shmokes]

I've thought about that, and hope it's the case.  The first year for the DS was pretty bleak, but developers have totally stepped up and are making fantastic use of the DS's controls.  Hopefully that'll be the case with the Wii.  My fear, though, is that the remote itself is flawed.  If the remote is incapable of precision, there's not a lot the developer can do about it.  They can't program in better hardware.

[AlanS17]

Well as a household that has both a Wii and a PS3, I can make a few comments...

First, the Wii gets played more often than the PS3. However, neither of them see much game time.

Second, both systems have pretty bad game libraries so far. However, the PS3 plays Blu-Ray. We watch more Blu-Ray movies on the PS3 then we actually play games on either machine.

Third, a can verify all the comments about an unprecise Wii controller. Pointing is great, but the motion-sensing is pretty rotten on some axes. Pitch seems to be pretty accurate, but yaw and roll are both pretty awful for most of the games I've played. It could be a hardware limitation.

[ChadTower]

I'm not dropping 5 or 6 bills to play one good game.

Back away from the arcade message board and slowly put down your opinion.  Now kick it over here.  Good.  Now we stone you.

[SithMaster]

Maybe he only plays the best games or the great games?

[KenToad]

I'm not dropping 5 or 6 bills to play one good game.

Back away from the arcade message board and slowly put down your opinion.  Now kick it over here.  Good.  Now we stone you.

I think he means that he doesn't want to spend 5 or 6 hundred dollars to buy a system in order to play one or a couple of good games, rather than an extended library of great games.

[ark_ader]

I have been looking at the promotional videos of PS3's Home.  I like it and it will open the door to so may people who find it difficult to interact in the "real world".

The ability to play counterstrike on it and most windows programs including Mame via Yellow Dog, and the possibility of running OSX puts an ever increasing desire to own one of these units.

I am not rich by any means and my last major purchase was a PSP, but it looks more likely I will be getting a PS3 than a Wii purely on it capabilities.  Granted we are talking about platforms that are on a different level, but something keeps nagging me in the back of my mind that Nintendo games/units are devoted to children and young women.  Their DS and Wii games of late reflect this.

I'm not making generalisations here, but if I am to commit hard erned cash to a platform, I would want something that will play all my old titles, some off tangent games (like PC stuff) and the core console games that Sony will offer.  Blueray? well we will have to look at that when the price comes down.

One thing is certain, if Sony keeps the ball moving in the right direction to the thirty somethings of the western world, I'd hate to be Nintendo or Microsoft right now.  If it is good enough I will buy it, and lets face it we are experienced enough to figure out if a console has got enough drawing power or not. 

The Wii will have to pull its socks up to compete.

[KenToad]

 

I have been looking at the promotional videos of PS3's Home.  I like it and it will open the door to so may people who find it difficult to interact in the "real world".

The ability to play counterstrike on it and most windows programs including Mame via Yellow Dog, and the possibility of running OSX puts an ever increasing desire to own one of these units.

I am not rich by any means and my last major purchase was a PSP, but it looks more likely I will be getting a PS3 than a Wii purely on it capabilities.  Granted we are talking about platforms that are on a different level, but something keeps nagging me in the back of my mind that Nintendo games/units are devoted to children and young women.  Their DS and Wii games of late reflect this.

I'm not making generalisations here, but if I am to commit hard erned cash to a platform, I would want something that will play all my old titles, some off tangent games (like PC stuff) and the core console games that Sony will offer.  Blueray? well we will have to look at that when the price comes down.

One thing is certain, if Sony keeps the ball moving in the right direction to the thirty somethings of the western world, I'd hate to be Nintendo or Microsoft right now.  If it is good enough I will buy it, and lets face it we are experienced enough to figure out if a console has got enough drawing power or not. 

The Wii will have to pull its socks up to compete.

I wish you would present something more than generalizations as the foundation of an argument.  However, if you want to play PC games on a TV, why don't you just get a video card that will output the signal to a TV?  But it really sounds like you just want an Xbox, except of course for your comment that you want a console that will play "the core console games that Sony will offer," which I'm guessing won't work on the Wii, even with a modchip.   

Your comment about Nintendo being "for children and young women", smacks of fanboyism.  Remember, it's not the system that defines the software, it's the software that defines the system, at least as far as we the consumers are concerned.  And Nintendo, as well as all the other game companies, will produce mass market games for as wide an audience as possible.  That probably extends to, yes, young people and women, and I think Little Big Planet or whatever the most publicized game of the moment  for PS3 is called, demonstrates that.

As for the rest, you haven't really presented any arguable points, so ... nevermind. 

Anyway, thanks for at least trying to sound objective.

 

[shmokes]

I don't know.  He certainly sounds like a Sony fanboy, but his arguments aren't without merit.  Nintendo IS for children (dunno about the young women bit, but I kinda got a kick out of it).  They're desperately trying to shake that image, but it's one that they created.  Nintendo were like evil dictators about the content that 3rd parties could put on their systems with NES and SNES.  They were nearly as bad with N64.  As gamers grew up, so did their tastes, and Nintendo's refusal to let mature content on their consoles is largely what allowed Sega and then Sony to have so much success against them.

You're right that the games shape the console, but the problem is, most 3rd party developers treat Nintendo consoles exactly the same way ark_arder thinks of them.  They support them, to a degree, but the support they give them is almost exclusively family friendly stuff.  We've got Grand Theft Auto Vice City and San Andreas on Xbox and PS2 (I think GTA III is available for both, too, but I'm not sure of that).  Sony doesn't have exclusivity anymore.  So where's the Gamecube version?  Take Two/Rockstar WOULD release a Gamecube version if they thought the market was there, but they think of the Gamecube as a system for kids who can't play M-rated games, so they don't make a version for the Nintendo Console.  Same goes for PSP and DS.  Where's the GTA for DS?  Either they perceive Nintendo systems as being only for children, or Nintendo won't let that sort of game be released on their systems, in which case they really are only for children.  I don't buy this last bit anymore, though.  Nintendo is finally coming around and are taking some measures to try to shake off their kiddie image.  They're having limited success so far, but we saw it with their deal with Capcom for all the Gamecube exclusives that produced Resident Evil 4 and Killer 7, as well as the resources they've been devoting to Retro for the Metroid franchise.  And Reggie Fils Aime has publicly said that he wants Grand Theft Auto on the Wii.  We'll see if that turns out, I suppose.

[KenToad]

Well, while I agree with most of what you said, I think I take slight issue with games for kids in the sense that they are only fun for kids.  I think of the great Nintendo games like I think of great animated/family oriented movies ... they are great for all ages and especially wonderful for adults if done right ... several Pixar movies would be good recent examples.  I think it's the Mature rated games and the Grand Theft Auto games in particular that just seem silly to anyone outside the 13-30 year old guy demographic.  I even know some women who think badly of a guy for playing that type of game.     And Nintendo's eyes have always been upon the expanding market.  Anyway, GTA is better with a mouse and the DS is kind of underpowered for the GTA 3d franchise.      

Nintendo's idea from the beginning about being a licensing tyrant was to mollify the reactionary parental aspect of the market while making bazillions of dollars on licensing/manufacturing fees.  Unlike some other software/hardware giants, i.e. Apple, they have shown themselves capable of rising above that early mantra, at least when they realized they lost the 32/64 bit wars. 

Nintendo's been fighting the "for kids only" image basically since the Genesis started running those ads.  However, I can't think of a single Mature type game that I would consider great on the Genesis.  With the Playstation, I can think of a few great Mature games, but even Resident Evil 2 was eventually ported to the 64 and the 64 had Conker and Perfect Dark.  I blame inadequate hardware, especially sound for the commercial failure of the 64.

[AtomSmasher]

I can't believe no ones mentioned Eternal Darkness, thats another great M rated gamecube exclusive.

[shmokes]

Yeah, KenToad . . . I'd go along with that.  Frankly, I think the refusal to ditch cartridges for CDs was the deciding factor for N64, simply because cartridges were so much riskier for 3rd parties Nintendo was practically begging them to give Sony a try.  Their problem now is that they created such a monster that their only having limited success rising above the early mantra.  They're making real efforts, but they're finding it really hard to get those efforts noticed by adult gamers.  While they jump up and down holding the Resident Evil and Killer 7 signs all the gamers tend to see is the Nintendo t-shirt and ignore what they're saying.

And Atom, Eternal Darkness wasn't just a great Gamecube exclusive, it came from a Nintendo 2nd party studio.  Like I say, Nintendo has been trying desperately to shake the image, but it is bloody ingrained in the name.  Eternal Darkness, by the way, was an abject failure commercially, which says a lot.  On PS2 it very  likely would have thrived because of the difference in the two markets. 

[AtomSmasher]

And Atom, Eternal Darkness wasn't just a great Gamecube exclusive, it came from a Nintendo 2nd party studio.  Like I say, Nintendo has been trying desperately to shake the image, but it is bloody ingrained in the name.  Eternal Darkness, by the way, was an abject failure commercially, which says a lot.  On PS2 it very  likely would have thrived because of the difference in the two markets. 

Ya, I know it failed miserably which is too bad because it was a really good game.  I never owned a gamecube, so while I'm waiting for more Wii games to come out I've been playing gamecube games on my Wii.  So far eternal darkness is the only one that really got me hooked.  I'm currently trying resident evil 4, but so far its too much of a fps with bad console controls for me to enjoy it.  I just wish shooting didn't require stopping, slowly aiming, then firing with the bad accuracy of a thumbstick, seems like they need an autoaim feature or something.  Everyone seems to love it though, so I'll give it another chance.

[Tahnok]

And Atom, Eternal Darkness wasn't just a great Gamecube exclusive, it came from a Nintendo 2nd party studio.  Like I say, Nintendo has been trying desperately to shake the image, but it is bloody ingrained in the name.  Eternal Darkness, by the way, was an abject failure commercially, which says a lot.  On PS2 it very  likely would have thrived because of the difference in the two markets. 

Ya, I know it failed miserably which is too bad because it was a really good game.  I never owned a gamecube, so while I'm waiting for more Wii games to come out I've been playing gamecube games on my Wii.  So far eternal darkness is the only one that really got me hooked.  I'm currently trying resident evil 4, but so far its too much of a fps with bad console controls for me to enjoy it.  I just which shooting didn't require stopping, slowly aiming, then firing with the bad accuracy of a thumbstick, seems like they need an autoaim feature or something.  Everyone seems to love it though, so I'll give it another chance.

I'm doing the exact same thing, literally. I finished Twilight Princess and am now borrowing Resident Evil 4 from a friend. I've got to say, after some initial reservations about the controls, they make for some very interesting and unique gameplay. I don't think the game would have worked as well had it not been for it's unique mechanics. About my only gripe that it's not analog (a run button for a game that uses an analog stick?). BTW, the aiming is only inaccurate if you're inaccurate. Give it some time, and you'll be able to head shot enemies as they storm you.

Anyway, the N64 failure was not only because they kept cartridges, but also that the system was incredibly hard to program for (from what I've heard). The two together really created an unappealing system for developers.

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . keep playing.  RE4 is better than Eternal Darkness. 

[ChadTower]

I think he means that he doesn't want to spend 5 or 6 hundred dollars to buy a system in order to play one or a couple of good games, rather than an extended library of great games.

I understood and mostly agree with that point, thanks.  I was pointing out the irony of saying he won't pay hundreds for a single game on an arcade message board.  We're the exact type that pay hundreds for a single game.

[somunny]

I think he means that he doesn't want to spend 5 or 6 hundred dollars to buy a system in order to play one or a couple of good games, rather than an extended library of great games.

I understood and mostly agree with that point, thanks.  I was pointing out the irony of saying he won't pay hundreds for a single game on an arcade message board.  We're the exact type that pay hundreds for a single game.

I can't believe you had to explain this.   

[SithMaster]

The ability to play counterstrike on it and most windows programs including Mame via Yellow Dog, and the possibility of running OSX puts an ever increasing desire to own one of these units.

the pc and xbox have counterstrike, mame runs on the pc, and macs run osx.  why spend 600 dollars on all this when you can spend half that.  dont get me wrong i really want to play killzone 2 but 600 dollars for a system?  that and one is crippled compared to the other.  at least the xbox only has the hd difference.

havent you watched south park if cartman wants a wii that bad then so do you.

[shardian]

Resident Evil 4 = 

Yes, the aiming takes a little while to get used to, but it is very worth it. BTW, weapon upgrades/new weapons makes it quicker/easier to aim.

[KenToad]

I think he means that he doesn't want to spend 5 or 6 hundred dollars to buy a system in order to play one or a couple of good games, rather than an extended library of great games.

I understood and mostly agree with that point, thanks.  I was pointing out the irony of saying he won't pay hundreds for a single game on an arcade message board.  We're the exact type that pay hundreds for a single game.

ok, ok sorry    I personally have never paid several hundred dollars for one game, and I still wouldn't ... maybe if it came in a nice cabinet. 

[ark_ader]

I have been looking at the promotional videos of PS3's Home.  I like it and it will open the door to so may people who find it difficult to interact in the "real world".

The ability to play counterstrike on it and most windows programs including Mame via Yellow Dog, and the possibility of running OSX puts an ever increasing desire to own one of these units.

I am not rich by any means and my last major purchase was a PSP, but it looks more likely I will be getting a PS3 than a Wii purely on it capabilities.  Granted we are talking about platforms that are on a different level, but something keeps nagging me in the back of my mind that Nintendo games/units are devoted to children and young women.  Their DS and Wii games of late reflect this.

I'm not making generalisations here, but if I am to commit hard erned cash to a platform, I would want something that will play all my old titles, some off tangent games (like PC stuff) and the core console games that Sony will offer.  Blueray? well we will have to look at that when the price comes down.

One thing is certain, if Sony keeps the ball moving in the right direction to the thirty somethings of the western world, I'd hate to be Nintendo or Microsoft right now.  If it is good enough I will buy it, and lets face it we are experienced enough to figure out if a console has got enough drawing power or not. 

The Wii will have to pull its socks up to compete.

I wish you would present something more than generalizations as the foundation of an argument.  However, if you want to play PC games on a TV, why don't you just get a video card that will output the signal to a TV?  But it really sounds like you just want an Xbox, except of course for your comment that you want a console that will play "the core console games that Sony will offer," which I'm guessing won't work on the Wii, even with a modchip.   

Your comment about Nintendo being "for children and young women", smacks of fanboyism.  Remember, it's not the system that defines the software, it's the software that defines the system, at least as far as we the consumers are concerned.  And Nintendo, as well as all the other game companies, will produce mass market games for as wide an audience as possible.  That probably extends to, yes, young people and women, and I think Little Big Planet or whatever the most publicized game of the moment  for PS3 is called, demonstrates that.

As for the rest, you haven't really presented any arguable points, so ... nevermind. 

Anyway, thanks for at least trying to sound objective.

 

I am not a Sony Fanboy but a keen collector of electronic games which started when my dad bought an Odessy for Christmas.  Every year (just about) I have been adding to my collection, which has either been lost in shipping or broken from moving from one side of the globe to another.

I'm knocking on 40 now and my love of video games will be a constant in my life.  To be honest I'm a Fanboy to nearly every platform there is and the only console I have not bought is the 360 and the Wii, purely because I think its 

So I don't take offense to those comments you have made or the point of making generalisations (as I kindly pointed out in my previous post) but I do think Nintendo systems are geared to children and women.  Most of the women colleagues have a DS and play it quite often, as the games look simple and cute.

I feel that the Wii is an extension to that and will appeal more to families than the hard core gamer.  Today it is getting harder to have a normal association with family life, especially with one parent families.  Getting  Wii and interacting with your child is excellent use of quality time, something I'm sure Nintendo was thinking of, as their adverts suggest.

Sony on the other hand appeal to the hard core gamer, and yes do include adult titles in their inventory or cataloque.  This is something I do find appeal to, coupled with the ability to play all the old games I have in my collection and to reduce the clutter (that one could expect with my hobby) that is my gaming room. 

Is it such a issue that I would want to pay £420 for a console that would deliver what I want?  This will not appeal to those who cannot afford it, and most likely  off those who would like to have it, but could only afford the Wii.

To be honest there is still life in the original Xbox and the Dreamcast, and I do play these consoles on a regular basis as do the CDI.  One of the main reasons for getting the X Arcade system.

So considering the experience I have in consoles, and the computers of old and new coupled with a 20 year IT and R&D background, I don't think my point of generalising is so far off the mark.  I have seen friends interact more with their children (who have bought the Wii) than with the Xbox as it appeals more. 

The Physical activity, the sense of competition and of bonding with a such a simple game of baseball, the Wii works like a charm.  It nearly makes you want to get a couple of mitts and have a game of catch, like we used to do before video games were around.

I do understand when posting there will be a change of view, as we all different.  I don't take offense in what you posted Ken, but I do think you should read the post more carefully and think about it before you reply to it.

If anything purely out of courtesy.

[shmokes]

My biggest question mark is what you have against the 360.  Their strategy seems to be virtually identical to Sony's aside from the BluRay drive.  They both appeal to identical markets.  So far 360 games look superior to PS3 games.  And the 360 currently has a very strong library, covering every genre. 

I personally want a PS3 more than a 360 because I think most of the same games will be available for both systems, but I own a modded Xbox and never owned a PS2, so backwards compatibility on the 360 is irrelevant to me, but backwards compatibility on the PS3 means that I can eventually catch up on gems that I missed like ICO, God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.

But that's a purely subjective and understandable reason to choose PS3 over 360.  What do you base your dislike of the 360 on?  Objectively it just seems like a powerful console that has a very nice controller, a very large library of excellent games and an online component that is literally five years ahead of the competition. 

[KenToad]

Ark_ader,

I don't think the term fanboy relates to age.  However, it does relate to maturity.  My comment was that Mature games tend to appeal to immature boys, the same kind of boys that don't want to play games that they think their mother or their kid brother might want to play.  They also tend to think of themselves as hardcore.   

Truthfully, I also don't understand why you don't look at the Xbox 360 more favorably, since Sony hasn't been producing that "core" of console games lately.  I don't think Sony ever has, but they're damn good licensers ... but that won't matter if the system doesn't sell well, for whatever reason. 

So, I didn't really care that you're not into the Wii, but sayiing that it's for a certain demographic that doesn't include ... ahem .... hardcore gamers such as yourself is just plain silly. 

Sorry to sound discourteous again, sheesh. 

If it makes you feel better, I really admire your avatar.   

[geomartin]

Seems like a silly question when no one can keep the WII in stock.  I've been stopping  by a couple outlets almost daily looking to score one with no luck.  They both have had and continue to have stock on the PS3.  The question should be when is the PS3 going to take off!

[KenToad]

Seems like a silly question when no one can keep the WII in stock.  I've been stopping  by a couple outlets almost daily looking to score one with no luck.  They both have had and continue to have stock on the PS3.  The question should be when is the PS3 going to take off!

They put out the boarding call, but no one was there.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't think the term fanboy relates to age.  However, it does relate to maturity.  My comment was that Mature games tend to appeal to immature boys, the same kind of boys that don't want to play games that they think their mother or their kid brother might want to play.  They also tend to think of themselves as hardcore.   

See that is plain out wrong.  Mature games appeal to mature people.  The problem is that a games rating has nothing to do with how mature it is, rather the amount of sex and violence it contains.  The GTA series, for example is one of the most immature games I've ever seen and I strongly feel that the franchise would have never got off the ground if idiots like Jack Thompson hadn't given it all that free publicity.  I mean seriously, with some rare exceptions, there's no plot, the gameplay mechanics are shot, and the graphics are terrible.  The problem with "sandbox" gameplay is you out-grew playing in a sandbox at around age 6.  Once you figure out it's just a box with sand in it, it tends to loose it's appeal. 

On the other hand, truely mature games (like re4) appeal to mature gamers as they have things, like a plot and good gameplay... the ultra gore is just a nice little bonus. 




I responded to this thread eraly on, but my internet connection crapped out and it got lost. 

I'll give the short of it though....

The wii already took off, were you asleep or something?
Complaining about scores of 7 and 8 on games is like complaining that your kid is stupid because he always gets B's in school.  The average score of the wii games right now is around 7.5... both m$ and sony would KILL for a average score that high.  Think back to any system, I mean any system and with teh exception of the legendary nes and 2600 very few systems had more than two or three smash hits in their entire lifespan.  Like it or not, the bulk of any games on any system are average games at best.  The bulk of wii games are above average so that's really really good.  Remember even outstanding games like zelda ony get a 9-9.5... a ten is unheard of....  and so a 7 or 8 is a really good game. 

I'm on the last boss of sonic for example.  It wasn't the best (or longest) game in the world, but it was very fun and kept me occupied for a month or two, which is all you can expect from a game, especially a third party game this early in the system's life cycle.  Some really good games are already out... sure they aren't TP caliber, but what is?  That's like expecting m$ to release a game as good a halo once a month, it ain't gonna happen.  Also look to april... some killer games will be released, such as paper mario. 

In regards to the ps3, it doesn't need competition to make it's sales bad, it does that all by itself.  This has absolutely nothing to do with if you like sony or not, it's just simple economics.....  The ps3 is 600 bucks.... that's too expensive for the average consumer to want given it's currently weak lineup.  So the console isn't selling that well.  More importantly though, they still loose a great deal of money for every console sold, which would be fine if the software was selling (as that is how they make thier money) but it isn't.  Even their killer apps like resistance are selling around 1/3 to 1/10 what that average 360 or wii killer app is in terms of numbers.  These arguments about waiting for the price drop or waiting for new titles to come out don't help matters either.  Seeing as how sony is constantly loosing money due to poor software sales, a price drop ain't gonna happen anytime soon and since the killer apps won't be released for some time, it might be that sony will lose too much money in the meantime to make it worth it for them to stay in the market with the ps3, especially considering, the ps2, ironically is still selling like hot-cakes and making them a ton of money.

Look back at your video game history... the highest priced console has always sold the worst in a best-case scenario or killed the company worst-case.   Hmm.. a system with vastly superior graphics (and I'm exaggeratign a bit on that) backed by a well-known, well established gaming company that doesn't sell because it's over-priced and has a relatively poor software lineup.  Those two factors are hurting the system so badly that only the most dedicated fanboys defend it, constantly reminding us of it's superior features.  Also the manufacturer ignores the writing on the wall and continues to ignore inheriant problems, still investing tons of resources into the system and hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread. That sounds very familiar to me.... can you say NeoGeo?

Also the "home" service they announced is a joke and a gimmick.  Mii = cute little identity  Home=lame.  See first off, everybody keeps making comparisons to second-life and I would tend to agree with that.  Ever tried second life?  It totally sucks!! People that play second life aren't interested in gaming, they are interested in chatting or making crap to sell for second life bucks that can be exchanged for cash in the real world.  People criticize nintendo for making channels that don't apply to gamers, but at least they aren't basing their entire online interface on non-gamers!  The built in langauge that allows you to make "games" totally sucks as well and the ps3 home games built in, unfortunately look very similar to those games.  Also there is a practicality issue.  Ever tried 3darcade?  It's fantastic isn't it?  Now try to navigate the entire mame gamelist in 3d "fps" mode.  It's horribly unsuited for the task because quite frankly, you don't want to walk a virtual mile just to play pacman.  This is where home falls flat on it's face, it's no fun to walk to stuff in a virtual world after the novelty wears off unless it's a very small selection of items and thus little time is spent doing so.  Also, and this is just my personal opinion, but the avatars look kinda creepy and dead, much like any other create-a-whatever feature introduced over the years.  Mii's over-exaggerated features and simplified looks make them very expressive, while the home avatars look like those brain dead sprites in your average sim game. 

[KenToad]

Hmmm, how many good games are out for the wii right now?

I've heard of Wii Sports, Wario, Zelda, and maybe Excite Truck. 

What games are must play right now for the Wii?

I don't think the term fanboy relates to age.  However, it does relate to maturity.  My comment was that Mature games tend to appeal to immature boys, the same kind of boys that don't want to play games that they think their mother or their kid brother might want to play.  They also tend to think of themselves as hardcore.   

See that is plain out wrong.  Mature games appeal to mature people.  The problem is that a games rating has nothing to do with how mature it is, rather the amount of sex and violence it contains.  The GTA series, for example is one of the most immature games I've ever seen and I strongly feel that the franchise would have never got off the ground if idiots like Jack Thompson hadn't given it all that free publicity.  I mean seriously, with some rare exceptions, there's no plot, the gameplay mechanics are shot, and the graphics are terrible.  The problem with "sandbox" gameplay is you out-grew playing in a sandbox at around age 6.  Once you figure out it's just a box with sand in it, it tends to loose it's appeal. 

On the other hand, truely mature games (like re4) appeal to mature gamers as they have things, like a plot and good gameplay... the ultra gore is just a nice little bonus. 

An interesting point.  I would tend to agree that the term Mature is actually wrongfully applied to games like GTA.  I agree that mature people would prefer games that have plot and good gameplay.  But my comment is referring to the term Mature as it is applied by the ESRB. 

It would be awesome if the next Grand Theft Auto or Blood Rayne carried an official rating of Highly Immature, with the subtitle that you must be at the mental and emotional level of a 13 year-old boy in order to appreciate this zero plotline poorly executed gratuitously violent game,  since that would definitely be closer to the truth, IMO.

[ChadTower]

Holy crap Howard's post was long, even for him.  Is anyone going to read that?