Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[tommy]

I only have a Wii of this new gen of consoles and I do too play last gen games on it. For whatever reason If I did own a PS3 or a 360 I can say I would only play games made for the system on the system and not last gen games.

There is just something about the Wii that makes you want to play all the GC games on it. Maybe it's because they look just about like a Wii game.

[DaveMMR]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

[versapak]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

Emulated games from the Wii store don't count as backward compatible at all.

I play a lot more than that on my Xbox.


The Wii's GC playability is very nice though, since the Wii isn't much more powerful, it doesn't even really feel that much like you are playing last gen games in comparison.

[DaveMMR]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

Emulated games from the Wii store don't count as backward compatible at all.

I play a lot more than that on my Xbox.

I know - I cheated.  Because you can't use your old software and if you have NES/SNES/N64 cartridges, you effectively have to "rebuy" them to play them on the Wii.   

But I was trying to prove a point.  To the average consumer who doesn't know they can mod an X-Box and download roms and whatever, it is great that four generations worth of games can be played (legitimately) on one machine.  If you get bored with the Wii lineup, you can go to the online shop and pick up SMB3 or Starfox64.  If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

[patrickl]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

[DaveMMR]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

That's entirely subjective.  I could turn around and tell you the exact opposite.  Not everyone likes the same games/genres/series as you do.   

And BS, there's always a reason to go back to older games.  Should "Gone With the Wind" be discontinued because "2 Fast 2 Furious" just came out?

[patrickl]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

That's entirely subjective.  I could turn around and tell you the exact opposite.  Not everyone likes the same games/genres/series as you do.   

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

[ChadTower]

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

Sony buys more adspace than Nintendo does.

Those "reviews" are almost all bought and paid for on all sides.

[DaveMMR]

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

Sony buys more adspace than Nintendo does.

Those "reviews" are almost all bought and paid for on all sides.

To add to that - there are games that receive excellent reviews I have no desire to play.  And again, reviews are opinions, not facts.

[patrickl]

Chad seriously. You have to be kidding that magazines will increase their rating on games because there are ads of these companies in their mag. The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

Mind you that's from metacritics so they would have to been buying reviewers across the board.

Anyway, obviously Sony thinks the lineup is good enough to drop backwards compatibility. Besides they have a lot of impressive exclusives coming up.

[DaveMMR]

Anyway, obviously Sony thinks the lineup is good enough to drop backwards compatibility. Besides they have a lot of impressive exclusives coming up.

Confidence in their lineup is not the reason they're removing the backwards-compatibility.  It's a cost-cutting measure.

[patrickl]

I didn't say the lineup was the reason why they cut BC. It determines the timing.

[DaveMMR]

I didn't say the lineup was the reason why they cut BC. It determines the timing.

Okay, now I understand.   But it's still a dumb move on their part.   Even if every single game released for the system was A+ material, suddenly taking away the ability to play hundreds* of classic games (when it was initially present) is not going to be moving those PS3s.

*(Thousands have been released, but I'm going with a conservative classic-to-crap ratio).

Granted, I can see your point.  The timing is right.  They have a decent sized library so gamers are not left wanting.  But if you could only have one gaming system on your shelf, wouldn't you be picking up something with a higher quantity of better-than-average titles?  Sure the PS3 might have good games, but the PS2 has a lot more good games at this point (including some PS1 titles).  Same with the Xbox360 (Xbox games) and Wii (VC).     

[Cakemeister]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

I was going to call BS on that until I read this link.

[patrickl]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

I was going to call BS on that until I read this link.

I was surprised about how in this december 2006 comparison the graphics of the Xbox 360 look better than those of the PS3.

[ChadTower]

Chad seriously. You have to be kidding that magazines will increase their rating on games because there are ads of these companies in their mag.

Of course it does.  Get a job in any print medium... newspaper, magazine, hell even underground zine... if you want more positive coverage all you have to do is pay for it.  That's how that industry works, and since most major websites are an offshoot of that now, they work the same way.

The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

That's not true...    How many major PS3 games exist on the Wii?   

[patrickl]

The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

That's not true...    How many major PS3 games exist on the Wii?   

I said "same companies" not "same games". Apart from Nintento and Sony I doubt there are many companies that don't make games for both consoles.

[somunny]

Could another price drop be a week away?

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24454

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28. SlickDeals.net is a website dedicated to providing consumers with the latest prices in electronics, breaking the news of both of the previous PS3 price drops and the 360 price drop a few weeks early, along with the CheapAssGamer forums.

Though it does seem early for this to occur, Sony did recently announce that the price of manufacturing of the PS3 did drop from $800 per unit at the launch to $400 currently. This is mainly due to the success of Blu Ray, especially with Warner Bros. going Blu Ray exclusive earlier this month. Now there are also rumors that Paramount found a loophole in their HD DVD exclusivity contract and will be going Blu Ray as well - leaving Universal and Dreamworks as the only remaining HD DVD studios.

[danny_galaga]

Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28.

 

how much is the wii going for in the US?

[Dartful Dodger]

I paid $499 for mine two weeks ago, so that almost guarantees it'll drop to $299.

[ChadTower]

Dartful, could you buy a Tacoma?  I don't want to pay $20,000.   

[knave]

The backwards compatability of the Wii is really important to all of the new casual gamers who prieviously would never have bought a console and have never owned one.  Its a real bonus to buy a Wii and get access to all GC games as well.

[somunny]

The backwards compatability of the Wii is really important to all of the new casual gamers who prieviously would never have bought a console and have never owned one.  Its a real bonus to buy a Wii and get access to all GC games as well.

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

BC is important to the people with game collections.

[ahofle]

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

[somunny]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

[knave]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Exactly. The older games are dirt cheap and they all seem new to the gamer who hasn't seen them before.(ie. never owned a GC)  I still think some of the GC games look pretty nice.

[DaveMMR]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

It's hard to miss that the Wii plays GC games.  It's plastered all over the instructions and the options pop-up on the Wii menus. 

And just to clear things up, "casual gamer" doesn't mean "naive consumer".  Some people don't play games enough to justify buying an expensive console but is in the know enough to realize the potential of a system, including it's built-in library thanks to BC.  Plus I'm sure the ability to play every console release of the Metroid, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda (assuming you can find a copy of the collector's editions released for GC) series on one box moved at least a couple of systems.

[versapak]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

It's hard to miss that the Wii plays GC games.  It's plastered all over the instructions and the options pop-up on the Wii menus. 

And just to clear things up, "casual gamer" doesn't mean "naive consumer".  Some people don't play games enough to justify a large price tag but is in the know enough to realize the potential of a system, including it's built-in library thanks to BC. 

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.


Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

[knave]

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I don't agree, If I were to get a 360 or a PS3 (that supported BC) there are a ton of xbox and PS2 games that I would love to play.  Especially since most of those games are now $9.99 or so.

I don't want to play these games bad enought to spend money on the older system but if my spiffy new system could play both new and old games I'd surely pick up those older titles.  Just like I'm doing with the Wii.

[versapak]

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I don't agree, If I were to get a 360 or a PS3 (that supported BC) there are a ton of xbox and PS2 games that I would love to play.  Especially since most of those games are now $9.99 or so.

I don't want to play these games bad enought to spend money on the older system but if my spiffy new system could play both new and old games I'd surely pick up those older titles.  Just like I'm doing with the Wii.

No, you wouldn't.


There is a huge difference between GC games on a Wii and PS2 games on a PS3 or Xbox games on a 360. The Wii is pretty much just a gamecube, an add-on accessory and a new more feature filled dashboard.


Maybe you would play a couple titles, but the new releases will keep coming, and with each and every quality new release the already low chances of you playing an older release is less and less.


There are always exceptions, and maybe that exception is indeed you. You would definitely be the exception and very much the minority though.



I like having backward compatibility. I have a pretty large game library, and I like knowing that I could play those titles on my new machine if ever I get the itch, but the itch is more a thought then ever a reality.

[Dartful Dodger]

This is a situation where everyone is right.

When I was thinking about the wii I didn't know(or cared) it had BC.

But BC was the reason I spent 100 dollars more for a PS3. It was said earlier.  I'm not going to pay over 60 bucks for a game.  PS2 games are cheap and good enough.

Although if I knew the PS3 without BC was going to be release for 200 less, I would have waited.  I could have bought 3 games with that cash and by the time I bored of them the others would have come down in price.

[DaveMMR]

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If everyone were only playing games because they look good, then developers' jobs would be a heck of a lot easier.  How's about a game of Simon with prerendered cut scenes and realistic shading?  Doesn't sound terribly exciting, does it?  It's still just Simon.

And now I disagree with your assertion that it's useless as anything other than a system for playing old NES games.   Super Mario Galaxy is just way too much fun for it to be called a slouch in the game department.  That's probably the only game I need for quite some time.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

People's definition of "Next Gen" always seems to revolve around graphics (I know you didn't say that explicitly but many people do equate one with the other).  Nintendo decided to take their definition in another direction.  It entails new way of interacting with the games (through motion control and, to a lesser extent, the Miis).   So, sorry, the Wii is no less "Next Gen" than the others. 

Yeah, the titles look like GC titles, but the GC wasn't exactly a slouch in the looks department.  If you're concentrating on how good a game looks, you may not be having fun with the actual gameplay. 

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I was referring to Gamecube games.  That is a BC feature. Though I probably should have started a new paragraph when I brought up the gaming possibilities when you bring the VC into the mix.

And yeah, it is a bit pricey, but it's not horrible.

[versapak]

If everyone were only playing games because they look good, then developers' jobs would be a heck of a lot easier.  How's about a game of Simon with prerendered cut scenes and realistic shading?  Doesn't sound terribly exciting, does it?  It's still just Simon.

And now I disagree with your assertion that it's useless as anything other than a system for playing old NES games.   Super Mario Galaxy is just way too much fun for it to be called a slouch in the game department.  That's probably the only game I need for quite some time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People's definition of "Next Gen" always seems to revolve around graphics (I know you didn't say that explicitly but many people do equate one with the other).  Nintendo decided to take their definition in another direction.  It entails new way of interacting with the games (through motion control and, to a lesser extent, the Miis).   So, sorry, the Wii is no less "Next Gen" than the others. 

Yeah, the titles look like GC titles, but the GC wasn't exactly a slouch in the looks department.  If you're concentrating on how good a game looks, you may not be having fun with the actual gameplay. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was referring to Gamecube games.  That is a BC feature. Though I probably should have started a new paragraph when I brought up the gaming possibilities when you bring the VC into the mix.

And yeah, it is a bit pricey, but it's not horrible.

I am not only talking graphics, but graphics very much are a huge part of next gen.


If they weren't then, why bother upgrading from a NES to a SNES?

That is only one aspect though, and the Wii is behind a generation in several.

It lacks digital surround sound. It lacks processing power, which goes into things such as physics. It lacks ram which, can limit the size of its worlds, or at least what you can see/access of them. It lacks storage space for those nifty downloads they do offer, and prevents options for other downloads that other systems will see (Rock Band on the Wii? Have fun missing out on the massive amounts of great downloadable content).

The Wii does have an alternative take on gaming interaction, in a sense that is next gen, but it is almost all novelty, and it isn't anything that couldn't be done on any other system with a simple add-on.

Once you are into a game, if the controls are great, there isn't much thinking about them, and as such... There hasn't been some underlying need in gaming for a control revolution.

Gamecube games look just like Wii games (mostly... The Wii does at least have 16x9 support). They just happen to control like every other generation of games, which has been fine.

My point was not to say that the GC had ugly gfx. It didn't. My point was simply that there is hardly a generation gap between GC and Wii games. The only gap that is there is one that was never really an issue anyway, so playing GC games on a Wii doesn't feel at all like playing old outdated games in comparison to playing Wii games.

That can't really be said about Xbox and PS2 games played via BC on their successors. 360 and PS3 games definitely do make those games feel dated.


Now... I never asserted anything about a Wii being a system useless for playing anything but old NES titles, so I will just chalk that up to you replying to someone else.

[DaveMMR]

I am not only talking graphics, but graphics very much are a huge part of next gen.


If they weren't then, why bother upgrading from a NES to a SNES?

That is only one aspect though, and the Wii is behind a generation in several.

It lacks digital surround sound. It lacks processing power, which goes into things such as physics. It lacks ram which, can limit the size of its worlds, or at least what you can see/access of them. It lacks storage space for those nifty downloads they do offer, and prevents options for other downloads that other systems will see (Rock Band on the Wii? Have fun missing out on the massive amounts of great downloadable content).

The Wii does have an alternative take on gaming interaction, in a sense that is next gen, but it is almost all novelty, and it isn't anything that couldn't be done on any other system with a simple add-on.

Once you are into a game, if the controls are great, there isn't much thinking about them, and as such... There hasn't been some underlying need in gaming for a control revolution.

Gamecube games look just like Wii games (mostly... The Wii does at least have 16x9 support). They just happen to control like every other generation of games, which has been fine.

My point was not to say that the GC had ugly gfx. It didn't. My point was simply that there is hardly a generation gap between GC and Wii games. The only gap that is there is one that was never really an issue anyway, so playing GC games on a Wii doesn't feel at all like playing old outdated games in comparison to playing Wii games.

That can't really be said about Xbox and PS2 games played via BC on their successors. 360 and PS3 games definitely do make those games feel dated.


Now... I never asserted anything about a Wii being a system useless for playing anything but old NES titles, so I will just chalk that up to you replying to someone else.

Actually, I was responding to you thinking you said the Wii was only good for NES titles, but I went back and realized I misread.  So I'll take back that you made that comment. 

Far be it from me to argue the fact that Wii is the least powerful system of the current generation.  And yeah, when it comes to "next-gen" content, they're lacking in spec sheet buzz words.  But let us rewind to page one of this thread where we were discussing Sony and their current third place position (especially when they could have had first oh so easily).  That's where all this discussion comes full circle.  Despite the lack of, as you said, digital surround sound, processing power, ram, storage, graphical, etc., Nintendo's still currently holding the top position in worldwide sales (source).  Sony, swimming in most, if not all, of the above... last.

And perhaps the Wiimote is a novelty, but a novelty that works quite well when the developers use it wisely and not abuse it (on the flip side, there are some games that tack on needless Wiimote interactivity).  The hardcore controller jockeys may scoff at it, but non-traditional gamers (e.g. - my girlfriend, her friends, their parents) love it to death.  So perhaps that's Nintendo's idea of "next gen", bringing games to those who normally wouldn't play games.   Doesn't seem to be hurting their bottom-line. 

And here's the thing: for the traditional non-gamers (and gamers trying to get non-gamers into gaming), there WAS an underlying need for a control revolution.  Back in the days, games used to be "pick-up-and-play".  Now, suddenly, we're jockeying eight to ten different action buttons while maneuvering two control sticks.  Playing a new game means spending a good half-hour in some tutorial just to learn how to jump.  Nintendo wanted to bring gaming to those without the patience or ability to know which of the numerous face buttons executes an action.   And they did a pretty good job.

By the way, don't think I'll be playing Rock Band on the Wii.  When it comes to certain games, the XBox 360 may be a better choice.  I'll agree with you there.  There are games that are just crying for a powerful machine to be used, and I'm not discounting the purchase of another next-gen console for more hardcore gaming.

Reading back, I think somewhere along the line there was some derailment of discussion when we were talking about backwards compatibility.  That's most likely my fault.  So let me bring us back to that.  Despite the graphical similarities between the Wii and GC, a library of games is a library of games.  There's a possibility PS3 owners never owned a PS2 or PS1 and Sony cut out a large library of playable games from their struggling system.  They can stand to be making back their losses with PS2 software sales*, but instead opted to make the PS3 less versatile.   Not a great move from any standpoint. 

(*I believe the PS2 outsold everyone during the 2006 holiday season, so I admit the money Sony could make from PS2 software sales for PS3-only owners is probably not as great as I may have made it seem.)

[danny_galaga]

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

yep, and in fact i bought 'viewtiful joe' for a wii i havent yet got!

[versapak]

Actually, I was responding to you thinking you said the Wii was only good for NES titles, but I went back and realized I misread.  So I'll take back that you made that comment. 

Far be it from me to argue the fact that Wii is the least powerful system of the current generation.  And yeah, when it comes to "next-gen" content, they're lacking in spec sheet buzz words.  But let us rewind to page one of this thread where we were discussing Sony and their current third place position (especially when they could have had first oh so easily).  That's where all this discussion comes full circle.  Despite the lack of, as you said, digital surround sound, processing power, ram, storage, graphical, etc., Nintendo's still currently holding the top position in worldwide sales (source).  Sony, swimming in most, if not all, of the above... last.

And perhaps the Wiimote is a novelty, but a novelty that works quite well when the developers use it wisely and not abuse it (on the flip side, there are some games that tack on needless Wiimote interactivity).  The hardcore controller jockeys may scoff at it, but non-traditional gamers (e.g. - my girlfriend, her friends, their parents) love it to death.  So perhaps that's Nintendo's idea of "next gen", bringing games to those who normally wouldn't play games.   Doesn't seem to be hurting their bottom-line. 

And here's the thing: for the traditional non-gamers (and gamers trying to get non-gamers into gaming), there WAS an underlying need for a control revolution.  Back in the days, games used to be "pick-up-and-play".  Now, suddenly, we're jockeying eight to ten different action buttons while maneuvering two control sticks.  Playing a new game means spending a good half-hour in some tutorial just to learn how to jump.  Nintendo wanted to bring gaming to those without the patience or ability to know which of the numerous face buttons executes an action.   And they did a pretty good job.

By the way, don't think I'll be playing Rock Band on the Wii.  When it comes to certain games, the XBox 360 may be a better choice.  I'll agree with you there.  There are games that are just crying for a powerful machine to be used, and I'm not discounting the purchase of another next-gen console for more hardcore gaming.

Reading back, I think somewhere along the line there was some derailment of discussion when we were talking about backwards compatibility.  That's most likely my fault.  So let me bring us back to that.  Despite the graphical similarities between the Wii and GC, a library of games is a library of games.  There's a possibility PS3 owners never owned a PS2 or PS1 and Sony cut out a large library of playable games from their struggling system.  They can stand to be making back their losses with PS2 software sales*, but instead opted to make the PS3 less versatile.   Not a great move from any standpoint. 

(*I believe the PS2 outsold everyone during the 2006 holiday season, so I admit the money Sony could make from PS2 software sales for PS3-only owners is probably not as great as I may have made it seem.)

Yeah...


Look at those great Wii system sold numbers. They are indeed great.

Now show me the great software sales that they have led to.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the conversation though.

My sole point, as in the ONLY one I was trying to make, is that the Wii and the Gamecube are so close in ability, that playing gamecube games via backward compatibility barely even a shows a difference in generations. I didn't even mean that as a bad thing about the Wii, but just a reason why it is likely to be a much more used feature on the Wii than other consoles.

If you want to believe that new controller is such a huge generational leap, that it actually makes gamecube games feel as dated as the 360 makes Xbox games feel & likewise with PS3 & 2, then yeah... Whatever... Clearly I'd be just as well talking to the monkey or the block of wood.

[knave]

...the Wii and the Gamecube are so close in ability, that playing gamecube games via backward compatibility barely even a shows a difference in generations.

With that I do agree with you...the GC games look great on my Wii.

My only point is that there are lots of gamers who appreciate the affordable option of picking out highly rated games from the previous generation's library and playing them on a new generation console.

[DaveMMR]

Now show me the great software sales that they have led to.

Actually, Super Mario Galaxy and Wii Play (with Remote) placed 1st and 3rd, respectively on the Top 20 sales chart (based on Amazon sales for Nov/Dec. as found in the latest EGM).  Actually, of the 20 spots, 8 were Wii games, 6 were Xbox 360 games, 5 were DS games, 1 was a PS2 game and 0 were PS3 games.   

I didn't even mean that as a bad thing about the Wii, but just a reason why it is likely to be a much more used feature on the Wii than other consoles.

My original point was that a game is more than just graphics and that's why it's not this humongous leap of faith that people may actually want to play older classics based solely on the fact it's simply a great game, last generation or not.  Just ask all the people that suddenly sent the sales of the original Grand Theft Auto (and GTA2) upwards shortly after GTA3 was released.  Granted, the top-down GTA's were not great games by any means, but it does show that people do look to the past on their new machines.

If you want to believe that new controller is such a huge generational leap, that it actually makes gamecube games feel as dated as the 360 makes Xbox games feel & likewise with PS3 & 2, then yeah... Whatever... Clearly I'd be just as well talking to the monkey or the block of wood.

Yeah, I know those Wiimotes are just silly toys to the hardcore, but some people do enjoy them.   And perhaps it does make GC releases feel dated.  What Wii owner would buy the GC version of Twilight Princess over the Wii version?  On the other hand, what does it really matter?  If you're playing a game and the only thought in your head is "wow, this looks dated" then you are clearly not enjoying what you're playing and should stop immediately. 

Give my regards to the wooden monkeys. 

[versapak]

I never said graphics were the only thing. That seems to be your own little mental block there.


Graphics are the first and most obvious thing, and they encompass a great deal of things, such as, higher quality textures, more detailed 3d models, higher resolution with much better anti-aliasing for an overall clearer picture...

That alone does indeed make a game feel dated, but that is not the only thing. Better use of sound. Better use of storage and the options it provides. Better physics, which effect your overall interaction with a world.


The only thing the Wii has really improved for its game library over the last generation is the controller.

It is something that could be added to any machine though, and they could have easily made a controller exactly like the Wii one for the GC and have the EXACT same games and not notice any difference. The only reason there is even a Wii to go with that controller, is because add-ons don't generally sell well.

I play racing games with a force feedback racing wheel. I find it hard to go back to playing with a controller. If I were to though, it would not take long before I felt comfortable with that controller again. Controls, when they work well, are something that are a subconscious part of gaming.

The Wii actually makes a game out of using the controller, and that aspect is indeed fun. It is no different than any other controller though. It is all about the games utilization of that controller that makes it what it is.

If they feel good with the controls they were designed for, then the gaming experience takes over. The controls become something you don't think about.

The visuals, audio, and the world you are playing in are a more a conscious thing right in front of you though.

I have no problem going back and playing older games and enjoying them, so don't be confused as to what I am saying. It has nothing to do with game quality. It is simply that when you put an Xbox game or a PS2 game into a 360 or PS3 respectively, you notice very easily that you are playing a last gen game.

When you put a GC game into a Wii it is not such difference. In essence... You are simply just using a controller instead of a wheel.

Did you hold that Wii controller and start thinking, "Damn... I never want to hold a regular controller again."?

No, you didn't. I wouldn't buy for a second otherwise, and that being is a clear reason why GC games on a Wii, which designed to work well with "standard" control pads, don't feel anywhere near as dated as last generation games do on the other systems.

[DaveMMR]

I never said graphics were the only thing. That seems to be your own little mental block there.


Graphics are the first and most obvious thing, and they encompass a great deal of things, such as, higher quality textures, more detailed 3d models, higher resolution with much better anti-aliasing for an overall clearer picture...

That alone does indeed make a game feel dated, but that is not the only thing. Better use of sound. Better use of storage and the options it provides. Better physics, which effect your overall interaction with a world.


The only thing the Wii has really improved for its game library over the last generation is the controller.

It is something that could be added to any machine though, and they could have easily made a controller exactly like the Wii one for the GC and have the EXACT same games and not notice any difference. The only reason there is even a Wii to go with that controller, is because add-ons don't generally sell well.

I play racing games with a force feedback racing wheel. I find it hard to go back to playing with a controller. If I were to though, it would not take long before I felt comfortable with that controller again. Controls, when they work well, are something that are a subconscious part of gaming.

The Wii actually makes a game out of using the controller, and that aspect is indeed fun. It is no different than any other controller though. It is all about the games utilization of that controller that makes it what it is.

If they feel good with the controls they were designed for, then the gaming experience takes over. The controls become something you don't think about.

The visuals, audio, and the world you are playing in are a more a conscious thing right in front of you though.

I have no problem going back and playing older games and enjoying them, so don't be confused as to what I am saying. It has nothing to do with game quality. It is simply that when you put an Xbox game or a PS2 game into a 360 or PS3 respectively, you notice very easily that you are playing a last gen game.

When you put a GC game into a Wii it is not such difference. In essence... You are simply just using a controller instead of a wheel.

Did you hold that Wii controller and start thinking, "Damn... I never want to hold a regular controller again."?

No, you didn't. I wouldn't buy for a second otherwise, and that being is a clear reason why GC games on a Wii, which designed to work well with "standard" control pads, don't feel anywhere near as dated as last generation games do on the other systems.

Well in all fairness, you're selling point seemed to be on Wii games looking like GC games (the key word was "looks").  So it's not a mental block, it's what I gathered from your argument.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. 

Also, I will see that you have no official stance against backwards compatibility.  Never really thought you did.  I just gather that you see it as more of a "curiosity" feature than a real viable selling point for a system.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

But for me, it's most definitely a selling point.  You'd think I'd be playing more GC titles on the Wii than I would PS2 games on the PS3, but I think the exact opposite.  I don't want to keep my PS2 around when I have a PS3 (space and wiring concerns), but I don't want to give up some of those great games I have.  And the ones I'm talking about (Rez, Katamari Damacy, Bombastic, Hot Shots Golf, Activision Classics) looked dated when they were first released so for me it's a non-issue anyhow.

I'm not saying I'm always going to use it.  I just like having the option and a clutter free entertainment center.

On a seperate note: I like to think that the Wii has more potential than just a system with a unique controller method.  I see is as a system with some good, exclusive titles.   The title I'm anticipating the most (Super Smash Bros. Brawl) doesn't even require any Wiimote antics (you can use a classic controller or GC controller if you'd like).  Nintendo, as reviled as they are by the hardcores, makes a damn good game. 

Postscript: I'm trying really hard not to paint myself as a Nintendo fanboy, because I enjoy my PS2 and Xbox (hopefully soon to be upgraded to Xbox 360) too.  But it just seems that in this generation, only Microsoft and Nintendo are appealing to their audience.  And I have to admit that I'm kind of nostalgically giddy that Nintendo is on top again.  But Sony, on the other hand, let it's hubris market their latest system.  It's sad.  Before the original price announcement, the PS3 was first on my shopping list...