Wii, Console to Keep? Or Toy to Trash?

[Narudude360]

I have a Nintendo Wii, and I don't enjoy owning one too much. I came up with some reasons to keep or sell mine.

Pros!:

- MadWorld, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, No More Heroes/2: Desperate Struggle, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, The Conduit, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: [Title Unknown. Only 1 Image Proves Existance.].

- WiiWare

- Capcom seems to have taken the system as it's target for the RE franchise, as they already hinted at a possible port for RE5.

Cons:

- SHOVELWARE. This is the awful stuff that companies make and then sell at a bargain price in hopes of people buying it. Then they spend the money on heavy advertising on adult channels on television to entice stupid adults to buy the crap for their kids instead of Killer-Apps like RE4 and TLoZ: TP. This then encourages the companies to make more of this crap because it is selling!! It infuriates me, and makes me want to go BEBALAFRAGATHON on all of these companies! Worst offender: Hudson.

- Most games are for casual gamers. I have a handful of the console's ONLY hardcore titles, and most of them are in the Pros! Section. Get that "Birthday Party Bash" outta my face. It's bullcrap!!

- It's geared toward kids. Wii Sports? Wii Play? Wii Fit? Wii Music? Wii Sports Resort? Wii Fit Plus? Wii R Still Playing? Wii Play After Dark? Wii Play (W/O Game)? Wii Can't Stop Playing? Wii Sports Heaven? WiiMake Pointless Lists?

- New Play Control! *Sigh* Nintendo, the Wii is backwards compatible. If we wanted to play a GameCube game, we would buy a cheaper, used copy and play that. Not spend $29.99 on a game we played 4 years ago "enhanced" with gimmicky controls!

- No console MMO! Sure, some people can use the Internet Channel (ME!) to watch YouTube and play AQ Worlds, but we want a REAL MMO. Not just some browser MMO, but one we can play with a Wii Remote and Nunchuk! Or a classic controller, hell, I don't care, I just want an MMO! (CartoonNetwork Universe: FusionFall developers have hinted a Wii and iPhone release on the game, since they use the same 3D tech as the PC version. I wouldn't mind this, as I play the game. A $14.99 download on WiiWare doesn't seem bad. It seems fine. So long as it doesn't feel clunky, I think the Wii is the perfect fit.
The reason I brought this up is because the PS3 is eventually getting FFXIV, and the Xbox 360 is getting Champions: Online. Just thought about bringing it up. GET WITH THE PROGRAM NINTENDO, YOUR COMPETITORS ARE AHEAD OF YOU. NATAL AND WAVY-WAND-WITH-A-WEIRD-RED-BALL-ON-TOP ARE BEATING YOU. Motion Controls got you ahead for round 1, Sony and Microsoft are beating you to the punch in round 2.

[TheLogman]

Um, you really shouldn't consider how much "console trash" is on any given system if you're not going to buy aforementioned trash anyway. Besides, the Wii does have quite a few great games.

Brawl is amazing, and I still play it what, 2 years later? I just got Little King's Story, I beat it on one playthough with almost all the sidequests done, and it took me something like 35 hours of play. It was one of the greatest games I've ever played.

New zelda game coming, Metroid, the Other M is coming out, and it looks like one of the best Metroid games ever, with Dead or Alive-Style fighting plus the things that made Metroid great.

The new mario games look pretty good. There is quite a lot of great WiiWare out there if you know where to look.

No, the Wii may not be as "serious" or "hardcore"as other systems, but I've spent tons of great time on mine, and I certainly don't regret it.

Yeah, Nintendo has made a lot of crappy money-grubbing moves over the past year, but this coming year is going to be a great year for the Wii. Don't hold the actions of the company against the console itself.

And go get Little King's Story. It's amazing.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Another thing which may be a factor is money. The Wii is pretty much the cheapest current gen console (although I heard that the lowest quality 360 is cheaper). For you, it might not be a problem, as you don't seem to imply that money is an issue, but the fact still stands.

[Narudude360]

Thank you for that suggestion. I already have Little King's Story, and I can agree with you on all fronts. I know that Metroid: The Other M is going to rock with my PSYCHIC POWERS!1!! But I understand your point. I just find out of all three consoles, the Wii has the most shovelware. Natal and Sony's Wand are going to rake their fair share of the crap as well. Thank you for touching up on the topic. I think you made a good point.

[Copper8642]

Above poster beat me to it, but Brawl being made of epic win can't be overstated. I just finished playing a few games before I came here, and typing that out makes me want to play more.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I bought my Wii a couple years ago just to play Twilight Princess, and hope to play some new games as they came out. Around 6 months passed, and my Wii had been on my shelf collecting dust for 4 months. I took it over to a neighbors house one day, a couple there loved Wii Sports and offered to buy it off of me for $20 or so less than I originally payed for it. I sold it.

3 or so years later, I'm not really regretting my decision.

[Narudude360]

I really enjoyed Brawl, but the unlockables seem to be getting... stale. And the gameplay is nice, but the rumored expansion would give the game 2 more years of fresh air. It's just a little weird how things like that work. I love Brawl. It's just not the Brawl I used to love.

[Narudude360]

The irritation I get from watching people smack me into oblivion is irritating. Ike is by far the cheapest playable character. I went to a tournament. Twenty-five plus people were there. Myself and six others played as Ike. I made it to the final round with three other guys. A twelve year old, a seven year old, and an eighteen year old. The eighteen year old went down first. Then me. Then it was the twelve v.s. the seven. Then I discovered the kids were brothers. And the final battle was Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Yoshi? It was. The seven year old was Yoshi, and he WON. Turns out the brother let him win. The prize was lame. Apparently the folks at Sno-Isle (WHAT A TWIST!!) Didn't realize that ten bucks isn't going to get you much more than a sticker or a pre-order at GameStop. But the prizes were twenty-five, ten, and five dollar gift cards to GameStop. Sad.

[Geno9999]

Oddly enough, I want Wii Sports Resort, just because it has 1:1 control for swordfighting.
Best games for the Wii are:
Legend of Zelda:Twilight Princess
Metroid Prime (They're remaking the whole Trilogy with the Wii controls found in Prime 3)
Super Mario Galaxy
SUPER SMASH BROS BRAWL!!!
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is pretty good
Punch-Out!!!
*Insert any classic game that's available on VC or Wiiware*
(games that I would play in the future is:
Super Mario Galaxy 2
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Metroid: Other M
Legend of Zelda)

Some of the trash you posted are made by people whole wanted to make some pennies off of the Wii's controls.
"Hey, let's make some minigames!'
"Good idea! Let's add some motion control, and it'll sell like hotcakes!"
"Awesome!"

[Geno9999]

Ike is by far the cheapest playable character. ...
And the final battle was Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Yoshi?

*lolz* And people say that METAKNIGHT is top-tier. Just be glad that you don't have a bro who is crazy-awesome at Pit. Me and my other brothers made a truce that we KO Pit first ASAP.
Otherwise, I just play against random computers, and become rather decent at pretty much everyone.

[birchman]

Another thing which may be a factor is money. The Wii is pretty much the cheapest current gen console (although I heard that the lowest quality 360 is cheaper). For you, it might not be a problem, as you don't seem to imply that money is an issue, but the fact still stands.

When you consider the ridiculous amount of peripherals that are required to play anything more than Wii Sports on the Wii, it really does become the most expensive console.

I personally would never like to own a Wii, since I would get bored with it within a week. I'm still glad that a lot of my friends have them, but I really would definitely not want one of my own.

[Mando Knight]

- SHOVELWARE. This is the awful stuff that companies make and then sell at a bargain price in hopes of people buying it. Then they spend the money on heavy advertising on adult channels on television to entice stupid adults to buy the crap for their kids instead of Killer-Apps like RE4 and TLoZ: TP. This then encourages the companies to make more of this crap because it is selling!! It infuriates me, and makes me want to go BEBALAFRAGATHON on all of these companies! Worst offender: Hudson.
Every system has shovelware. The Wii is simply the most obvious example because its lower initial price and family-friendly nature make it a target for such developers. I really haven't seen this "heavy advertising" for them, though. :smallconfused:

- It's geared toward kids. Wii Sports? Wii Play? Wii Fit? Wii Music? Wii Sports Resort? Wii Fit Plus? Wii R Still Playing? Wii Play After Dark? Wii Play (W/O Game)? Wii Can't Stop Playing? Wii Sports Heaven? WiiMake Pointless Lists?
Those games aren't all for kids. Look harder. They're insanely popular (Wii Fit was sold out for like the first year after it was released, despite its $90 price tag), and Wii Fit and Sports at least are geared as much towards adults as to kids.

- New Play Control! *Sigh* Nintendo, the Wii is backwards compatible. If we wanted to play a GameCube game, we would buy a cheaper, used copy and play that. Not spend $29.99 on a game we played 4 years ago "enhanced" with gimmicky controls!
Metroid Prime Trilogy's new controls are not gimmicky. They're the best controls for a console First-Person game ever.

- No console MMO! Sure, some people can use the Internet Channel (ME!) to watch YouTube and play AQ Worlds, but we want a REAL MMO. Not just some browser MMO, but one we can play with a Wii Remote and Nunchuk! Or a classic controller, hell, I don't care, I just want an MMO! (CartoonNetwork Universe: FusionFall developers have hinted a Wii and iPhone release on the game, since they use the same 3D tech as the PC version. I wouldn't mind this, as I play the game. A $14.99 download on WiiWare doesn't seem bad. It seems fine. So long as it doesn't feel clunky, I think the Wii is the perfect fit.
The reason I brought this up is because the PS3 is eventually getting FFXIV, and the Xbox 360 is getting Champions: Online. Just thought about bringing it up. GET WITH THE PROGRAM NINTENDO, YOUR COMPETITORS ARE AHEAD OF YOU. NATAL AND WAVY-WAND-WITH-A-WEIRD-RED-BALL-ON-TOP ARE BEATING YOU. Motion Controls got you ahead for round 1, Sony and Microsoft are beating you to the punch in round 2.
Really? An MMO? Not a big thing to Nintendo, apparently. I also really don't care. For me, MMOs belong on the PC, where you've got the large number of keys to map to controls. The Wii and MMOs really don't seem to be compatible concepts to me.

[tyckspoon]

When you consider the ridiculous amount of peripherals that are required to play anything more than Wii Sports on the Wii, it really does become the most expensive console.


..uh.. what? It takes the nunchuck attachment. That's it. What other peripherals are 'required' for anything except, perhaps, the Balance Board for the WiiFit package?

[The Orange Zergling]

I got mine shortly after release and though my library is rather small (No More Heroes, Super Mario Galaxy, Brawl, Twilight Princess, Rampage: Total Destruction*, Wii Sports and some old-school titles from Wii Shop Channel) I don't regret it at all. There is truly a lot of low-quality crap on the market but the good stuff is really good and I view the new control scheme as a bold step forward. I can't guarantee that this is the future of gaming nor would I want to play EVERY game like this but I, at least, think it's a good thing for consoles to try new and different things every so often.

Either way, it really is a love or hate console. Personally I love it and the idea but they really need to get more quality titles out (which it sounds like they are doing within the next year or so) and even thought I disagree with people who hate it it I can see why.

*It was for nostalgia purposes, I swear!


When you consider the ridiculous amount of peripherals that are required to play anything more than Wii Sports on the Wii, it really does become the most expensive console.

Um, none of the 5 non-Wii Sports games I listed above need peripherals. I don't even think any of them have optional peripherals, either. Hell, you can play most Wii Shop Channel NES/SNES/etc. titles with the standard Wiimote (flipped on its side and used like a standard controller) too.

[The Dark Fiddler]

..uh.. what? It takes the nunchuck attachment. That's it. What other peripherals are 'required' for anything except, perhaps, the Balance Board for the WiiFit package?

The WiiMotionPlus, perhaps, but that's required for all of one game as far as I know; Wii Sports Resort.

And not even every game requires the nunchuk. A good majority do, but not all of them.

[Drascin]

The irritation I get from watching people smack me into oblivion is irritating. Ike is by far the cheapest playable character.

...really. Er, now, please don't take this as trolling, but I'm seriously having to hold back a chuckle here. Nah, Ike's nowhere near cheap. He's slow, his moves are so telegraphed it's really hard to get one in, and he's generally not really all that. He's just really easy to use for newbies. Snake, Pit, or (God forbid) Metaknight are all immensely cheaper.

Anyway, as to the Wii... yeah, there seems to be a huge drought of great titles lately. Mine's been in hiatus for quite a while now. Waiting for Sin&Punishment, Muramansa, and Monster Hunter Tri, mostly. But I don't regret buying it at all. Galaxy is probably one of the most fun games ever, Corruption was awesome, and everyone should be forced to play through Zack&Wiki at least once.

[Myatar_Panwar]

If you don't often play on a competitive level, then Ike is pretty boss.

[Dihan]

No console MMO? Monster Hunter Tri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Hunter_Tri)

Shovelware? Didn't the PS2 have that in abundance?

[warty goblin]

Oddly enough, I want Wii Sports Resort, just because it has 1:1 control for swordfighting.


Why on earth would you want 1:1 control for swordfighting in a videogame? As somebody who has spent a small, but not negligable amount of time trying to hit other people with objects of a sword like persuasion, I can't think of anything weirder than direct motion control for a sword. It is, with actual physical weapons, fairly common for an opponent to use their sword to radically alter the course and orientation of one's own weapon. With physical entities there's very good feedback for this, but with a motion controller? Imagine how weird it would be to chop vertically at your enemy's head, have an opponent parry and send your sword off to the right, but your motion continues straight down. You are now completely decoupled from the action on the screen, which sort of begs the question, why bother with the motion controls at all?

Until they make the controllers weigh a pound and a half and be able to revector themselves according to the results of the physics simulation in the software, motion controls can't capture actual swordplay. And if they can't do that, all you have is awkward waggling, which isn't any better than pressing buttons.

[Drascin]

If you don't often play on a competitive level, then Ike is pretty boss.

I have never, ever played in a competitive level. I know a lot about it, but I've never really done it, because I suck entirely too much. But even my nine year old cousin tends to go "man, Ike's so cool, but he's so slow..."

That said, in FFA, you will always get the biggest bodycount. Sneaking on other people fighting among themselves and smashing them into oblivion is so fun. All I'm saying is, you should just probably realize you're not going to be the last one standing, because when the FFA is down to you vs one other guy, chances are you're going to be demolished unless you're significantly better than him.

[Mando Knight]

All I'm saying is, you should just probably realize you're not going to be the last one standing, because when the FFA is down to you vs one other guy, chances are you're going to be demolished unless you're significantly better than him.

Not necessarily. Ike has a handful of quicker moves, and his massive reach and power makes him a threat to a lot of characters. Learning to play Ike properly is difficult, but he can end up as a powerhouse of destruction.

[doliest]

I own two current gen systems; The Wii & The 360. My Wii got a lot of play in the first couple of months, slowed down by quite a bit when I got the 360, mainly because I'd been itching for an RPG, then they balanced out until the 360 went red rings. As for the MMO-I don't play any console game online, as Xbox live cost money and Wii online play is pretty limited. As for the refernce to the 360 and PS3 motion control devices....Nintendo's had all this time to improve their programming with this kind of thing, I'm gonna bet the other two will be playing catch-up desperately.

[birchman]

..uh.. what? It takes the nunchuck attachment. That's it. What other peripherals are 'required' for anything except, perhaps, the Balance Board for the WiiFit package?

With all of the nunchucks, classic controllers, gamecube controllers, wii wheels, boxing gloves, balance boards and zappers and now this motion-plus bull****, it starts to add up. This stuff isn't "required," but if you want to have fun on this party system, you're going to want at least 4 wiimotes and 4 nunchucks, and if you plan on playing Brawl, you're going to have to amass a combination of around 4 gamecube controllers/classics. Most of them are stupid gimmicky ****, like the wheel and zapper, but the motion plus is really ridiculous. The system didn't work as it was originally intended to, so nintendo swoops in a couple of years later to drain some more money out of unsuspecting mothers, old people and gamers with the motion plus.

It's also incredibly overpriced if you consider the hardware on the inside is hardly better than an original xbox. The PS3 is soon going to see a price cut down to $300, the Wii should be at the most $150.

[birchman]

Why on earth would you want 1:1 control for swordfighting in a videogame? As somebody who has spent a small, but not negligable amount of time trying to hit other people with objects of a sword like persuasion, I can't think of anything weirder than direct motion control for a sword. It is, with actual physical weapons, fairly common for an opponent to use their sword to radically alter the course and orientation of one's own weapon. With physical entities there's very good feedback for this, but with a motion controller? Imagine how weird it would be to chop vertically at your enemy's head, have an opponent parry and send your sword off to the right, but your motion continues straight down. You are now completely decoupled from the action on the screen, which sort of begs the question, why bother with the motion controls at all?

Until they make the controllers weigh a pound and a half and be able to revector themselves according to the results of the physics simulation in the software, motion controls can't capture actual swordplay. And if they can't do that, all you have is awkward waggling, which isn't any better than pressing buttons.


And if they can't do that, all you have is awkward waggling, which isn't any better than pressing buttons.

I also agree completely with this.

[Green-Shirt Q]

I am pretty disappointed with the Wii. It has great games and it has repeatedly shown that it can be great, but it seems to be wasting it's potential.

The all-around quality of the games seems to be getting worse as time goes by. Those first released with the Wii and those released shortly after were excellent, but now...it seems that any games that are good are drowned in a sea of crummy games and casual games, which may be good but not for many people like me who like the thrill of a rising adventure and a good story.

I mean, it has shown that it's potential for it's game's graphics to be not very bad (I don't really care about the graphics unless you can tell enough what the hell is going on, but in this day in age the graphics should still reach certain standards). I mean, Super Mario Galaxy and even Super Smash Bros. Brawl were very pretty looking games, but now most games for it are pretty ugly, particularly when compared to other systems.

I would never consider throwing it out, mainly because of the games that I still play and enjoy, but I do still feel a little miffed that the developers don't seem to be trying as hard to make good games for it anymore.

It is a very flawed system. You cannot ignore that. Although I will always like Nintendo, I cannot deny that I would recommend other consoles over it.

[Geno9999]

Why on earth would you want 1:1 control for swordfighting in a videogame?

... Rule of Fun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun)?

[Geno9999]

With all of the nunchucks, classic controllers, gamecube controllers, wii wheels, boxing gloves, balance boards and zappers and now this motion-plus bull****, it starts to add up. This stuff isn't "required," but if you want to have fun on this party system, you're going to want at least 4 wiimotes and 4 nunchucks, and if you plan on playing Brawl, you're going to have to amass a combination of around 4 gamecube controllers/classics.
It's also incredibly overpriced if you consider the hardware on the inside is hardly better than an original xbox. The PS3 is soon going to see a price cut down to $300, the Wii should be at the most $150.

Wii wheel is nothing more than a casing, same with the zapper. And where did you get the boxing gloves from? Is it from those sets of case thingies (made by Nerf) at Walmart?
Also for Brawl, Nunchuck works perfectly well for me, and I don't use the shake smash.
However, I can agree with you on the Wii needing a price cut soon.

[Oslecamo]

And if they can't do that, all you have is awkward waggling, which isn't any better than pressing buttons.

Because waving a motion detector around is more fun than just pressing buttons?


If I wanted realistic sworfight, I would probably go out there and sign up for a proper club where I could practice the activity.

If I want to wave around a lightsaber cuting down droids left and right, I'm perfectly fine sacrificing laws of physicis to get it.

Anyway, the Wii is definetely a console to keep. Great games, cheap, and hey, it's not like I can afford to buy more than two or three games a year anyway.

Also, remember, Nintendo, unlike Microsoft and Sony, is a quite small company, and thus cannot produce games left and right in all fields like their rivals.

[Green-Shirt Q]

Also, remember, Nintendo, unlike Microsoft and Sony, is a quite small company, and thus cannot produce games left and right in all fields like their rivals.

Um, what? :smallconfused:

I'm pretty sure Nintendo is pretty...big. I'm not totally sure about that, but that's what I would guess.

[Aura Nightbane]

Also, remember, Nintendo, unlike Microsoft and Sony, is a quite small company, and thus cannot produce games left and right in all fields like their rivals.

you could not be more wrong on that front, Nintendo is MUCH bigger than Microsoft (at least game/console development wise), and Sony is about on par(don't quote me on this) with Nintendo.

Nintendo was in this from the very beginning, and was the leader for most of the early part of gaming history. Nintendo is in no way "small".

[KBF]

you could not be more wrong on that front, Nintendo is MUCH bigger than Microsoft (at least game/console development wise), and Sony is about on par(don't quote me on this) with Nintendo.

Nintendo was in this from the very beginning, and was the leader for most of the early part of gaming history. Nintendo is in no way "small".

If you wanted to debate simply their gaming department, sure. Nintendo is bigger. But that's their only business. Sony and Microsoft are huge, huge companies.

[Oslecamo]

If you wanted to debate simply their gaming department, sure. Nintendo is bigger. But that's their only business. Sony and Microsoft are huge, huge companies.

This. Nintendo only does gaming. Microsoft and Sony deal in a lot of other areas, and thus have a lot more money to suport their gaming department. Nintendo only has it's gaming department to rely in.

[Kalbron]

And their gaming department rakes in a huge amount of money. Heck, they have most of Japan's market for crying out loud in both handhelds and consoles, and unlike the other two they make money hand over fist with every Wii they sell.

They may not be as big as Sony and Microsoft overall, but that's like saying that Australia's landmass isn't very big compared with Russia, or that someone with 10 Billion $ is impoverished compared with someone with 1 Trillion $. It may be true, but at that scale it hardly matters.

[Knaight]

Not to mention a lot of really good games come from smaller companies. To use computer examples, we have World of Goo, Mount and Blade, the DROD series, Lugaru(and soon Overgrowth), etc. All those games have mechanics you don't see anywhere else, because big companies tend to repeat the same thing over and over again with minor variations. Take DROD as an example, given that you can learn a lot from its free demo it seems appropriate. There is nothing else at all similar, it takes a lot of whole puzzle games and puts them together, adding in all sorts of merges, with an action back ground. Its a brilliant game because its so different, and because it is both simple while being very complex. It has basic controls, but it is one of the hardest games on the market, and reflexes don't enter at all. Even if you beat all of the basic content you have the user generated stuff, which gets as difficult as one could want, while also having some easy stuff if the main games in the series get too difficult. Its a masterpiece, but no big studio would ever have tried to do something like it.

As for the Wii, I definitely am happy with it. It forced the hand of Sony and Microsoft to seriously expand from the buttons on a controller standard. The Eye Toy was given up early, but because the Wii broke the controller paradigm, they set off a new standard in what people compete in. It forced Natal, and from there development is virtually guaranteed.

[Mando Knight]

And their gaming department rakes in a huge amount of money. Heck, they have most of Japan's market for crying out loud in both handhelds and consoles, and unlike the other two they make money hand over fist with every Wii they sell.

That, and they have some of the most successful franchises in video game history as their exclusive property. Microsoft's Halo franchise is popular, yes, but John 117 hasn't earned them half as much money as the little electric rodent has for Nintendo.

[The Dark Fiddler]

That, and they have some of the most successful franchises in video game history as their exclusive property. Microsoft's Halo franchise is popular, yes, but John 117 hasn't earned them half as much money as the little electric rodent has for Nintendo.

Or the Italian Plumbers. Or the not elf. Or the Power Suit chick. I'm sure there's at least another I'm forgetting.

[Geno9999]

Or the Italian Plumbers. Or the not elf. Or the Power Suit chick. I'm sure there's at least another I'm forgetting.

let's see...
A totally-not-dragon-turtle turtle.
A mercenary that you will not get any sympathy from.
A prince who's arguably prettier than any princess.
An angel that's not named Kid Icarus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotShazam).
A boy in blue pajamas that shoots lazers out of his hands. (oh wait, that's Capcom)
A ape wearing a tie.
A astronaut that has plants for minions.
A boxer who's shorter than any of his opponents...
*Drones on and on for quite some time*
...
And in conclusion, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloudCuckooLander)Ninjas are better than Pirates because the whole thing was a old ninja joke. (http://www.drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=32&issue=2)

[Mando Knight]

Or the Italian Plumbers. Or the not elf. Or the Power Suit chick. I'm sure there's at least another I'm forgetting.

The point is, Nintendo made a 6 kg, .4 m rodent an official franchise mascot, and the franchise is still going strong thirteen years later.

[Innis Cabal]

That, and they have some of the most successful franchises in video game history as their exclusive property. Microsoft's Halo franchise is popular, yes, but John 117 hasn't earned them half as much money as the little electric rodent has for Nintendo.

Its also not been around as long. So its gaining power relative to time is less. The little electric mouse hasn't revolutionized the game world either, John 117 has by making games an everyone thing, not just a gamer thing

[Copper8642]

Actually, back when the first pokemon games came out for gameboy at least, I remember them being an "everyone thing." Maybe that's just me, though.

[Mando Knight]

The little electric mouse hasn't revolutionized the game world either, John 117 has by making games an everyone thing, not just a gamer thing

Ah...
...
...

Halo is very much a "gamer" thing. A "specific kind of gamer" thing (that being, FPS gamers with X-Boxes that for some reason like the X-Box controls more than a mouse & keyboard setup). Pikachu is everywhere.

EVERYWHERE.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg

It's also got the longest running video game-based anime, multiple manga adaptations, a theme park, dedicated stores...

[Zevox]

Pros!:

- MadWorld, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, No More Heroes/2: Desperate Struggle, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, The Conduit, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, The Legend of Zelda: [Title Unknown. Only 1 Image Proves Existance.].
You have several I honestly wouldn't have included, but forgot many of my favorites:

- Super Smash Brothers Brawl!
- Super Mario Galaxy.
- Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.
- Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.
- Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
- Sonic Unleashed with good Sonic levels (or at least, I heard those were worse on the PS3 and 360 version, and I can say that the Wii version is the first time Sonic has been done well in 3D since Sonic Adventure 2, when you're playing as Sonic himself instead of the "Were-Hog").

- Coming in the future: Dragon Quest 10.
- I still need to find a chance to rent it or work up the nerve to risk $50 buying it outright, but I've also heard nothing but great things about the recently released Little King's Story.


- SHOVELWARE.
So ignore those games and don't buy them. That's what I do.


- New Play Control! *Sigh* Nintendo, the Wii is backwards compatible. If we wanted to play a GameCube game, we would buy a cheaper, used copy and play that. Not spend $29.99 on a game we played 4 years ago "enhanced" with gimmicky controls!
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell found the Wii controls on Metroid Prime 3 impressive enough that I fully intend to buy Metroid Prime Trilogy, just because it features those new controls for the first two games.


- No console MMO! Sure, some people can use the Internet Channel (ME!) to watch YouTube and play AQ Worlds, but we want a REAL MMO.
This "we" you speak of does not include me. Personally, I don't care a lick about MMOs. An MMO on the Wii would just be one more game for it that I wouldn't so much as rent - just like all the shovelware.

Personally, I haven't bought either the PS3 or 360 yet, because they have incredibly few games I'm interested in. The PS3 has all of two: Disgaea 3 and Metal Gear Solid 4. The 360 has a few more, with Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Too Human, and more B-list and obscure RPGs (or at least, so I've heard, on that last one). There are a few games available on both that I'm interested in, but they're generally renters in my mind (Soul Calibur 4 and Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe, for instance). I don't even care about most of the games that people obsess over on the 360, because I don't like FPS games or Grand Theft Auto. I may get a 360 sometime over the next year or two, but I doubt I'll get a PS3 until the next generation is out and the price has dropped tremendously. (Possibly not even then, if the PS4 is backwards-compatible and gets more games I'm interested in.)

On the other hand, I bought a Wii a week after it came out. It became the first - well, the first anything, really - I have ever stood in a line overnight to acquire. Why? Because no matter how badly third parties mess up on it (they always seem to with Nintendo systems, and the Wii is no exception), it was and is guaranteed to have the best first- and second-party games of the generation. Mario. Metroid. Zelda. Fire Emblem. Smash Brothers. Hell, just about any series represented in Smash Brothers (sans MGS and Sonic, of course).


Ike is by far the cheapest playable character.
You've obviously never played a truly skilled player. Ike is nothing compared to many other characters - he has holes in his game you could fly a death star through if you know how he fights, and anyone with a decent projectile (such as the three characters I play as the most, Lucas, Falco, and Dedede) can do a lot of damage to him with just that, unless the Ike player is perfect with power shielding and dodging. Even the best tournament-level players I've played who can slaughter me with most other characters are beatable to me when they pick Ike. Difficult still, but beatable.

No, you want a cheap character, try playing a tournament-level foe using Metaknight or Snake. I guarantee you, won't kill them more than once in a 3 or 4 stock game. Possibly not even that, depending on how good you are.

Now don't get me wrong, Ike can be good, if played right. Just nowhere near good enough to warrant the title of "cheapest playable character." Heck, two of the characters I mentioned that I play often - Falco and Dedede - are much cheaper than Ike, simply because of their wicked chain grabs. Falco especially, since if he gets you with his in the right position, he can combo it into a dair spike that will usually kill you outright. Though Dedede also has a strong case in levels with walls, where his chain grab becomes an infinite grab against around 2/3 of the game's characters.


I went to a tournament. Twenty-five plus people were there. Myself and six others played as Ike. I made it to the final round with three other guys. A twelve year old, a seven year old, and an eighteen year old. The eighteen year old went down first. Then me. Then it was the twelve v.s. the seven. Then I discovered the kids were brothers. And the final battle was Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Ike v.s. Yoshi? It was. The seven year old was Yoshi, and he WON.
If it was a tournament that was done in four-player free-for-alls, it wasn't the kind of tournament that attracts the game's best, most frighteningly-obsessive and frighteningly-good players. Especially if the final match went as you describe it.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

I also agree completely with this.
Nice to know I'm not totally off base.

... Rule of Fun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun)?
I don't play games for 'fun.' I play them for the interesting experiences that they can represent and allow me to experience.



Because waving a motion detector around is more fun than just pressing buttons?


If I wanted realistic sworfight, I would probably go out there and sign up for a proper club where I could practice the activity.

If I want to wave around a lightsaber cuting down droids left and right, I'm perfectly fine sacrificing laws of physicis to get it.

Here's the thing though, as I pointed out there's no way to really do parries with motion control. If you don't do them, you really don't have anything that even begins to approximate a swordfight in a meaningful or interesting way. It'd be like a shooter with no hit detection, which is to say it would fail to capture the fundamentals of the activity it is trying to represent. Sure you could fire the gun or swing the sword, but that's all.

And incorporating parries is even worse. Then you end up with the situation I described in my earlier post where your onscreen character is doing one thing, and you are doing something completely different. About half the time your control input wouldn't correspond to the onscreen action, a situation anybody who has played a game for any amount of time can tell you is frustrating to the extreme.

In this instance buttons actually have an advantage. In a game like Mount and Blade I press the attack button, and make an attack. It's a discrete entity, and both myself and the computer recognize it as such. Thus it can be blocked by a discrete defensive move. That defense can drop my character back to the starting position without a problem, since I've released the moust button and have myself returned to the starting position. This is not realistic, but I'm seldom decoupled from the action. Short of using truly stupid animations, I just don't see how that could work with motion controls.


My point isn't that you need to violate laws of physics to make this work, my point is that I don't see how you can make a motion controlled sword fight work.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I don't play games for 'fun.' I play them for the interesting experiences that they can represent and allow me to experience.


Wow dude. What.

You play them for "interesting experiences"? Explain what you mean by that. It sounds like you are saying "I don't play games for fun. I play them for fun."

[Triaxx]

Ah the Wii, how I love, and hate thee. Love for impressive controls, hate because you are currently busted.

Ahem... Anyway, the Wii as a console? It's awesome. Why is it awesome? Because it takes the preconceived notions of what a game is and tosses them out the window. Wii Sports? Fun, not because it's about who can flail on the buttons faster than the other guy, but because it's about who can manipulate it better and more smoothly.

The Wii is on it's way to becoming this generations PS2. The reason is simple, the PS2 had TONS of shovelware, and a few carefully selected killer games. FFX, God of War, Killzone. Games that not only were awesome, but generated more awesome after them.

I can't see that an RE5 port would be well received on the Wii for two reasons. It was hyped on graphics, which is one thing the Wii doesn't do very well, and because it doesn't seem to have had a very warm reception on other consoles. I've heard it described as RE4, with awkward implications. Though appearently Wesker is the most awesome thing ever.

The Wii went in it's own direction and so far only Nintendo seems to understand that direction. That said, I think that Team Ninja is going to blow the minds of gamers with Other M. Ninja Gaiden combat with motion control? YES, thank you.

I'm still out on Zelda, but I haven't been disappointed by one yet. Yes, even the CD-I's were fun for a given value of fun. But given the range of options available to them for things to do on the Wii? How about a whip? Or more mounted combat?


As for NATAL and... whatever Sony is calling it's thing? Those will both be fun, but can you see playing Halo 4 with NATAL? I know I can't. On the other hand, assembling a three dimensional puzzle in an RPG? Yes, definitely. Sony's interface seems... clunky and unrefined. Much like the Sixaxis, they seem to have decided: Okay, everyone else has motion control, let's do it too!

1:1 control? Sounds like fun. Realistic fighting? Not so much. You always have to balance fun and realism. Wanna know why everyone plays GRAW on the console? Because the PC version makes you wish the bullets were as real as the rest so it would put you out of your misery.

And doesn't an actual parry have the same implications in a real sword fight? Your muscles are still attempting the downwards stroke, and it takes an instant for you to change directions? Tactile feedback isn't strictly necessary, because the muscles have the same reaction time anyway. It takes the same amount of time for your brain to realize he parried and shift to defensive, whether it's a person across from you, or a computer.

And yes, the difference between fun and fun is enourmous.

[Kalbron]

I think the Wii's problem isn't so much the shovelware, as it is the fact that it doesn't get enough blockbusters or high quality releases to counteract the impression people get of it.

Which is probably more an issue of volume than anything else. The PS2 got thousands upon thousands of games made for it, so even with a 5% rate of quality games compared with 95% QUALITY shovelware, that's still a huge number of good games, whereas the Wii doesn't have anywhere near the years nor the volume of games being released. That and they tend to advertise the shovelware more than the PS2 did in my experience.

Personally I don't care much what happens to the Wii, so long as Sega doesn't decide to make Valkyria Chronicles III a Wii exclusive after they stole VC II and stuck it on the PSP instead of the PS3... *grumble mutter whine*

[warty goblin]

Wow dude. What.

You play them for "interesting experiences"? Explain what you mean by that. It sounds like you are saying "I don't play games for fun. I play them for fun."

Something can be interesting without being fun. I enjoy reading history and find it fascinating, but I don't consider it to be fun, no matter how interesting the knowledge gained.

Same thing with games, the ones that really interest me aren't fun, or rather they don't have to be. Grand strategy titles in particular are seldom 'fun'- the basic actions are abstract and often hours removed from a very minor payoff- but the game can be immensely satisfying, and the situations it generates are certainly intriguing.

There are games that are simply fun, Republic Commando, Dark Messiah, Tomb Raider, all of these are games that I've played through multiple times and enjoyed immensely. But they aren't the games that I find really define what gaming is to me, the same way that reading an airport thriller doesn't define what reading is to me.

[AJWB]

The reason I brought this up is because the PS3 is eventually getting FFXIV, and the Xbox 360 is getting Champions: Online. Just thought about bringing it up. GET WITH THE PROGRAM NINTENDO, YOUR COMPETITORS ARE AHEAD OF YOU. NATAL AND WAVY-WAND-WITH-A-WEIRD-RED-BALL-ON-TOP ARE BEATING YOU. Motion Controls got you ahead for round 1, Sony and Microsoft are beating you to the punch in round 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy

The inherent flaw with most of the arguments in this thread is that we, as gamers, tend to think that we dominate the market place. Pretty much every one of your arguments holds water only on the assumption that hardcore gamers make up the sole market of the gaming industry.

Nintendo has, for lack of a better word, forsaken the hardcore gamer crowd in exchange for the other 90-ish% of consumers. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if there are no amazing RPGs or an MMO or a Halo-quality shooter for the Wii because Nintendo's marketing strategy doesn't really care about any of that. Nintendo is making an absolute killing off of bringing new people into the world of gaming. My 55 year-old aunt and uncle love their Wii because they can invite friends over, wave something around, and have a damn good time doing it. These people don't even have a personal computer, but they bought a Wii because it's just plain fun.

And at the same time, it's doing a wonderful job appealing to the not-quite-casual-but-not-quite-hardcore gamers. I'm always going to buy a new Zelda, I've got a friend who will always buy a new Metroid, and everyone and their mother is going to buy a new Smash Bros game. Hardcore gamers may rag on the Wii because all it does is rehash old titles and create gimmicky games, but the Wii has the balls to say "I don't need you, hardcore gamers."

Nintendo hasn't just won round 1, it's won every single round ever because they got out of the red ocean of gaming and entered new, uncharted territory. And it's definitely paid off. Check out a graph of Wii sales versus the other two. As odd as it sounds, gamers are no longer the driving force behind the gaming industry, and IF project Natal actually works, then Nintendo will be right behind, complete with its already loyal consumers that the Wii won over. And let's just forget about Sony's BRAND NEW, SUPER IMPRESSIVE...ps3-mote. Sony should seriously be ashamed of being so proud of three year old technology.

[Volug]

*cough*

Okami

*Braces self*

*is shot*

[Copper8642]

I haven't gotten a new wii game in forever... It appears I should.

Also, I'm going to make a Brawl thread so this one stops getting hijacked. It might be a few hours on that though, so if someone beats be to the punch, that's cool.

[Dihan]

I haven't bought any games recently simply because nothing I want is coming out in the Summer.

[Geno9999]

Nintendo has, for lack of a better word, forsaken the hardcore gamer crowd in exchange for the other 90-ish% of consumers...

And at the same time, it's doing a wonderful job appealing to the not-quite-casual-but-not-quite-hardcore gamers. I'm always going to buy a new Zelda, I've got a friend who will always buy a new Metroid, and everyone and their mother is going to buy a new Smash Bros game. Hardcore gamers may rag on the Wii because all it does is rehash old titles and create gimmicky games, but the Wii has the balls to say "I don't need you, hardcore gamers."
It kinda helps that Hardcore gamers forsaken Nintendo first. Something over blood and gore being censored?

-Gamecube-
HG: Kiddy.
GCN: I am not!... *sniff*

-Wii-
HG: OMG level Kiddy.
Wii: Thanks! smallsmile:


And let's just forget about Sony's BRAND NEW, SUPER IMPRESSIVE...ps3-mote. Sony should seriously be ashamed of being so proud of three year old technology.
So it took 'em that long to copy Nintendo's Wiimote fully? minus Motionplus? Man, I would feel sorry for the guy who bought those.

Oh, and PS; Mircosoft is trying to copy the Mii avatars too. maybe I'll post a link later.

[Mando Knight]

Oh, and PS; Mircosoft is trying to copy the Mii avatars too. maybe I'll post a link later.

Moneysoft's version is actually more customizable (clothing wise, at least) and has more detail. Same basic body shape, though.

[Kalbron]

So it took 'em that long to copy Nintendo's Wiimote fully? minus Motionplus? Man, I would feel sorry for the guy who bought those.


Probably has more to do with designing it so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or use any technology that might let Nintendo challenge it in court.

Of course, we all know it's a clone, but so long as you can't be sued over it, I suppose that's all that really matters.

[Roxlimn]

Narudude360:

The decision of whether or not you want to keep your Wii depends on how much fun you're getting out of it, and foresee getting out of it in the future, but it should be made with facts and reason, not hype and propaganda.

For instance:

1. Shovelware: It doesn't matter. You will never buy shovelware.

2. Made for casual gamers: there are no such things as casual gamers. That is a label made by the uninformed to discriminate against a new market of gamers that threaten their sense of status quo.

3. Wii games are for kids: No, they're not. In fact, many games made for Wii skew towards the much older demographic. Wii Fit and Wii Sports are not made for kids - they're made for working-class adults - because kids don't have a lot of disposable income. In fact, EA Sports Active is marketed specifically to women adults.

4. New Play Control! - This is not a CON. New Play Control games are updated in terms of control and gameplay. That is enough to get a lot of truly hardcore (not fake hardcore) gamers excited. You don't have to buy them if you don't want to. Nintendo is still releasing traditional gamer titles faster than they ever have.

5. No console MMO - Monster Hunter Tri begs to differ. MH is a proven MMO-like franchise on consoles. Champions Online is a PC-centric franchise that could work on Xbox 360, but until it hits, we don't know if it will actually work.


Your list of Wii titles is hopeless anemic. There are a lot of games that should be in your PRO column that aren't there. It seems to me from your selection and your name that you are more concerned with image and "streetcred" than you are with exploring fun experiences. If so, you should sell your Wii - having that thing in your living room at all damages your "gamerscore."

warty_goblin:

You define "fun" differently, but it is still "fun." You do not want to even try out a 1:1 videogame experience because you are dead set against liking it in every way.

There are kendo fencers (like for-realsies serious kendo fencers) who attest that Swordplay in Wii Sports Resort is a reasonable distillation of the kendo experience.

If you want to go into Olympic fencing, "parrying" in that sport is not associated with a serious dislocation of the scoring point - all you really need to do is to tap your opponent's blade to remove scoring priority from him.

This is eminently doable with motion controls.

[Mando Knight]

If you want to go into Olympic fencing, "parrying" in that sport is not associated with a serious dislocation of the scoring point - all you really need to do is to tap your opponent's blade to remove scoring priority from him.

...Not all fencing. Epee doesn't use the right-of-way rules. And last I checked, it is as much an Olympic sport as foil or saber. Parrying is still as much mental as it is physical, though.

[warty goblin]

Narudude360:

warty_goblin:

You define "fun" differently, but it is still "fun."

No, it really isn't. Unless you define 'anything that is enjoyable or from which satisfaction is derived' as 'fun', which is fairly clearly a mistake.


You do not want to even try out a 1:1 videogame experience because you are dead set against liking it in every way.
Honestly I have nothing against motion controls, and could see them working very well for some things. A first person game where you played as a wizard and cast spells via gestures? It'd be awesome for that.

I don't understand the argument that waving something around is automatically more fun than pressing a button. I can see places where it is, and places where it is not. Try to imagine playing an RTS with them for example, you arm would fall off from all the waving and selecting.

There are kendo fencers (like for-realsies serious kendo fencers) who attest that Swordplay in Wii Sports Resort is a reasonable distillation of the kendo experience.



If you want to go into Olympic fencing, "parrying" in that sport is not associated with a serious dislocation of the scoring point - all you really need to do is to tap your opponent's blade to remove scoring priority from him.

This is eminently doable with motion controls.
It also, at least to me, sounds really boring. Swordplay like this (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm), now that is interesting. Remember, a sword is a weapon. It's purpose, its very reason for existance, is to allow it's user to main and murder somebody faster than they can do so to the weilder. I fail to understand any abstraction of a sword that doesn't recognise this.

[Cristo Meyers]

Honestly I have nothing against motion controls, and could see them working very well for some things. A first person game where you played as a wizard and cast spells via gestures? It'd be awesome for that.

I don't understand the argument that waving something around is automatically more fun than pressing a button. I can see places where it is, and places where it is not. Try to imagine playing an RTS with them for example, you arm would fall off from all the waving and selecting.


Wii-specific example: play No More Heroes and then play Force Unleashed. No More Heroes only uses the motion controls for certain things (finishers, the grapple moves, mini games) while Force Unleashed uses it for nearly everything including swinging the lightsaber. One works, one very much doesn't.

[Roxlimn]

warty goblin:

fun (fn)
n.
1. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.
2. Enjoyment; amusement: have fun at the beach.
3. Playful, often noisy, activity.

fun (fun)
noun
1. lively, joyous play or playfulness; amusement, sport, recreation, etc.
2. enjoyment or pleasure
3. a source or cause of amusement or merriment, as an amusing person or thing

Etymology: < ME fonne, a fool, foolish, or fonnen, to be foolish < ?

adjective
Informal intended for, or giving, pleasure or amusement a fun gift

Fun:
* Main Entry: 1fun
* Pronunciation: \ˈfən\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: English dialect fun to hoax, perhaps alteration of Middle English fonnen, from fonne dupe
* Date: 1727

1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech <full of fun>
2 : a mood for finding or making amusement <all in fun>
3 a : amusement, enjoyment <sickness takes all the fun out of life> b : derisive jest : sport, ridicule <a figure of fun>
4 : violent or excited activity or argument
synonyms fun, jest, sport, game, play mean action or speech that provides amusement or arouses laughter. fun usually implies laughter or gaiety but may imply merely a lack of serious or ulterior purpose <played cards just for fun>. jest implies lack of earnestness in what is said or done and may suggest a hoaxing or teasing <hurt by remarks said only in jest>. sport applies especially to the arousing of laughter against someone <teasing begun in sport led to anger>. game is close to sport, and often stresses mischievous or malicious fun <made game of their poor relations>. play stresses the opposition to earnest without implying any malice or mischief <pretended to strangle his brother in play>

Not my definitions.



Honestly I have nothing against motion controls, and could see them working very well for some things. A first person game where you played as a wizard and cast spells via gestures? It'd be awesome for that.

I don't understand the argument that waving something around is automatically more fun than pressing a button. I can see places where it is, and places where it is not. Try to imagine playing an RTS with them for example, you arm would fall off from all the waving and selecting.


True. However, I would like to have a motion-sensed wireless air mouse instead of a 2D on-a-table mouse. It would be more convenient to use, and I don't have to wave my arms around either.

Waving something isn't automatically more fun than pressing a button, but the converse is not true, either. For some obvious applications, one or the other is superior.



It also, at least to me, sounds really boring. Swordplay like this, now that is interesting. Remember, a sword is a weapon. It's purpose, its very reason for existance, is to allow it's user to main and murder somebody faster than they can do so to the weilder. I fail to understand any abstraction of a sword that doesn't recognise this.


It's a sport. Something people do for amusement. You could try it out sometime, perhaps.

[Zevox]

Wii-specific example: play No More Heroes and then play Force Unleashed. No More Heroes only uses the motion controls for certain things (finishers, the grapple moves, mini games) while Force Unleashed uses it for nearly everything including swinging the lightsaber. One works, one very much doesn't.
So, No More Heroes has poor use of the motion controls, then :smallconfused: ? Odd, the people I hear talk about that game keep saying it was good (though I myself have no interest in it).

Because you can't mean The Force Unleashed does. That game's controls were great (with the one exception that, for some reason, I had a hard time getting the move where you slam someone you've force-grabbed down into the ground to work). Its flaws were just that it was too short and had a really poor story.

Zevox

[Cristo Meyers]

So, No More Heroes has poor use of the motion controls, then :smallconfused: ? Odd, the people I hear talk about that game keep saying it was good (though I myself have no interest in it).

Because you can't mean The Force Unleashed does. That game's controls were great (with the one exception that, for some reason, I had a hard time getting the move where you slam someone you've force-grabbed down into the ground to work). Its flaws were just that it was too short and had a really poor story.

Zevox

I had the exact opposite experience with Force Unleashed. Lightsaber combos were next to impossible to pull off because it would sometimes fail to read the movement of the wiimote. I spent the whole game thinking "what's wrong with just pushing A?"

Slamming Stormtroopers around and killing them in new and inventive ways was fun and all, but I thought No More Heroes was a much better experience.

[Zevox]

I had the exact opposite experience with Force Unleashed. Lightsaber combos were next to impossible to pull off because it would sometimes fail to read the movement of the wiimote. I spent the whole game thinking "what's wrong with just pushing A?"

Slamming Stormtroopers around and killing them in new and inventive ways was fun and all, but I thought No More Heroes was a much better experience.
I never had any real trouble with lightsaber combos myself, though in full honesty, I didn't use them all that much. I tended to prefer to wipe my enemies out with force lightning, force push, the occasional lightsaber toss, the various combination effects of force powers you could get as the game progressed, and when I was down to very few enemies in any given area, force choke or the force grab + lightsaber impale combo. Compared to all the other things that game let you do, lightsaber combos just seemed bland.

Zevox

[Roxlimn]

Cristo Meyer:

The technology in the Wiimote is proven. For the elementary gestures used in SWFU, it's pretty flawless as long as you're gesturing the right way. That is one of the "problems" with motion controlled games - it takes more skill to input specific gestures correctly than it does to, say, push a button.

It's a Catch-22. If you make the gestures so generous that they take no skill to do it's called "waggle" and everyone asks why you bothered, and if you're even a little more demanding, people fail to do the inputs and they say that the controls aren't working.

I have not seen a Wii game that demanded as much skill to do even elementary commands that matched the skill you need to do elementary movement in real life. It takes a LOT of practice in kendo just to get the basic downward slice correctly. Doing it wrong just kinda fails in a match.

Gamers raised on Playstation games are so used to no-skill designs that anything that requires even a modicum of skill and learning gets labeled "too hard."

[warty goblin]

warty goblin:

fun (fn)
n.
1. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.
2. Enjoyment; amusement: have fun at the beach.3. Playful, often noisy, activity.

fun (fun)
noun
1. lively, joyous play or playfulness; amusement, sport, recreation, etc.
2. enjoyment or pleasure
3. a source or cause of amusement or merriment, as an amusing person or thing
Etymology: < ME fonne, a fool, foolish, or fonnen, to be foolish < ?

Not my definitions.

I don't have a problem with the definition, whether yours or somebody else's. Your logic however I find highly wanting. Fun is enjoyable, I never denied that and never will, the definition you gave affirms that in the statements that I emphasized. That fun is enjoyable however does nothing to indicate that because something is enjoyable it is fun.

You have in short taken a definition* that says X -> Y and claimed that it refuted my statement that Y -\-> X. It does nothing of the sort.

(I use -> to denote implication and -\-> to denote 'does not imply')

*Obviously if this was a strict mathematical definition it would carry with it a double implication <->, in which case you would be quite correct. However the verbal definition given here is much closer to an implication than true double implication. If double implication were the case than each of the words listed defining fun would be synonemous with it. I don't think anybody here has to work very hard to figure that that 'often noisy' does not imply 'fun.'



True. However, I would like to have a motion-sensed wireless air mouse instead of a 2D on-a-table mouse. It would be more convenient to use, and I don't have to wave my arms around either.
As I said, I don't object to motion controls.


Waving something isn't automatically more fun than pressing a button, but the converse is not true, either. For some obvious applications, one or the other is superior.
Again I agree. I even gave an example where I felt motion control would provide an enjoyable experience. Although I did not explicitly state it, I felt it clear from context that in this case I would almost certainly find the motion controls to be preferable to other methods of input. The only thesis I ever advanced on this topic was that motion control in its current state would, insofar as I can tell, do a poor job capturing the essence of swordplay.



It's a sport. Something people do for amusement. You could try it out sometime, perhaps.
Did something about the statement of how I enjoy games indicate to you that I don't do things for enjoyment? Or the list of games I have played and found fun- which the definition you cited states implies enjoyment- indicate I don't do things I find amusing?

Not only is your logic faulty, you are using to to try to refute arguments I never made. Arguments I have in fact, with my own statements, directly countered.

[Mando Knight]

The technology in the Wiimote is proven. For the elementary gestures used in SWFU, it's pretty flawless as long as you're gesturing the right way. That is one of the "problems" with motion controlled games - it takes more skill to input specific gestures correctly than it does to, say, push a button.
On the other hand, gesturing the right way for consecutive attacks and combos takes about as much skill as pressing the correct buttons in the correct order with the correct timing. The only difference is that "traditional gamers" have a lot more practice with the latter than with the former.

[Roxlimn]

warty_goblin:

Fun means "enjoyment or amusment." That DOES, in fact, mean that if you find something enjoyable, then it is fun for you.

They are synonyms.



Again I agree. I even gave an example where I felt motion control would provide an enjoyable experience. Although I did not explicitly state it, I felt it clear from context that in this case I would almost certainly find the motion controls to be preferable to other methods of input. The only thesis I ever advanced on this topic was that motion control in its current state would, insofar as I can tell, do a poor job capturing the essence of swordplay.


It depends on what you meant by "swordplay." Different styles of swordplay for different purposes have different feel and essences. Unless, of course, you mean that the only style of swordplay that's worth talking about are European styles.

Even then, fencing in the style of arming swords and bucklers is markedly different from fencing with full plate armor and long swords.



Did something about the statement of how I enjoy games indicate to you that I don't do things for enjoyment? Or the list of games I have played and found fun- which the definition you cited states implies enjoyment- indicate I don't do things I find amusing?

Not only is your logic faulty, you are using to to try to refute arguments I never made. Arguments I have in fact, with my own statements, directly countered.


My logic has no faults in this case. You are assuming that I'm saying something I am not saying.

You, yourself, suggest that you have not seriously tried the activity. I mentioned that it was a sport - something many people do for amusement so you might find it fun if you tried it. Is there something fallacious about suggesting new activities? Indeed, I fail to see how it involves rigorous amounts of logic at all.

Mando Knight:

Could be. I never had problems with Wii Boxing, and I found WSR Basketball all too easy. Then again, I did sport box for a while, I game a lot, and I also played basketball.

All the people I've introduced to WSR Basketball attest that the 3-point shootout there is easier than an actual 3-point shootout. I have the same experience myself.

I think traditional gamers are just unused to the learning curves associated with real (as in not-virtual) activities involving real (as in not-virtual) skills, so when faced with a virtual game that takes on some of those aspects, they find it prohibitively hard.

[warty goblin]

warty_goblin:

Fun means "enjoyment or amusment." That DOES, in fact, mean that if you find something enjoyable, then it is fun for you.

They are synonyms.

Some definitions from Mirriam Webster.

Main Entry: en·joy·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈjȯi-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1553
1 a : the action or state of enjoying b : possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>
2 : something that gives keen satisfaction <the poorest life has its enjoyments and pleasures>



Main Entry: en·joy
Pronunciation: \in-ˈjȯi, en-\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English enjoien, from Anglo-French enjoir, enjoier to gladden, enjoy, from en- + joie joy
Date: 15th century
intransitive verb
: to have a good time
transitive verb
1 : to have for one's use, benefit, or lot : experience <enjoyed great success>
2 : to take pleasure or satisfaction in

— en·joy·able \-ə-bəl\ adjective

— en·joy·able·ness noun

— en·joy·ably \-blē\ adverb

— en·joy·er noun

— enjoy oneself : to have a good time

Main Entry: amuse·ment
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈmyüz-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : a means of amusing or entertaining <what are her favorite amusements>
2 : the condition of being amused <could not hide his amusement>
3 : pleasurable diversion : entertainment <plays the piano for amusement>

Note that none of these words that you claim are synonemous with fun are in fact defined to be fun, even though fun is defined to be them. Nor does my copy of Microsoft Word indicate that 'fun' is a synonym for 'enjoyment' or 'enjoy.' It does say fun and amusement are synonyms.

Nevertheless, I have seen no firm indication that enjoying something implies that it is fun.



It depends on what you meant by "swordplay." Different styles of swordplay for different purposes have different feel and essences. Unless, of course, you mean that the only style of swordplay that's worth talking about are European styles.
Of course they do. Nevertheless I think one would be hard pressed to find a style of weapon use developed for actual combat that does not rely on displacing the enemy's weapon, moving between wards and trying to strike one's enemy in such a way to cause grevious bodily harm.

Clearly in any recreation of these techniques, that last item must be altered, but I think this is quite possible without completely altering everything else about the form. After all people practise martial arts against each other without dying all the time, and classically it is fairly clear that people trained in sword combat against each other without overwhelming casualties.


Even then, fencing in the style of arming swords and bucklers is markedly different from fencing with full plate armor and long swords. Quite. So what?


My logic has no faults in this case. You are assuming that I'm saying something I am not saying.

You, yourself, suggest that you have not seriously tried the activity. I mentioned that it was a sport - something many people do for amusement so you might find it fun if you tried it. Is there something fallacious about suggesting new activities? Indeed, I fail to see how it involves rigorous amounts of logic at all.
Ah, I interpreted you to be stating that I don't do things for fun or enjoyment, and were pointing this out in a snarky manner. My apologies for misunderstanding, such comments have been directed at me before.

[Roxlimn]

warty_goblin:

My point here is that WSR Swordplay is a decent demonstration of how motion controls can be used to create compelling gameplay for a fencing videogame. It makes no sense to not try it out just because you're skeptical, even moreso when you aren't even all that familiar with real-life fencing sport.

I don't know if you'll personally enjoy it, but many people do.

[Optimystik]

OP forgot the two biggest pros of the Wii: Price, and niche.

It is not only easier, but also makes more sense to own a Wii + another console, rather than owning both a PS3 and an X360, to cover all your gaming bases. These are the deciding factors in the Wii's success.

The number of households that own a 360 + Wii or a PS3 + Wii far eclipse the ones that own PS3 + 360 or even all 3.

Wii is definitely a keeper, but if you're buying it for the hardcore games you are making a mistake. The hardware is quite inferior and many big-budget titles either have to be watered down to work on it (Dead Rising, Force Unleashed) or can't run on it at all (RE5, Prototype.)

[Sipex]

I used to defend the Wii with tooth and claw back when I first got it because I loved it...and that hasn't changed but my perspective has.

Optimystik hints at my current opinon of the Wii, it's a great secondary system because it still has a great amount of fun games, good downloadable content and is fun to play. It doesn't satisfy my hardcore itch but that's what my 360 is for.

These consoles shouldn't be seen as "Which one should I be most loyal too?" but more of "Which one, or combination thereof will satisfy my needs?"

[Triaxx]

Exactly. How many XboX games support multiplayer? Now how many support two or three in the same room multiplayer? So Yeah.

Three friends come over, and a total of two can play the 360, unless you're playing say Rock Band, or GH.

Or you can all jump on the Wii and play most of the Wii Sports games, Brawl... I'm sure there's more, but this is all I have.

[Optimystik]

Exactly. How many XboX games support multiplayer? Now how many support two or three in the same room multiplayer? So Yeah.

Three friends come over, and a total of two can play the 360, unless you're playing say Rock Band, or GH.

Or you can all jump on the Wii and play most of the Wii Sports games, Brawl... I'm sure there's more, but this is all I have.

There are good 4-player games on the 360, most notably the arcade titles like Castle Crashers and shooters like Halo. Perhaps the best one is Left 4 Dead.

[valadil]

Cristo Meyer:

The technology in the Wiimote is proven. For the elementary gestures used in SWFU, it's pretty flawless as long as you're gesturing the right way. That is one of the "problems" with motion controlled games - it takes more skill to input specific gestures correctly than it does to, say, push a button.

It's a Catch-22. If you make the gestures so generous that they take no skill to do it's called "waggle" and everyone asks why you bothered, and if you're even a little more demanding, people fail to do the inputs and they say that the controls aren't working.

I have not seen a Wii game that demanded as much skill to do even elementary commands that matched the skill you need to do elementary movement in real life. It takes a LOT of practice in kendo just to get the basic downward slice correctly. Doing it wrong just kinda fails in a match.

Gamers raised on Playstation games are so used to no-skill designs that anything that requires even a modicum of skill and learning gets labeled "too hard."

This is why I want to see a Wii game where the Wiimote is used to manipulate game physics rather than interpretted and translated into a game move. The problem is that there's no tactile feedback.

[Totally Guy]

It is not only easier, but also makes more sense to own a Wii + another console, rather than owning both a PS3 and an X360, to cover all your gaming bases.

I'd never realised that you can own more than one. You're right. I've got money and that means I could buy something else as well as what I've already got. Sorry if that's obvious to everyone else but it's a concept that'd never even entered my head before.

[Mystic Muse]

the 360 is a fun system since you're considering buying two.

[Optimystik]

I'd never realised that you can own more than one. You're right. I've got money and that means I could buy something else as well as what I've already got. Sorry if that's obvious to everyone else but it's a concept that'd never even entered my head before.

In case you're not being sarcastic (I really do have a hard time telling online :smalltongue:) then I'll just say you shouldn't blame yourself for not considering that possibility, as the three gaming system exarchs try their best to market their system as the ONLY one any household should ever need.

In my opinion, so-called "hardcore" gamers who refuse to have a Wii in their household for purely aesthetic reasons do not deserve the name; they simply don't know what they're missing. I have played and beaten both MK: Armageddon and Resident Evil 4 on the Wii; last-gen titles, to be sure, but the Wii's interpretation of both was extremely intuitive and innovative, and firmly established the console's potential in my eyes.

[Totally Guy]

In case you're not being sarcastic (I really do have a hard time telling online :smalltongue:) then I'll just say you shouldn't blame yourself for not considering that possibility, as the three gaming system exarchs try their best to market their system as the ONLY one any household should ever need.

No sarcasm here. It's like when you realise you can't actually be pulled under at the top of an escalator but you never thought about it since a parent told you otherwise as a child. I guess it's like conditioning.

How can you spot a hardcore game? By the number of guns on the box or something?

[Optimystik]

How can you spot a hardcore game? By the number of guns on the box or something?

If I had a surefire method, I wouldn't have put it in quotes :smalltongue:

This article (http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/683070/Casual_vs_Hardcore_Games.html) attempts to distinguish between hardcore and casual gaming. In general, the yardstick is complexity (usually of controls/options in the game.) I'll let you judge how successful they were; I found it an interesting read though.

[Narudude360]

Metroid Prime Trilogy's new controls are not gimmicky. They're the best controls for a console First-Person game ever.

I totally agree. However, you are forgetting that the "Metroid Prime Trilogy" was not filed under "New Play Control" series and thus, does not count. I have the trilogy, and it KICKS ASS.

[Narudude360]

What a hardcore game is is a video game with simple pick-up-and-play controls, but is amazingly difficult as you progress, sometimes being tough as bullcrap the moment you pop in the disc/cartridge/umd/card into the portable/console. Read: Contra, Super C, Contra III: The Alien Wars, Contra 4 (My favorite game ever!!) etc.

Other great examples of what hardcore is is...

Ninja Gaiden Series (REALLY? I have to EXPLAIN how frigging tough it is?) In Dragon Sword you have to fight through about 10 waves of goons (Up, up, down, repeat!! [Spam as necessary]) before you fight some wolf like humanoids (NO, not lycanthropes) who have a one-hit-k.o. attack they use OFTEN (EMPHASIS ON OFTEN!!) In which they bite Ryu's head off. The original Ninja Gaiden games were hard as a constapated crap that hasn't been defecated for two weeks, and the new games carry on the tradition.


I quoted myself!!

MadWorld (I still love shoving a trumpet into the head of a grunt followed up by a chainsaw to the crotch then impaling him on a street pole and then watching the amazing invention of RAGDOLL physics do their awesomeness, followed by me picking up the pole from the ground and usind it to make a human-kabob, and then creating a swirlie that could clog a toto. [My dad is a plumber, I know these things.]) is another fun example. Another would be the No More Heroes series. I hear they are bringing the series to the 360 and PS3 for future installments. I heard (read) it on The Feed during X Play, so I can confirm it's truth.

[Narudude360]

There are good 4-player games on the 360, most notably the arcade titles like Castle Crashers and shooters like Halo. Perhaps the best one is Left 4 Dead.

I find your opinion interesting. I agree quite a bit with this, but you cannot mess with WiiWare now that Nintendo has all the love with The Crystal Chronicles, and remakes of all the classics. Capcom and Sega have the Wii as their mainstream console for publishing. (Read: RE: Archives and Darkside Chronicles, and The Conduit and No More Heroes. I could easily go on.)

And don't forget the free online multiplayer, even if the "friend codes" make it a pain. "Wanna see my Miis?" "Sure! Just let me go and get my 16-digit friend code and, oh, I left it back home in Canada." (Let's assume they are in India.) "Well, at least we can email it. Too bad we will have to email each other our other 15 12-digit codes to play The Conduit, Brawl, Animal Crossing: City Folk, etc. Online!"

[Narudude360]

This. Nintendo only does gaming. Microsoft and Sony deal in a lot of other areas, and thus have a lot more money to suport their gaming department. Nintendo only has it's gaming department to rely in.

Nintendo also does Hanafuda cards.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Difficulty doesn't make a hardcore game. It can be bad designing, bugs, Nintendo Hardness, and any number of things.

By which I mean they could be the cause of difficulty, not the cause of hardcore games.

[Optimystik]

Naru, I'm not trying to backseat moderate or anything, but it's not a good idea to quadruple-post like that. There's an edit button at the bottom of your posts that lets you add new thoughts as they occur to you.


Difficulty doesn't make a hardcore game. It can be bad designing, bugs, Nintendo Hardness, and any number of things.

By which I mean they could be the cause of difficulty, not the cause of hardcore games.

I agree 100%. Difficulty is pretty subjective anyway; I find FPSes quite easy and sports games quite difficult, but most sports games are aimed at a more casual audience.

[Lord Seth]

- Sonic Unleashed with good Sonic levels (or at least, I heard those were worse on the PS3 and 360 version, and I can say that the Wii version is the first time Sonic has been done well in 3D since Sonic Adventure 2, when you're playing as Sonic himself instead of the "Were-Hog").I'm going to entirely disagree on that. Sonic Heroes was pretty good, so I can't say it's the first time since Sonic Adventure 2 Sonic has been done well. And even Sonic Unleashed's Day levels weren't that good. Heck, Shadow the Hedgehog's levels were better than the Day levels in Sonic Unleashed. The Day levels in Sonic Unleashed felt like a watered-down, much less fun version of the Sonic levels in Sonic Adventure. Actually, Sonic Unleashed itself felt like a watered-down, much less fun version of Sonic Adventure.

I really do need to try Sonic and the Secret Rings sometime, though...I've heard good things about that...

And incidentally: Forget the Wii, the DS is where it's at.

[Mando Knight]

And incidentally: Forget the Wii, the DS is where it's at.

DS, with a Wii for support. I'm seriously considering getting My Pokémon Ranch just for the storage capacity. And to implicate the rancher by making her look like a Rocket supplier... <.< >.> :smalltongue:

[Narudude360]

My Pokemon Ranch is like a cheaper Pokemon Box. And it's downloadable. And the Pokemon are interactive. And you can get tips for where to catch this and that and this and that. (In case you aren't one of those cheating bastards who uses and AR for 999 Rare Candies and populates Wi-Fi with obscene amounts of over-the-top Lvl. 100s.) That can come in handy. Plus you don't need a GBA-to-GCN cord to transfer the Poke's. It's wireless. Other than that, not much appeal. And then remember that if your Wii becomes screwed (IT WILL HAPPEN) then you can say "Bye bye!" to that Dialga you just spent the last 17 hours of your life working to catch.

[Geno9999]

This is why I want to see a Wii game where the Wiimote is used to manipulate game physics rather than interpretted and translated into a game move. The problem is that there's no tactile feedback.

Two words friend: Boom Blox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Blox). From what I've heard of it, it's pretty much your whole childhood of wooden building blocks on steroids.

[Narudude360]

Come to think about it, I should buy it, just to break the tension...

But then there is Water Warfare. Is that really a good game for the Wii? Has anyone ACTUALLY bought it? And then there is that one N64 import title. I was thinking about pouring $20 to have the option to buy it. But then when I did I got OoT and MM. LOL.

[Narudude360]

Two words friend: Boom Blox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Blox). From what I've heard of it, it's pretty much your whole childhood of wooden building blocks on steroids.

It is your childhood wooden building blocks on steroids. And marijuana. And crack cocaine. I have Bash Party, which is a total improvement on the original. (X Play gave the original 5/5, and Bash Party 5/5 because so much was improved.) It's got so much to do. A little too much to do.

[Narudude360]

Gawd, this thread has become so much bigger than I thought it would.

Anyways, I was thinking about buying RE: The Darkside Chronicles. Any suggestions?

Remember in the movie in the laser room, there is a guy who is in the room, and there is a laser coming at him, but it splits into a grid and cuts him like a brownie cutter. And then his body falls apart into squares like fudge? That was gross. I stopped the movie after that scene. I was tempted to stop the movie when I learned the Red Queen was Umbrella's leader.

And in RE: Nemesis, I turned off the movie when Jill mentioned her partner, Leon Kennedy was killed in the field on a mission a few years back.

And I didn't watch Extinction, just because the movies pissed me off. I might watch Afterlife, but it's not likely.

But Resident Evil 5 is being ported to the Wii using RE4: Wii Edition's controls.
I hope for Wi-Fi. That would be awesome.

[Zevox]

Difficulty doesn't make a hardcore game. It can be bad designing, bugs, Nintendo Hardness, and any number of things.

By which I mean they could be the cause of difficulty, not the cause of hardcore games.
I agree 100%. Difficulty is pretty subjective anyway; I find FPSes quite easy and sports games quite difficult, but most sports games are aimed at a more casual audience.
Also completely agreed. Besides, if it did, then the only "hardcore" game on the Wii would be Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. The one big flaw in most of the Wii's best games - Twilight Princess and Mario Galaxy, for instance - is that they're very easy.


I'm going to entirely disagree on that. Sonic Heroes was pretty good, so I can't say it's the first time since Sonic Adventure 2 Sonic has been done well. And even Sonic Unleashed's Day levels weren't that good. Heck, Shadow the Hedgehog's levels were better than the Day levels in Sonic Unleashed. The Day levels in Sonic Unleashed felt like a watered-down, much less fun version of the Sonic levels in Sonic Adventure. Actually, Sonic Unleashed itself felt like a watered-down, much less fun version of Sonic Adventure.
Sonic Heroes I give some slack since I'm a fan of the Chaotix, but I definitely wouldn't rate its gameplay above Sonic Unleashed's day levels. The smooth controls they achieved, and the new abilities that allowed you to keep moving at high speeds even in the face of obstacles, plus the integration of 2D sections into them, makes them easily my favorite 3D Sonic levels outside of Sonic Adventure 2. Heck, Sonic Adventure 1 I felt was pretty mediocre, and the only real praise I have for it is that it isn't bad, and everything after SA2 was worse than it.

Since you mentioned it, I never played Shadow the Hedgehog. I absolutely loath that character, so I have no reason to touch that game, and actually actively wish to avoid spending any money on it.


I really do need to try Sonic and the Secret Rings sometime, though...I've heard good things about that...
I'd recommend against it. I made the mistake of buying it after hearing good things about it, and it's the reason I'm now very careful about renting any game I'm not completely sure I'll like before I buy it. The controls for it are absolutely horrid, easily the worst use of the Wii's motion controls I have ever encountered. It's barely playable. I never even beat it - it wasn't worth torturing myself by trying to play it just to be able to say I had beaten it or to try and make myself think I hadn't wasted my money.


And incidentally: Forget the Wii, the DS is where it's at.
Now that I agree with. I have bought far more DS games over the last few years than Wii games. Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (my third favorite Zelda game), Advance Wars DS and Days of Ruin, Final Fantasy 4, Dragon Quest 4 and 5, Disgaea DS, Chrono Trigger DS, Sonic Chronicles, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, just to name the best of the bunch.

And I have at least 4 games for it coming in the future that I'm very much looking forward to: Dragon Quest 6 and 9, Zelda: Spirit Tracks, and Golden Sun DS. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Yeah, right now, the DS is the best "console" of this generation in my opinion.

Zevox

[The Dark Fiddler]

And I have at least 4 games for it coming in the future that I'm very much looking forward to: Dragon Quest 6 and 9, Zelda: Spirit Tracks, and Golden Sun DS. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Yeah, right now, the DS is the best "console" of this generation in my opinion.

Zevox

For me, Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, Scriblenauts, Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver, and if it ever comes out in America (damnit Tecmo!) Monster Rancher DS.

[Triaxx]

Does Halo still support same room multiplayer? I don't have an XboX, so I'm limited in my knowledge there of.

Twilight Princess is a game that came out for the GC, with a Wii port. You had to make the Wii port easier, because of it's launch title status. No one knew what the Wii could do at that point and now that they see how easy it is to play, it's too easy. Look at the difficulty between the Wii controls on RE4 vs. the GC controls. It's a marked difference.

[Mando Knight]

Does Halo still support same room multiplayer? I don't have an XboX, so I'm limited in my knowledge there of.
Halo 3 still supports same-room 4-player multiplayer. Simultaneously with multi-box multiplayer.

Twilight Princess is a game that came out for the GC, with a Wii port. You had to make the Wii port easier, because of it's launch title status. No one knew what the Wii could do at that point and now that they see how easy it is to play, it's too easy. Look at the difficulty between the Wii controls on RE4 vs. the GC controls. It's a marked difference.
Funny thing is, the Wii port came out first. :smalltongue:

[Lord Seth]

Sonic Heroes I give some slack since I'm a fan of the Chaotix, but I definitely wouldn't rate its gameplay above Sonic Unleashed's day levels. The smooth controls they achieved, and the new abilities that allowed you to keep moving at high speeds even in the face of obstacles, plus the integration of 2D sections into them, makes them easily my favorite 3D Sonic levels outside of Sonic Adventure 2. Heck, Sonic Adventure 1 I felt was pretty mediocre, and the only real praise I have for it is that it isn't bad, and everything after SA2 was worse than it.I actually rather disliked the controls of Sonic Unleashed. It honestly felt a lot like I was fighting them to try to move Sonic around in the Day levels.

While Sonic Heroes' gameplay wasn't as good as the Sonic/Shadow levels in Sonic Adventure 2, one thing I really like about was that they stopped all the "let's see how many completely different gameplay styles we can cram into this!" thing. Okay, so there were three formations, but they were all integrated with each other. For example, the Sonic/Tails/Knuckles levels in SA2 were separated, while in Sonic Heroes they managed to integrate the characters pretty well. The fact they took the gimmick and integrated it well into the game rather than just throwing in some extra levels with a gimmick was something I liked. Heck, I'll go and say I liked that about Shadow the Hedgehog. Yes, they had the guns as a gimmick (and honestly, they are nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. The aiming system is actually pretty good) but they were integrated into the levels, rather than splitting them. Sonic Unleashed was a step backwards, because they decided to cut up the game again.


I'd recommend against it. I made the mistake of buying it after hearing good things about it, and it's the reason I'm now very careful about renting any game I'm not completely sure I'll like before I buy it. The controls for it are absolutely horrid, easily the worst use of the Wii's motion controls I have ever encountered. It's barely playable. I never even beat it - it wasn't worth torturing myself by trying to play it just to be able to say I had beaten it or to try and make myself think I hadn't wasted my money.Well I already have a copy, I just haven't gotten around to playing it because I've been busy with other stuff.


Now that I agree with. I have bought far more DS games over the last few years than Wii games. Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (my third favorite Zelda game), Advance Wars DS and Days of Ruin, Final Fantasy 4, Dragon Quest 4 and 5, Disgaea DS, Chrono Trigger DS, Sonic Chronicles, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, just to name the best of the bunch.

And I have at least 4 games for it coming in the future that I'm very much looking forward to: Dragon Quest 6 and 9, Zelda: Spirit Tracks, and Golden Sun DS. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.Try out the Ace Attorney series. They're seriously some of the best translated games I've ever played, and they've got awesome music as well. Actually, the game I'm looking forward to most at the moment is the next (fifth) game in the series. But of course I have to wait over half a year for it...

[Zevox]

I actually rather disliked the controls of Sonic Unleashed. It honestly felt a lot like I was fighting them to try to move Sonic around in the Day levels.
Huh. I found it was easier to control than any game since SA2, especially with the sonic dift and side-step abilities added in.


While Sonic Heroes' gameplay wasn't as good as the Sonic/Shadow levels in Sonic Adventure 2, one thing I really like about was that they stopped all the "let's see how many completely different gameplay styles we can cram into this!" thing. Okay, so there were three formations, but they were all integrated with each other. For example, the Sonic/Tails/Knuckles levels in SA2 were separated, while in Sonic Heroes they managed to integrate the characters pretty well. The fact they took the gimmick and integrated it well into the game rather than just throwing in some extra levels with a gimmick was something I liked.
I'm going to have to disagree there. I found that Sonic Heroes didn't do a good job integrating the three gameplay styles. Switching between them mid-level often made each level feel very disjointed, especially when switching between speed mode and power mode - you're rushing across the stage one moment, the next you need to slow to a halt or nearly to a halt to bash in some enemies or an obstacle. Ouch. I'll take the separate levels for each style over that, personally.


Heck, I'll go and say I liked that about Shadow the Hedgehog. Yes, they had the guns as a gimmick (and honestly, they are nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. The aiming system is actually pretty good) but they were integrated into the levels, rather than splitting them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the big criticism with that was that the whole concept of giving a Sonic character a gun rather than having them fight with their special abilities was idiotic and unnecessary. That, at least, was my reaction, and I did hear a number of others echoing it. I think I recall some criticizing it as potentially racist, too, what with Shadow being colored black and all and no previous information establishing that he used a gun or had any reason to do so (though that might have just been that VG Cats comic).


Sonic Unleashed was a step backwards, because they decided to cut up the game again.
Only because the "were-hog" stages sucked so bad. I got the impression that they were going for a "Prince of Persia" sort of feel to them - had those stages, and their combat especially, played anywhere near as smoothly and enjoyably as the Prince of Persia games themselves, I think they could have been quite good. But they just wound up so damn awkward and slow instead...

(Of course, the whole "were-hog" concept sucked regardless, but that's different from the gameplay problems.)


Try out the Ace Attorney series. They're seriously some of the best translated games I've ever played, and they've got awesome music as well. Actually, the game I'm looking forward to most at the moment is the next (fifth) game in the series. But of course I have to wait over half a year for it...
I've had others recommend those before, and I do intend to try them out eventually, but they're not at the top of my interest list. Especially since, with four games already out, it wouldn't be that easy to go and find the first. Also doesn't help that the rental stores near me have only a very small selection of DS games (and up until recently didn't carry them at all).

Zevox

[Roxlimn]

valadil:

It is a problem, but you're incorrect in assuming that there is no tactile feedback - the Wiimote features rumble, so there is that. It does not, however, direct your arm anywhere - I suspect we're rather far away from that kind of technology.

Optimystik:

The article is completely off, as is your definition. Shooters feature some of the least complex control methods - point to the target, click. Nothing to it.

By the same token, most point and click adventures are also not very complex.

In contrast, Farm Mania from Big Fish games requires you to juggle 5 different timers on 4 separate task queues according to unpredictable demands. It also features upgrade systems that allow you to lessen attention span load - there's a fair bit of strategy to finishing the game.

By argument of complexity, Farm Mania is more complex and therefore more hardcore than most shooter games.

Narudude360:

That's a reasonable definition, but by that definition, Cooking Mama is a more hardcore game than Prince of Persia, simply because you CAN fail in Cooking Mama, and the motion controls are incredibly demanding. Most reviewers didn't even get far enough to figure out that the controls aren't, in fact, broken - just very, very hard.


There is no such thing as a "casual" or a "hardcore" game. These names are nebulous labels created by the gaming and media industry in order to discriminate against new console gamers brought in the Wii. These gamers are not new gamers - they've probably been playing PC games for a while before.

[Kudaku]

Before I get into the thick of it I'd like to confess that I only read the first page of this thread (due to time restraints), so what I'm saying will adress the original question instead of which Smash Bros character is cheaper or whether Twilight Princess was more awesome on the GC or the Wii :smallsmile:.

The matter at hand is quite relevant for me: I am primarily a computer gamer, but I bought a wii about two years ago, and I've had alot of fun with it over the years. I'm a student and I lived the last two years in a dorm with a lot of other students, and I can't help but feel that the Wii was perfect for these conditions. Always having people on hand when you felt like having a game really makes the console shine - Mario Party, Ravin' Rabbits (oh my God, the rabbits), Wii Sports, the list goes on and on. Many a game have been played in both sober and less than sober conditions, which only makes playing it that much more hillarious. Let's face it, at it's heart the Wii is a party console - Nothing wrong with that.

However, this year I moved out of the dorm and into a smallish apartment. And this brings out the drawbacks of the Wii - when you don't have people over it really isn't all that much fun to play it. I'm sure people can point out many great titles for the Wii, but it has been on the market for a number of years now... And quite frankly, apart from the Nintendo launched games (Mario, Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid Prime...), the vast majority of them are absolutely awful. Finally, though this may be a local issue - I find that Wii games are sold prohibitively expensively, including used games.

So I turn to my gaming laptop, but I find it depressing to constantly struggle with flagging framerates, bugs, crashes, and so on and so forth.

So two days ago I bought an Xbox Pro. It has many interesting games, a USB port for my portable harddrive (complete music collection on my TV setup? Yes please!), and the comfort knowing that if I buy a game, I can come home, pop it in the drive, and expect it to run without hunting down patches, figuring out crash reports, worrying about DRM or any other kinds of protection.

Does this mean I'm gonna sell my Wii? Absolutely not, It's still good for a few laughs and I have no problem firing up Ravin' Rabbits or Wii Sports next time I have some friends over. However, it won't be my "main" game system, and I probably won't buy more games for it - unless I see something incredibly sexy (Legend of Zelda-esque sexiness).

Instead I set my hopes on the BoX.

[Roxlimn]

kudaku:

It depends on what you mean by "absolutely awful." There are a bunch of games on the Wii that are not developed by Nintendo, and are pretty great played on your own.

Of course, Nintendo itself has released, this year, Punch Out!! and Wii Sports Resort already. Punch Out!! is, of course, primarily a single player experience, but while WSR is an absolutely blast with friends, it does have a significant SP component as well.

For instance, there's:

Little King's Story
de Blob
Dawn of Discovery
Klonoa
Rune Factory Frontier
No More Heroes
Tales of Symphonia 2
Overlord: Dark Legend
RE 4: Wii Edition
Geometry Wars Galaxies

as examples.

Of course, most of the Wii's library IS pretty horrible, but I don't see how that's a con for a gamer, as gamers tend to be well-informed about which titles are the best to buy.

It's such a shame that you won't be buying games for the Wii anymore, since there's a bunch of cool-looking games I'm looking to examine this coming fall and winter.

I'm talking about these titles:

Muramasa: The Demon Blade
Arc Rise Fantasia
Final Fantasy: The Crystal Bearers
New Super Mario Brothers Wii
Cursed Mountain
Contra Rebirth
Silent Hill: Shattered Memories
Fragile: Farewell Ruins of the Moon
Robocalypse: Beaver Defense
Sky Crawlers: Innocent Aces
1701 AD

It's not a complete list of everything I'm keeping an eye on for the Wii (some titles are for the kids and for party applications), but if they all turn out to be good, I'm going to have money problems.

[Knaight]

What a hardcore game is is a video game with simple pick-up-and-play controls, but is amazingly difficult as you progress, sometimes being tough as bullcrap the moment you pop in the disc/cartridge/umd/card into the portable/console. Read: Contra, Super C, Contra III: The Alien Wars, Contra 4 (My favorite game ever!!) etc.

Other great examples of what hardcore is is...

Ninja Gaiden Series (REALLY? I have to EXPLAIN how frigging tough it is?) In Dragon Sword you have to fight through about 10 waves of goons (Up, up, down, repeat!! [Spam as necessary]) before you fight some wolf like humanoids (NO, not lycanthropes) who have a one-hit-k.o. attack they use OFTEN (EMPHASIS ON OFTEN!!) In which they bite Ryu's head off. The original Ninja Gaiden games were hard as a constapated crap that hasn't been defecated for two weeks, and the new games carry on the tradition.

I would add as others have that this has to be real difficulty. Mount and Blade works here, because of how you can lose, hard, and then have to build up again from scratch. DROD works here since its a puzzle game, you have all the time in the world as its turn based, and it is impossible to be killed by lag. That doesn't stop the DROD series from being incredibly difficult, particularly The City Beneath and DROD RPG. And there is no randomness in any of them, so you can't blame bad luck either.

[Triaxx]

The Wii version did come out first, but it had been worked on as a GC game for a long while before hand.

[Kudaku]

Roxlimn: Your list was interesting, that's for sure!

I'm wondering if part of the problem is simply that stores in my native country (Norway) don't go to the trouble of stocking Wii Games. I checked out the web site of Norway's premiere electronics store (www.elkjop.no) in case you can read Norwegian), and they have a grand total of 45 titles in store - see the list:

Wii Boogie Superstar
Wii Carnival: Funfair Games
Wii Babysitting Party (!)
Wii Funfair Party
Wii Movie Studios Party
Wii It's my Birthday
Mario Power Tennis
Pikmin 2
Wario Land: The Shake Dimension
Anno: Create a new world
Wii Eledees
G-force
Guitar Hero: Metallica
Rock Band 2
EA sports Grand Slam Tennis
Ice Age 3
MySims Racing
Wii Play
Wii Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10
Super Smash Bros Brawl
Punch-Out
Mario Strikers Charged
Little Kings
Donkey Kong Jungle Beat
EA Sports Active
Guitar Hero: World Tour
Harry Potter And the Half-Blood Prince
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games
Pokemon Battle Revolution
Wii Sports Resort
Virtua Tennis 2009
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Mario Kart Wii
Mario Party 8
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Paper Mario
Guitar Hero: Greatest Hits
MadWorld
Wii Fit

Out of that list there is roughly 6 games worth owning. Maybe my problem with the Wii isn't so much that there is a shortage of decent games so much as those decent games don't get shipped here? If so that underlines the shovelware argument mentioned earlier - if there was less "it's my Birthday"-type games being sold, maybe the more worthy alternatives would get some love :smallsmile:

[Roxlimn]

It's hard to say that that would be the direct result. Companies generally don't ship products out to other countries based on how much their competitors are shipping - they tend to have their own concerns. Even if the shovelware weren't there, it's doubtful that there would be more.

Of your list, I think the following are worth owning without considering party or unusual applications:


Pikmin 2
Wario Land: The Shake Dimension
Anno: Create a New World
EA sports Grand Slam Tennis
Wii Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10
Punch-Out
Little Kings
Wii Sports Resort
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Paper Mario

11 titles in all. In fact, I own all these titles.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik:

The article is completely off, as is your definition. Shooters feature some of the least complex control methods - point to the target, click. Nothing to it.

By the same token, most point and click adventures are also not very complex.

Then I must conclude you failed to read it, because it lists shooters like Gears of War and Halo as introductory games to a deeper genre.

Furthermore, point-and-click is all there is to it? Have you even played Gears?


There is no such thing as a "casual" or a "hardcore" game. These names are nebulous labels created by the gaming and media industry in order to discriminate against new console gamers brought in the Wii. These gamers are not new gamers - they've probably been playing PC games for a while before.

I agree that the labels are not clear-cut, but that doesn't mean there is no phenomenon underlying their use. Nor is the term "casual" limited solely to Wii games as you suggest. There are casual games on every system (The Sims 3 is a PC game, LittleBigPlanet is a PS3 offering, not to mention every single EA Sports game ever.) Finally, you are assuming the term is pejorative, but I'm sure many game developers would kill to be in Will Wright's shoes.

[Cristo Meyers]

... but I'm sure every game publisher would kill to be in Will Wright's shoes.

Bent over the CEO of EA Games' desk?

[Optimystik]

Bent over the CEO of EA Games' desk?

Have some more Haterade :smalltongue:

I mistyped that though, meant to say "developers" and "many."

[Cristo Meyers]

Have some more Haterade :smalltongue:

I mistyped that though, meant to say "developers" and "many."

He can make all the great games he wants (I still play Spore every so often), doesn't change the fact that EA is going to treat them like street walkers in order to milk as much money as they can out of the buyer. :smalltongue:

[Sipex]

Damn EA ruining spore >:(


That said, I really need to catch up on my DS gaming (since this thread has gone that way). It's frustrating but amazing at the same time. I just manage to catch up and then, before I know it, my "want" list is busting at the seams again.

[Lord Seth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the big criticism with that was that the whole concept of giving a Sonic character a gun rather than having them fight with their special abilities was idiotic and unnecessary.Except Shadow DOES fight with his special abilities. The game plays like his levels from Sonic Adventure 2. He has the guns, but it didn't remove any of his original abilities.


That, at least, was my reaction, and I did hear a number of others echoing it. I think I recall some criticizing it as potentially racist, too, what with Shadow being colored black and all and no previous information establishing that he used a gun or had any reason to do so (though that might have just been that VG Cats comic).That probably was just that comic, quite frankly...


I've had others recommend those before, and I do intend to try them out eventually, but they're not at the top of my interest list. Especially since, with four games already out, it wouldn't be that easy to go and find the first. Also doesn't help that the rental stores near me have only a very small selection of DS games (and up until recently didn't carry them at all).The first game might be a bit tough to get as I think they discontinued it (it was originally published like 4 years ago after all) but it shouldn't be too hard to find copies online. Completely new ones would probably be a bit expensive (about $45 for a completely new copy on amazon.com; speaking of which, though, there is a Like New" used copy for only $33,89 counting shipping) but you can probably find used ones still in good condition for a lower price. I do highly recommend the games though. Start with the first if you can, though. The later games don't spoil the previous ones *too* much but do contain some references to them that might give things away. Of course, I played through the first three games in reverse order, so...

[Mando Knight]

Except Shadow DOES fight with his special abilities. The game plays like his levels from Sonic Adventure 2. He has the guns, but it didn't remove any of his original abilities.

Unfortunately, using his special abilities sometimes also killed your ability to complete the missions promptly (other than "get to the end"), and occasionally the Chaos Control threw you into impossible situations (like over pits with a sudden total loss of momentum). :smallsigh:

Otherwise, it was the closest thing the 3D games had to allowing the player to use Super mode in the normal levels.

[Narudude360]

Suddenly this thread went from debating over the Wii to a "Is Sonic the Hedgehog sucktastic, or speeding whirlwind of awesome?" I think we should

*Aherm*


GET BACK ON TOPIC!!

[Zevox]

Except Shadow DOES fight with his special abilities. The game plays like his levels from Sonic Adventure 2. He has the guns, but it didn't remove any of his original abilities.
I don't quite think my point got through. The thing is, since he has his powers, there's no point in also giving him a gun. The character and his abilities are supposed to be the point of characters like these. It would be like making superhero games with the X-Men, or Superman, or (most accurately) the Flash, and giving them guns. It's just a ridiculous idea on the face of it.

Anyway, I recently got ahold of Little King's Story, and I'd definitely put it on the list I gave previously of great Wii games. It's kinda like Pikmin, only even better. I'm only a short way into it, yet I already have access to more classes for my citizens than Pikmin 2 had types of Pikmin, and each one is quite useful. Boss battles are surprisingly fun and strategic, too - better than in Pikmin, particularly the most recent one I did, against the Onii King. And there's just a lot more to do than in Pikmin in general. Though I am bit dumbfounded at how stupid your main advisor is, given he was apparently completely convinced that the world amounted to little more than the lands in which you start...

Zevox

[Phexar]

According to this (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3146055), Shadow was given a gun because kids were asking for Sonic to have one.


Yuji Naka later commented on the design of the game. "We had received letters from kids, and many of them had asked for Sonic to have a gun," he said. "We felt that it was not appropriate for Sonic to have a gun, but maybe it would be ok with Shadow and that's how we started on the game."

The real question is: why are kids writing letters asking for Sonic to have a gun?

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:



Then I must conclude you failed to read it, because it lists shooters like Gears of War and Halo as introductory games to a deeper genre.

Furthermore, point-and-click is all there is to it? Have you even played Gears?


Yes. There is some variation and a related positioning game, but the core shooting mechanic is pretty much the same as Missile Command.

The article does not list Gears of War or Halo as casual games. If it were honest, it would.



I agree that the labels are not clear-cut, but that doesn't mean there is no phenomenon underlying their use. Nor is the term "casual" limited solely to Wii games as you suggest. There are casual games on every system (The Sims 3 is a PC game, LittleBigPlanet is a PS3 offering, not to mention every single EA Sports game ever.) Finally, you are assuming the term is pejorative, but I'm sure many game developers would kill to be in Will Wright's shoes.


There is a phenomenon underlying the use of such terms. That doesn't mean that they're being misused for discriminatory purposes, or that they've long outlived their very limited usefulness.

I did not suggest that "casual" was limited to the Wii. In fact, I mentioned that Nintendo wasn't creating a new market - they were merely tapping into a market established by Minesweeper, Sims, and most importantly, PopCap and BigFish games.

I am not assuming that the label is pejorative. There are many instances in gaming articles in which the context is quite clear. It IS pejorative in those senses.

In terms of useful definitions, the term is nebulous and outdated. PopCap has developed many games that cut across many gamer types and genres. Their focus on game design rather than technical prowess is why I've always been a fan of their games.

Expanded market genres on both the Wii and the PC have different markets and design goals. Lumping them all into "casual" is less than useless - it's actually harmful.

The things that make fitness games work are not the same things that make time management games work, are not the same things that make word games work, are not the same things that make puzzle games work.

None of these are aided by lack of complexity, a paucity of features, or lack of polish.

Zevox:



And there's just a lot more to do than in Pikmin in general. Though I am bit dumbfounded at how stupid your main advisor is, given he was apparently completely convinced that the world amounted to little more than the lands in which you start...


I'm fairly sure that that advisor is meant to be some kind of commentary on world politics in addition to being a source of game information.

[Ravens_cry]

Just looking at the title, I don't exactly like the diochtamy I am seen. All consoles are toys. Yes, even the uber 'hardcore' ones, the latest Playstation and Xbox iterations. I don't care how leet you think you are, your playing a game, and so it's a toy. Call it a console, call it an interactive multimedia experience device, it's still a toy. And there's no shame in that, or at least there shouldn't be. But to suggest that because the Wii is a toy is a reason to disregard it, shows a certain amount of self delusion.

[Triaxx]

Hey, quit bursting our balloons. :smallamused:

Seriously though, they may be toys, but so is just about everything that people are WAY too serious about.

[Optimystik]

According to this (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3146055), Shadow was given a gun because kids were asking for Sonic to have one.

Crucial insight into Sonic Team if random letters from children are guiding their game design decisions. Shadow with a gun? Okay! Sonic with a sword? Okay!

[Geno9999]

Just looking at the title, I don't exactly like the diochtamy I am seen. All consoles are toys. Yes, even the uber 'hardcore' ones, the latest Playstation and Xbox iterations. I don't care how leet you think you are, your playing a game, and so it's a toy. Call it a console, call it an interactive multimedia experience device, it's still a toy. And there's no shame in that, or at least there shouldn't be. But to suggest that because the Wii is a toy is a reason to disregard it, shows a certain amount of self delusion.

BECAUSE CHILDREN'S (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness)CARD (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yu-Gi-OhTheAbridgedSeries) VIDEO GAMES ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness)
In all real seriousness, I agree with what you said; In the end, Video games are just... toys. They serve one purpose and that is entertainment. Some would take them more serious than others, and that is pretty much how we get the whole "Hardcore Gamers vs. Casual Gamers."

[Lord Seth]

Crucial insight into Sonic Team if random letters from children are guiding their game design decisions. Shadow with a gun? Okay! Sonic with a sword? Okay!Because, heaven forbid, a group shouldn't be listening to the consumer.

Of course, Sonic Team seems to be refusing to listen to the consumers by actually fixing the problems people have been confusing about...so...

Still, I'm unsure as to how many of the problems are necessarily the fault of Sonic Team. Two quotes from members that are illuminating:
Regarding the extremely poor reception of Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, Yojiro Ogawa (Sonic Team member) said:
"The reason why we probably ended up with what we see today, involves a lot of reasons. One is that we did want to launch the title around Christmas, and we had the PS3 launch coming up, but we had to develop for Microsoft's 360 at the same time and the team had an awful lot of pressure on them. It was very hard for the team to try and see how we were going to come out with both versions together with just the one team. It was a big challenge."

Short answer: We didn't have time to make the games decent. It's unclear whether "we did want to launch the title around Christmas" meant it was Sonic Team's decision or Sega's decision or Sammy's decision (Sammy is Sega's owner, and I believe was responsible for a changing of the members of Sonic Team a while back, which was probably another factor in the decline of the franchise), but it definitely does show it was rushed.

On the issue of Sonic Unleashed's negative reception of the werehog levels, here's what Tetsu Katano, another member of Sonic Team said:
"I don't think that producing the Werehog was a mistake per se, but there were a lot of things we could have done better if we had more time and resources."

That one's more clear, and is saying they didn't have the time or resources to actually make the game decent. This really seems to imply to me that the higher-ups in either Sega or Sammy are forcing them to get games out before they're fully satisfied with them.

Another thing that leads me to believe that Sonic Team is being put under unreasonable demands is that Yuji Naka left the group after Shadow the Hedgehog came out to form his own development team. I'm not sure if he ever gave a reason for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because he just got tired of the whole thing and wanted less executive meddling.

[Optimystik]

Because, heaven forbid, a group shouldn't be listening to the consumer.

Not when their ideas are utter crap, no.
Are you honestly saying that if Sonic Team had disregarded the brats and released a good Sonic game, it wouldn't sell any better than the trash?


Short answer: We didn't have time to make the games decent. It's unclear whether "we did want to launch the title around Christmas" meant it was Sonic Team's decision or Sega's decision or Sammy's decision (Sammy is Sega's owner, and I believe was responsible for a changing of the members of Sonic Team a while back, which was probably another factor in the decline of the franchise), but it definitely does show it was rushed.

Oh boo hoo! Game developers have deadlines! Let's all give them a big hug and a pat on the head!

Except there are plenty of GOOD games with time constraints on their development too. I haven't heard the Mario Galaxy team crying about release dates, and they somehow managed to come out with quality product. You'll forgive me if I'm not entirely sympathetic to "werehogs."

[Mando Knight]

Except there are plenty of GOOD games with time constraints on their development too. I haven't heard the Mario Galaxy team crying about release dates, and they somehow managed to come out with quality product. You'll forgive me if I'm not entirely sympathetic to "werehogs."

That's because Nintendo kicks time (and the tea table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabudai)) to the curb if necessary for quality. It took them years to build Galaxy, and at first Miyamoto speculated that they could get Mario Galaxy out within six months after the Wii was released. It was released a year later instead.

And then there's Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time...

[Optimystik]

That's because Nintendo kicks time (and the tea table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabudai)) to the curb if necessary for quality. It took them years to build Galaxy, and at first Miyamoto speculated that they could get Mario Galaxy out within six months after the Wii was released. It was released a year later instead.

And then there's Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time...

If it meant restoring Sonic's good name, I'd wait the extra 6 months. Are there any true Sonic fans who wouldn't?

[Narudude360]

Muramasa: The Demon Blade
Arc Rise Fantasia
Final Fantasy: The Crystal Bearers
New Super Mario Brothers Wii
Cursed Mountain
Contra Rebirth
Silent Hill: Shattered Memories
Fragile: Farewell Ruins of the Moon
Robocalypse: Beaver Defense
Sky Crawlers: Innocent Aces
1701 AD

*Sigh* I already undestand what other people said. I don't need you pestering me about it. Read through the article. Aside from Arc Rise: Fantasia, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Robocalypse: Beaver Defense, and Sky Crawlers: Innocent Aces, I'm buying all those titles.

Besides, if I didn't buy Contra: Rebirth, I couln't call myself a hardcore gamer. I own all the original titles. (Contra, Super C, Contra III: The Alien Wars, and Contra 4.) And I still kick ass in all of them. The last boss of Contra 4 was freaky though, because all the humans they abducted were fused together, and you have to play a level where the level is made out of humans. Creepy. And in order to enter the level, you have to use the "X" Grappling hook and grab onto human heads. Yeesh. *Shiver*

[Narudude360]

Seriously, STFU about Sonic. This discussion is about hardcore gaming on the Wii. Sega failed us with Sonic.
If I have to wait 6 years to reinstate Sonic's good name, I will wait. Sonic doesn't have a good name anymore. Sega won't listen to their fans, and release the games WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY. (Sonic Storybook Series? WTF?!) And yet we still buy the garbage, and suffer while we play it. At least Sega hasn't failed the hardcore crowd, with lots of great Wii titles like MadWorld and The Conduit.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Besides, if I didn't buy Contra: Rebirth, I couln't call myself a hardcore gamer.

Yes you could.

By my definitions at least (that is, when I decide that I need to define hardcore games), the main definitions is how deep you can get into it with strategies, training, etc. Monster Rancher? Pokemon? WoW? TF2? Hardcore. Kirby? Not. Of course, this means by my definition, a lot of games are hardcore. But that's ok, because hardcore or casual means nothing:

As many people have already said, there is no universal hardcore, and some people have even pointed out its only a term with no real bearing designed to influence sales. The "I can't call myself a hardcore gamer if I don't buy this" is part of it, most likely.

If you read no other point, read this one:
Not buying a hardcore game doesn't automatically make you a casual gamer.

[Lord Seth]

Oh boo hoo! Game developers have deadlines! Let's all give them a big hug and a pat on the head!Huh?

Yes, many people have deadlines. But it's a problem when the deadline means they don't have enough time to make a decent game. Sonic '06 actually looked like they had some pretty cool plans for it, which weren't realized because, again, it was rushed out and we ended up with what's considered to be one of the worst Sonic games ever.


Except there are plenty of GOOD games with time constraints on their development too. I haven't heard the Mario Galaxy team crying about release dates,Do you think that might be because they were given sufficient time to make the game good?


and they somehow managed to come out with quality product.Again, do you think that might be because they were given sufficient time to make the game good?

Funny you mention Mario, incidentally. Shigeru Miyamoto is known for delaying the release of games he works on with the basis that he wants to make sure he gets them right. While he has produced some disappointments (Super Mario Sunshine springs to mind) that philosophy has caused him to release some of the greatest games ever made.

I'm not saying a game should be Duke Nukem Forever, but if the developers aren't given the time or resources they really need to make a game good, I can't put all the blame on them for it if it turns out bad.

[Optimystik]

I'm not getting into another Sonic debate with you, Seth. Sonic Team are not the poor whipped slaves chained to the crappy game mill that you and others make them out to be, and if they actually grew a pair then maybe they could get Sega to wait longer than a year between games. One would think their fans were worth it, but I don't blame them for not caring if little Johnny keeps getting his mother to shell out for them. They just won't get my money.

I agree that Sega is at fault here too, but Sonic Team are still the ones saying "all done!" and getting surprised when they get 44% on metacritic and 3.9 on IGN.

[Lord Seth]

Oh, I wasn't saying Sonic Team doesn't deserve blame. I just think that it shouldn't be getting all the blame.

[Mando Knight]

By my definitions at least (that is, when I decide that I need to define hardcore games), the main definitions is how deep you can get into it with strategies, training, etc. Monster Rancher? Pokemon? WoW? TF2? Hardcore. Kirby? Not. Of course, this means by my definition, a lot of games are hardcore.

American Kirby is Hardcore. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericanKirbyIsHardcore) :smalltongue:

[Lord Seth]

Anyway, getting off the Sonic topic, as to hardcore gaming, I agree (mostly) with what Yahtzee said on the topic in Extra Punctuation (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6340-Extra-Punctuation-Call-of-Juarez-Bound-in-Blood.2):

'Hardcore' doesn't mean 'Halo-playing twitchy fourteen-year-old douchebag.' 'Hardcore' gamers means the gamers who get into it. The gamers who have gamed since 256 colors were a distant wet dream. The gamers who follow all the hype and who want games with depth and innovation. The gamers who read websites like this one and ultimately the gamers who give a ****. Hardcore gamers are the ones who want the Mario and Zelda games Nintendo can't be bothered with anymore because they're too busy making popcorn nothings like Wii Sports Resort for their new 'casual gamer' friends.

Casual gamers are people who buy a Wii because the TV told them to and play it for about an hour before going off to mow the lawn or watch Days of our Lives or whatever else normal people do with their time.The last sentence of his first paragraph is a bit odd given that Nintendo had announced new Mario and Zelda games, but outside of that he brings up what does seem a reasonable definition.

[The Dark Fiddler]

American Kirby is Hardcore. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericanKirbyIsHardcore) :smalltongue:

I've already read that trope.

And despite this, I need to make a Will save every 3 seconds to resist reading it. :smallannoyed:

[Roxlimn]

Narudude360:

That reply was specifically directed to someone else, not to you.

Lost Seth:

Yahtzee singlehandedly refers to himself as a casual gamer because when Nintendo brings him a game that's notable for its depth and innovation (Wii Sports Resort) in the face of a sea of shallow, derivative games, he can't even tell and calls it a "popcorn nothing."

It's a good thing people listen to his review more for the humor than for any serious perspective.

[Optimystik]

Yahtzee singlehandedly refers to himself as a casual gamer because when Nintendo brings him a game that's notable for its depth and innovation (Wii Sports Resort) in the face of a sea of shallow, derivative games, he can't even tell and calls it a "popcorn nothing."

It's a good thing people listen to his review more for the humor than for any serious perspective.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I must laugh at this post. WSR's "depth" boils down to "waggle the remote in various different ways" and its "innovation" involves a handful of new titles fluffed out with repackaged Wii Sports games. It's okay to like more of the same, but strange simply to pretend it isn't.

As for Yahtzee, I agree his reviews do pile on the bile, but the points he raises are true ones.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:

Comparatively, the depth behind Fire Emblem (or Mass Effect, or Starcraft, or BlazBlue) boils down to "press the buttons in various different ways." Wii Sports itself was a reasonably deep game. WSR is deeper than Wii Sports.

[warty goblin]

Optimystik:

Comparatively, the depth behind Fire Emblem (or Mass Effect, or Starcraft, or BlazBlue) boils down to "press the buttons in various different ways." Wii Sports itself was a reasonably deep game.

Not really, no. Depth of gameplay, at least to me, does not in majority come from how the game is controlled*, but from the variety of actions and responses available to those actions within the game, the fail and victory states, the limitations imposed upon the player, the ability to make and recover from errors, and mostly with how all of these combine to create an assortment of semi-long term paths that the player can follow in pursuit of victory.

It is also true that motion control could change this if it had sufficient fidelity, and could capture posture and movement. The Wii controls however clearly don't do this.

Controls can certainly influence how a game works and plays- take for example a game with real time inventory management vs a game that pauses when you open the inventory and you'll see what I mean. In the former case, changing what weapon you have equiped is a dangerous action, not something you want to do when in immediate peril. In the later one is always free to use the optimum weapon for the task at hand without suffering significant risk for changing. This does certainly alterthe game, and can have a vast impact on the feel and tone of the experience but fundamentally which weapon is optimum for a given situation is really not all that dependant on the control scheme.

*Not that how the game is controlled is by any means irrelevant. I think we've all played enough games that control like an obese musk ox, or else employ schemes so byzantine and downright strange as to make one question whether their designers were in fact issued brains at birth to understand that.

[Roxlimn]

wartygoblin:

Sure. All of the things you mentioned were present in both the original Wii Sports and moreso in the new WSR. There are a variety of actions and responses, a variety of fail and victory conditions, you can recover from errors, and you have several long-term goals you can achieve.

All of these were in both those games, but moreso in WSR.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik:

Comparatively, the depth behind Fire Emblem (or Mass Effect, or Starcraft, or BlazBlue) boils down to "press the buttons in various different ways." Wii Sports itself was a reasonably deep game. WSR is deeper than Wii Sports.

How odd that you consider an arcade "lite sports" game to have comparative depth to RPGs and strategy games :smallconfused: You might have had a case with Blazblue, but even that one wins out with its far superior storyline (i.e. it has one) and complex yet intuitive control scheme. Comparing WSR to any of the above titles is a joke.

It might be deep for a collection of minigames (and I would disagree there as well, even WW: Smooth Moves had more of a story and far more variety), but that still leaves it in the wading pool of gaming.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:

Oh really?

I have put over 200 hours into Mass Effect, playing every class and most endings. I know the spreadsheets of every weapon and can instruct you on how to optimally use powers and weapons.

I have competitive semi-pro experience with Starcraft, with all the hundreds of hours of gaming that that entails. Ask me about the evolution of the Bisu Build.

I can actually play Blazblue using the Crushes.

I've also put over 80 hours into WSR so far and over 180 hours into Wii Sports.

I know what I'm talking about.

Story is not what makes a game deep. The Munchables has a story, but it is not a deep game. WW has a story, but that is also not a deep game.

WSR is a deeper game than those. I easily compare it to SC.

At this point, I have to ask, in all seriousness, how well you know any of these games. We cannot reasonably discuss Starcraft gameplay if I have to constantly explain everything. If you wish, I can draw parallels between move strategies in WSR Swordplay and the various Zerg pool builds (5-7-9-12, respectively). Or perhaps I could express cycling strategies with proxy Pylons and the Rax cheese BoxeR likes so much.

[Lord Seth]

Trying to use simplistic controls as an argument for a game not being deep fails as soon as you realize that Go and Chess, two of the most complicated and deep games in existence, have "controls" that consist of nothing more than picking something up and putting it down somewhere else.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik:

Oh really?

*E-peen exhortations*

I know what I'm talking about.

Story is not what makes a game deep.

Before we go any further, it's clear your definition of "depth" and mine are quite different. If you really do want to discuss this, then tell me; what makes a game deep to you?


Trying to use simplistic controls as an argument for a game not being deep fails as soon as you realize that Go and Chess, two of the most complicated and deep games in existence, have "controls" that consist of nothing more than picking something up and putting it down somewhere else.

You are mistakenly supporting your conclusion by defining "controls" as the physical mechanics of manipulating the pieces in these games. But in my definition, a game's controls represent the options available to a player at any point in time. For example, in the original Donkey Kong all you could do was move and jump.

Chess has no less than 18 options from the very outset of the game, and the complexity only grows from there. Those are the "controls." Go is of course even more challenging, the moreso due to cultural distance.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:

warty goblin expresses it above:



Not really, no. Depth of gameplay, at least to me, does not in majority come from how the game is controlled*, but from the variety of actions and responses available to those actions within the game, the fail and victory states, the limitations imposed upon the player, the ability to make and recover from errors, and mostly with how all of these combine to create an assortment of semi-long term paths that the player can follow in pursuit of victory.


Neither Chess nor Go have stories to go with them. Are you really going to argue that they are shallow games?

Please do not be put off by my E-peen exhortations. I relate them only to tell you how familiar I am with those games. Test me. Talk to me. Ask me the optimal outputs of Pistols and ARs in Mass Effect across powers and classes! There are few people who will tolerate these little departures of mine. It would be nice to have a conversation about it outside the Bioware forums.

I know how these games play, and I know how WSR plays. If you can tolerate it, I can wax poetic.

[Optimystik]

Neither Chess nor Go have stories to go with them. Are you really going to argue that they are shallow games?

I made no such argument. See above.

A story is one aspect of a deep game, not the only one. I'm still waiting on your definition.

[Roxlimn]

Already posted. See above.

Optimystik:



You are mistakenly supporting your conclusion by defining "controls" as the physical mechanics of manipulating the pieces in these games. But in my definition, a game's controls represent the options available to a player at any point in time. For example, in the original Donkey Kong all you could do was move and jump.

Chess has no less than 18 options from the very outset of the game, and the complexity only grows from there. Those are the "controls." Go is of course even more challenging, the moreso due to cultural distance.


Similarly, you have at least 4 different basic moves available to your in WSR Swordplay at any one time, and the value of those moves depends on the state of your avatar and the state of your opponent. Too, the 4 stances that correspond to the 4 moves can be used to bait and trick, even the AI.

And that's only the basic stuff.

[Lord Seth]

You are mistakenly supporting your conclusion by defining "controls" as the physical mechanics of manipulating the pieces in these games. But in my definition, a game's controls represent the options available to a player at any point in time. For example, in the original Donkey Kong all you could do was move and jump.

Chess has no less than 18 options from the very outset of the game, and the complexity only grows from there. Those are the "controls." Go is of course even more challenging, the moreso due to cultural distance.Okay, that's a point in terms of controls, but I wouldn't say either Go or Chess is particularly more challenging than the other. They both take a lot of strategy, though the strategy between the two is actually rather different. From the start it's an opposite: Chess starts with everything on the board, and as the games goes on pieces are removed. Go starts with nothing, and as the game goes on pieces are added. I have no idea where I was going with this.

[warty goblin]

I should point out that in my original analysis and definition I overlooked a rather important piece of the puzzle, namely the length of time an action impacts your current status in the game.

What I mean by this bears a little elaboration. If I choose not to hold a forward position in a strategy game, it'll put me on the defensive for quite a while, and possibly advance my opponent towards eventual victory. The choice has long term consequences, irregardless of the outcome of the game. A game like soccer is, to me, vitally different in this regard. Letting the other team score might put me at a disadvantage, but the fact that they scored has no impact on the state of the game a minute later. Football has a somewhat longer 'memory' but still has a built in clock that make the game state 'forget' and, apart from the score, reset fairly frequently. To me this kills a lot of depth.

[Roxlimn]

warty_goblin:

I'm not agreeing completely. Constant and changing game states are only part of the what makes a game complex and deep.

For instance, when you're on the left side of the platform in WSR Swordplay Duel, you're slightly more incentivized to strike on the right side of the opponent, even when you're absolutely certain you're going to blocked - this is because while the block will move you back and stun you, it will also move you slightly to the right and thus could save you from falling, in the right instances.

Your current position on the platform in WSR Duel is a constant and evolving game state that shapes your tactical choices.

That said, Speed Slice is mainly a speed/reflex game. The basic game slate does not change apart from the score, but you can alter your gameplan depending on fatigue and direction issues, depending on who your opponent is. Similarly, the score and basic state in football does not change, but each score could represent an expenditure of nonrenewable resources that could have lasting effects on the game going forward.

[Optimystik]

Already posted. See above.

If you're referring to warty's definition, then I actually agree with it, but more to the point I agree with the addendum he added below.

So far, my elements of depth are:

An engaging storyline
Complex controls
A changing gamestate (i.e. the extent to which predecessor actions influence later ones)
Multiple paths to victory

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple that don't immediately occur to me. Now, Mass Effect sweeps each category, as does Starcraft; WSR fails the first off the bat, does better at the second than its predecessor, fails the third and fails the fourth. I can't consider it a deep game, though it probably is a fun one.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:

Starcraft does not have an engaging storyline. The plot was totally predictable and hackneyed. I could tell what what going to happen before it happened, every single time.

Starcraft does not have complex controls. Any idiot can simply use the left mouse button to click on icons and such to do everything.

Starcraft does not sport a changing game state. Every mission starts the same and every MP game starts the same for each map.

Starcraft almost always has the same path to victory - destroy enemy units.

Starcraft fails at every one of your criteria.

In case you were wondering, I'm illustrating here that any game (even the ones I mentioned) could be spun to fail your criteria.


Also, gotta ask here, how much game time have you spent playing WSR anyway, and what stamps and statuses have you unlocked? Again, gotta figure out how familiar you are with this game.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik:

Starcraft does not have an engaging storyline. The plot was totally predictable and hackneyed. I could tell what what going to happen before it happened, every single time.

A pity so many gamers disagree with your assessment.


Starcraft does not have complex controls. Any idiot can simply use the left mouse button to click on icons and such to do everything.

Not using hotkeys, unit assignment etc. is a sure path to loss in any competitive match. You might as well turn off the AI, or ask your human opponents to make an appointment before they can attack your base.


Starcraft does not sport a changing game state. Every mission starts the same and every MP game starts the same for each map.

That is a non-argument; every game of chess starts the same way too. It is not the beginning of a game that determines its game state, but the actions and reactions of its players.


Starcraft almost always has the same path to victory - destroy enemy units.

That is the goal, not the path.


Starcraft fails at every one of your criteria.

Evidently not.


In case you were wondering, I'm illustrating here that any game (even the ones I mentioned) could be spun to fail your criteria.

With frivolous statements, yes.


Also, gotta ask here, how much game time have you spent playing WSR anyway, and what stamps and statuses have you unlocked? Again, gotta figure out how familiar you are with this game.

I've played it once, at a friend's house, and became thoroughly bored with all the modes in moments. But my lack of enjoyment is separate from the depth issue; I just don't like sports games (or facsimiles thereof, in this instance.) I'm not saying WSR can't be fun, for the right audience, but as far as games go I've seen much meatier fare.

[Roxlimn]

If you got bored with it and never explored the mechanics of the game, how can you possibly say that there's nothing there?

Is there no story?

Of course there is - your Mii goes on vacation. It's kind of simplistic, but it is there.

Are the controls not complex?

You can get into the basic controls well enough, but saying that waggling gets you anywhere in WSR is the same as saying that left clicking gets you anywhere in SC - in other words, it's completely bogus.

Does WSR not have a changing game state?

Every position on the Duel platform has implications. Positions on Table Tennis (and the current ball condition) has implications as well. Which group you're in in Cycling has implications. Just about the only minigame that doesn't have an ongoing game state is Skydiving.

Does WSR have one path to victory?

No. You can pursue various strategies to get ahead in Swordplay, Table Tennis, even Basketball and Frisbee (of all things). For one thing, you can do an underhand or reverse hand throw, and from either side.



WSR succeeds at every one of your criteria. Frankly, you don't know enough about it to make any credible claim that the game isn't deep.

See here. What if, I claimed that I didn't like strategy games and, having played one hour of MP Starcraft at a friend's place, declared that it was a shallow game? What would you think?

I think you would declare that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, and you would be right.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Is there no story?

Of course there is - your Mii goes on vacation. It's kind of simplistic, but it is there.

I wouldn't call that story engaging.

I enjoyed piloting my Mii into the lava to see what would happen. The plot did not make me sympathize with him.

[Roxlimn]

Whether a story is engaging or not is really a matter of taste. Regardless of that, it is only one point of depth in Optimystik's own criteria that I am fully willing to concede could be lacking in WSR.

Of course, I think it is a flawed set. Having a story does not make a game deeper (IMO) and lacking one does not make shallower (IMO).

[Triaxx]

I posted this some time ago in response to a question as to whether Nintendo abandoned the hardcore gamers:

What is a Core Game? What is a Casual Game? The definitions are hazy.

Both can be replayed. Both can be played by anyone.

A casual game is one you can pick up, play for five to ten minutes and then put down. A core game is one that you sit down to play, and just cannot bring yourself to stop. The story is so entrancing, the controls so spot on, the action so right. Twilight Princess was a Core game. Metroid Prime 3 was a Core game.

Mario Kart Wii? That's a casual game. Wii Music, Wii Sports, also both casual games.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Casual? Yes. Core? Yes. Because you can pick it up, play for five minutes, then walk away. Or you can sit and play for hours and not want to give it up.

We aren't asking that everything be an epic adventure on the scale of Twilight Princess. We love Brawl because we can play it both ways. We want something that maintains it's appeal while we wait for the killer franchises to come back.

We don't mind waiting for the epic games, but if you don't show us what you're up to, we can't be excited about them.

The definitions of Casual and Hardcore are just that. Casual is one that doesn't require that you sink hours into, while Hardcore is one that you can sink hours into. Any other definition needlessly clouds the point.

And for reference, I've put in 50 hours in on StarCraft and I still don't like it, but I'm also unduly prejudiced on the point.

[The Dark Fiddler]

And for reference, I've put in 50 hours in on StarCraft and I still don't like it, but I'm also unduly prejudiced on the point.

I want to like StarCraft; it's a great game... but its so damn hard. [/offtopic] (Please don't tell me the 590270 things I'm doing wrong)

[Roxlimn]

The Dark Fiddler:

You'll be happy to find out that the new SC2 will have a Casual League where skill levels will be monitored and limits strictly enforced. Smurfs get thrown out.

Triaxx:

I think those definitions fail.

For instance, Left For Dead lends itself excellently to pick up and play. In contrast, 18 holes of 4-player Wii Sports Resort Golf pretty much requires at least an hour of playtime for most folks.

Plants vs. Zombies, Zuma, and Peggle are addictive games that draw you in and entice you to play for hours. They hardcore?

Most pro and high level Starcraft MP games are over in 20 minutes - 30 minutes usually. Great for breaks. Starcraft casual?

Casual and hardcore don't have meanings beyond the perjorative ones coined for them by gaming media and industry people that want to marginalize new gamers. They serve no purpose beyond that.

[Optimystik]

WSR succeeds at every one of your criteria. Frankly, you don't know enough about it to make any credible claim that the game isn't deep.

See here. What if, I claimed that I didn't like strategy games and, having played one hour of MP Starcraft at a friend's place, declared that it was a shallow game? What would you think?

I think you would declare that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, and you would be right.

I knew you were going for that angle. "You didn't play it for hours on end, how would you know how deep it is?"

One hour of Starcraft is enough to draw most people in for more. If a game fails at doing that, the fault may lie with the player, but more commonly lies with the game.

And however obliquely you might state that I don't know what I'm talking about, you are still incorrect: Starcraft and Mass Effect are much deeper games than Wii Sports Resort.

I'm glad you mentioned Left 4 Dead - that's not a deep game either. Is it fun? Absolutely. But to quote Yahtzee once again, the plot and gameplay can be summed up as "Here are some zombies."

I reiterate: my lack of enjoyment of WSR is completely separate from its lack of depth. There are plenty of shallow games that I enjoy; just very, very few sports games.

[warty goblin]

Not using hotkeys, unit assignment etc. is a sure path to loss in any competitive match. You might as well turn off the AI, or ask your human opponents to make an appointment before they can attack your base.


Hell, I can't even beat the AI in Starcraft, so great is my suckage. Mostly because I really have no clue what I should be doing with all the little guys.


That is a non-argument; every game of chess starts the same way too. It is not the beginning of a game that determines its game state, but the actions and reactions of its players.
Exactly. I start a game of chess with about 24 distinct moves, all of which will have long term effects on the state of the game.


That is the goal, not the path.
Exactly. The goal of pretty much any game is to win. Does that make all games the same?




I've played it once, at a friend's house, and became thoroughly bored with all the modes in moments. But my lack of enjoyment is separate from the depth issue; I just don't like sports games (or facsimiles thereof, in this instance.) I'm not saying WSR can't be fun, for the right audience, but as far as games go I've seen much meatier fare.

Thank you very much for pointing out the distinction between fun and deep.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:

With all due respect, you have nothing to support your case other than your stating it (and someone who is probably just as uninformed agreeing with you).

I am not saying because you didn't play it for long. I am saying that because it appears to me that you are wholly unacquainted with the gameplay in WSR.

To you, it's just waggle left, waggle right, just as to the uninformed SC player, it's all just undifferentiated clicking.

I have stated several ways in which WSR has depth according to the criteria you provided.

You said a game has depth if there are several ways to achieve the goal. WSR games have that. You said that a game has depth if prior decisions impact later decisions. WSR games have that, too. You said a game has depth if the controls are complex - WSR has that, too!

I've explained all the items once. I can explain them again, in greater detail, with facts you can ask anyone who has played the game with success to corroborate.

Ask me to elaborate on this depth you want to deny. What do you want to know?

Would you like me to elaborate on the fencing controls?

Would you like me to elaborate on cycling strategy and positioning?

Would you like me to elaborate on fencing, frisbee, or basketball strategy and technique?

Ask me!!!!

Do not simply deny that the game does not have depth. You've got nothing to back that up.

[Optimystik]

Do not simply deny that the game does not have depth. You've got nothing to back that up.

Don't I? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7rEZRbSt0)

"You do wish there were more to these games."
"Many have alternate modes, but they're just as simple as the main modes."
"Stamps, unlike achievements and trophies, can't be shared and compared online with friends."

Cycling: "dull, boring"
Frisbee: "basic"
Basketball: "basic"
Canoeing: "repetitive"
Wave Racing: "lacking in depth" "doesn't get much better in the depth department."

Sensing a theme here?

He does say fencing is "suprisingly deep" which corroborates your take on it, but the word that stood out to me there was "surprisingly," much like Yahtzee noticing the qualifier "good for a Wii game." And if only one minigame out of 12 has that complexity, the game itself cannot be deep.

Note that the games he described as "basic" are still fun for him to play; a quality I have never disputed, and which leads to the game's ultimately decent score. But I do not consider it deep, especially compared to gems such as Starcraft and Mass Effect, like you do.

Your rebuttal, sir.

[Triaxx]

The problem isn't the definitions. It's your reading of the definitions.

True but to become really good at L4D? You need to spend some time playing it. 18 holes of real golf? Takes forever to play as well.

But none of those games takes hours to become good enough to actually advance.

To get to the point at which games only last 20-30 minutes? Takes months on end of practice.

What's a Smurf as it relates to SC?

[Roxlimn]

Optimyztik:

You are quoting someone else's opinion. Those are not facts - those are opinions.

And in many of these cases, he is wrong. I will answer your quotes with firsthand experience and information. This is not so much a refutation as an information service.



Cycling: "dull, boring"


These are statements of taste, not of quality or depth. Many people call SC dull and boring because they do not enjoy RTS games.

WSR Cycling actually replicates some of the intricacies of multistage competitive cycling, which I am somewhat familiar with because I bike with professionals and follow the Tour.

I do not, myself, race, so I can't comment on how exactly it replicates that, but it does have a peloton, it does have breakaways, and you should be drafting most of the time. You have to time your attacks at the right instances, according to the strategy you devised. You cannot attack all the time, and moderately pumping your pedals without drafting will lose you every moderately leveled race every time.



Frisbee: "basic"


Most people who score well in Frisbee (over 1300 per run) say that it faithfully replicates many of the complexities of actually throwing a real Frisbee. You can do the usual or forehand throw, and angulation does affect travel path as it should. You need to measure angulation, strength, and direction, and Frisbee Dog can be highly, highly technical, as it does not forgive mistakes.

Missing a 100 point balloon on a run not only deducts 100 from your final score, but demotes you to a 50 point balloon for your next throw (among other factors)



Basketball: "basic"


Throwing the basketball itself is fairly complicated - very reminiscent of the real thing, though easier in many ways. Yes, I played basketball, too. I have many hobbies.

I have several friends who played forward, shooting guard, point guard, and center in varsity teams during high school and they also say that it's remarkably reminiscent.

When shooting the ball, you have to gauge distance, direction, and arc and factor all that into your 1-2 seconds of motion input. In Pick Up play, you have the usual shot clock to worry about, stealing, positioning, blocking, and so on. You have no direct control over where your Mii goes, but you can influence it by "dribbling" and "passing."

These are some of the basics of WSR Basketball.



Canoeing: "repetitive"


Haven't gone into it much, but have spoken about it with relatives who played it a lot. It's very much a team game and it gets pretty involved. "Repetitive" doesn't speak of a lack of depth, but a lack of interest. Both Mass Effect and SC can be said to be repetitive.



Wave Racing: "lacking in depth" "doesn't get much better in the depth department."


Wave Racing is all about timing your boosts with the wave and passing the buoys at the right time. You are not scored on overall time in the solo mode, so it's not as hectic, but missing even a single pass penalizes you 5 or so points.

In Vs. mode, it's all about speed and timing.



Sensing a theme here?

He does say fencing is "suprisingly deep" which corroborates your take on it, but the word that stood out to me there was "surprisingly," much like Yahtzee noticing the qualifier "good for a Wii game." And if only one minigame out of 12 has that complexity, the game itself cannot be deep.


Mr. Harris reviewed this game, and in an inter-office competition, he only get 822 points in 5 events. That's kind of mediocre, and it's pathetic that he won.

Note that I am discussing this based on first hand experience. You cannot because you don't have first hand experience.

You do not have enough information on this score to have your own opinion, so you refer to the opinion of others. Since they are not your opinions, you cannot be expected to discuss them cogently - they are, after all, not your opinions, you are simply borrowing them.

I know my Starcraft. I know my WSR. I can compare them, because I've played them enough to know most of the ins and outs, and I know them firsthand.

Don't throw me quotes from some hired gun. Discuss the game itself.

Tell me why you think WSR is shallow. "Other people said so," is a bad reason.


Triaxx:

There isn't really another way to read the definitions. Really.



True but to become really good at L4D? You need to spend some time playing it. 18 holes of real golf? Takes forever to play as well.


L4D? Not really. It's an FPS. Most people who want to play that already have the basic skills. All you need to do is figure the weapon layouts and team tactics for the stage.

You don't even need to do that - who cares if you last 10 seconds more?

Taking forever to play 18 holes of real golf doesn't take away from the fact that playing 18 holes of WSR Golf takes a long time to do. If your definition of hardcore is time investment, then WSR is hardcore, L4D is not.



But none of those games takes hours to become good enough to actually advance.


Have you finished Zuma and Plants vs. Zombies? The amazing thing about them is that they suck hours out of your life, and yes, getting good at them actually takes a fair investment of time.

And yes, it may surprise you to know this, but you can play Zuma at an amazing level of skill - like levels cleared in a minute or less.



To get to the point at which games only last 20-30 minutes? Takes months on end of practice.


Not really. Even level 10 matches on the Asian ladder (for relative newbies) rarely takes longer than 30 minutes.



What's a Smurf as it relates to SC?


A Smurf is a high level ladder player who creates new accounts and poses as a newcomer in order to stomp on newbies.

[warty goblin]

One question I've yet to see answered is why one would want to play a videogame version of a sport, particularly one that is readily available in much of the videogame playing world with a minimum of investment? Particularly something like Frisbee, for which one can acquire the basic equipment for a small fraction the price of a videogame.

I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious here.

[SilentDragoon]

A few things I can think of:
As you mentioned, some of the available Wii sports have a decent to high equipment and other personnel investment, like golf clubs or tennis rackets. Other reasons might be along the lines of: places to play aren't available, permanently decent weather online, there is always someone else to play with. Additionally you can become decently good at the specific sport without having to be in amazing athletic shape, while keeping the growing pains of becoming familiar with at least the electronic version of the sport (ie the numerous humiliating whiffs and horribly ill-timed swings) out sight of a sometimes somewhat snobbish athletic crowd. Personally, I just use mine to keep track of weight and to track fitness data, plus get in a bit of exercise when the thermometer goes into the low triple digits outside.

[Roxlimn]

warty_goblin:

That is a very good question. I'm glad you asked it.

Why would you do Frisbee Dog when you can go out and throw the real thing?

Well, why would you play Counter Strike when you could just buy air guns for cheap and do the real thing?

WSR Frisbee, while remarkably like real Frisbee, is NOT real Frisbee. If you want real Frisbee, you go out and you buy a Frisbee.

WSR Frisbee is more convenient. I can do it as soon as I wake up and I don't need to shower or even get dressed. I don't need a dog, and I don't need to fetch the Frisbee on my own after I throw it. Real Frisbee play is nearly as much about running after a wayward Frisbee as it is about actually throwing it, especially if you're with a newbie, or you don't have a dog.

This matters in other factors as well. I don't need to have a park or a beach nearby to play WSR Frisbee, and I don't need to go through traffic to get there - I'm already there. I can mess around a lot more with a virtual Frisbee because I'm not scared that it's going to go through someone's window or dent someone's car.

It's still no replacement for real Frisbee. It's just a better game than any previous video game Frisbee analogue.


Of course, the same is even more true of the other sports, particularly Cycling and Swordplay. I don't need to tell you that real kendo is expensive and time-consuming, and can end up with you getting serious injuries.

[Optimystik]

You are quoting someone else's opinion. Those are not facts - those are opinions.

An authoritative opinion is a reliable source. If I ask a doctor's opinion on a particular medicine's effectiveness, is his answer meaningless because it is an opinion? If I ask the chairman of the Federal Reserve what his opinion is on the economy, is his answer meaningless too? No. So a dedicated IGN reviewer's opinion is similarly reliable.


And in many of these cases, he is wrong.

You are contradicting yourself. If he is stating an opinion, how can he be wrong? You can disagree with his opinion or agree, as I have, but you can't tell him "no, you didn't consider wave running to be lacking in depth!" That is preposterous.


Mr. Harris reviewed this game, and in an inter-office competition, he only get 822 points in 5 events. That's kind of mediocre, and it's pathetic that he won.

Putting aside the fact that this is a blatant ad hominem, what does his score have to do with his assessment of the game's depth? Do I have to be good at chess or Go to recognize them as deep games?


Note that I am discussing this based on first hand experience. You cannot because you don't have first hand experience.

Yet someone authoritative who does agrees with me.


You do not have enough information on this score to have your own opinion, so you refer to the opinion of others. Since they are not your opinions, you cannot be expected to discuss them cogently - they are, after all, not your opinions, you are simply borrowing them.

That's a ludicrous argument. By your logic, no third party source is usable for anything. Have you ever written an essay? Were all of your citations from firsthand interviews and eyewitness accounts? You've never cited a magazine article, encyclopedia entry or quote from someone else? Preposterous again.


Don't throw me quotes from some hired gun. Discuss the game itself.

I didn't hire him, nor is he a "gun." He liked the game and found it fun, which is one key difference between his opinion and mine. He just found it lacking in depth, as I did. You seem to have trouble differentiating the two.


Tell me why you think WSR is shallow. "Other people said so," is a bad reason.

If a professional game reviewer (two if you count Yahtzee) says so, it is not a bad reason at all.

[Mando Knight]

An authoritative opinion is a reliable source. If I ask a doctor's opinion on a particular medicine's effectiveness, is his answer meaningless because it is an opinion? If I ask the chairman of the Federal Reserve what his opinion is on the economy, is his answer meaningless too? No. So a dedicated IGN reviewer's opinion is similarly reliable.

Not really... Remember that reviews (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviewsAreTheGospel)aren't (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticProof) the Gospel (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviewsAreTheGospel). Yahtzee tends to dislike a lot of Wii-related stuff, but with the exception of Wii Sports Boxing and Sonic and the Secret Rings, I haven't had significant problems with the system myself. Professional game reviewers in general seem to be biased heavily towards the PS3 and XBox 360.

[Optimystik]

Not really... Remember that reviews (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviewsAreTheGospel)aren't (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticProof) the Gospel (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviewsAreTheGospel).

Doesn't your link say they are, and with good reason? (Since modern games - WSR included - represent a significant investment of time and money on the part of the gamer; well, the gamer that doesn't abuse the Gamestop return policy anyway.)

WSR is worse in this regard - since hardware is bundled with the game, many outlets won't even take it back once purchased. So reviews are even more useful in evaluating its longevity.

In any case, I wasn't worshipping this guy's opinion, merely pointing out that I did in fact have professional support for the "lacking depth" assessment. As I said before, I disagree with him on a few points (most notably that the game is fun, since I dislike the genre.) But I agree with him about its depth.


Yahtzee tends to dislike a lot of Wii-related stuff, but with the exception of Wii Sports Boxing and Sonic and the Secret Rings, I haven't had significant problems with the system myself. Professional game reviewers in general seem to be biased heavily towards the PS3 and XBox 360.

I won't deny that Yahtzee is biased, but he isn't the reviewer in the link I posted. And both reviewers did say the game was fun, just not very deep.

I don't know of any "professional game reviewer bias" towards OR against the Wii either, but if you do perceive that sort of thing and it bothers you, just get all your Wii game reviews from Nintendo Power; problem solved.

[Triaxx]

Yes, by actually reading instead of filling in the words. Do the definitions mean that there's not some cross-over between them? No.

So, it's casual because people play it as nothing more than a twitch shooter?

And eighteen holes is the only possible way to play the game?

No, I haven't finished either, because they aren't my preferred cup of gaming, but I have gone very far into them, and as they get more complex, you become better and better, but to start playing the first level? No more skill than to click a mouse. And the game brings you along. By your erroneous reading of the definition, writing the letter 'A' is hardcore gaming because you can sink hours and hours and hours of time into learning to put it down exactly.

Yes, the Asian ladder. Because that's the only place anyone ever plays, and they go there instantly after buying the game.

---

It's of some benefit to Wii Boxing to try the opposite hand controls. I'm very right-handed, but I'm significantly better at boxing with a left handed character. I have no clue why.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:



An authoritative opinion is a reliable source. If I ask a doctor's opinion on a particular medicine's effectiveness, is his answer meaningless because it is an opinion? If I ask the chairman of the Federal Reserve what his opinion is on the economy, is his answer meaningless too? No. So a dedicated IGN reviewer's opinion is similarly reliable.


A doctor has more than 7 years of schooling and experience to back his opinion, and he will tell you himself that it is only an opinion - you should feel free to ask for alternatives.

Mr. Harris scores worse than me in WSR, and has probably played less hours. He is not as authoritative as I am in that sense.



You are contradicting yourself. If he is stating an opinion, how can he be wrong? You can disagree with his opinion or agree, as I have, but you can't tell him "no, you didn't consider wave running to be lacking in depth!" That is preposterous.


Clearly, he is wrong when he is proposing a fact, not an opinion.



Putting aside the fact that this is a blatant ad hominem, what does his score have to do with his assessment of the game's depth? Do I have to be good at chess or Go to recognize them as deep games?


No, but criticizing them as shallow games when you're at odds with someone who is more familiar with them renders your criticism questionable.

And no, it is not an ad hominem. His score is mediocre, I don't see how that is an attack on his person in any way.



That's a ludicrous argument. By your logic, no third party source is usable for anything. Have you ever written an essay? Were all of your citations from firsthand interviews and eyewitness accounts? You've never cited a magazine article, encyclopedia entry or quote from someone else? Preposterous again.


For the purposes of this discussion, you cannot discuss, and I do not expect you to defend Mr. Harris's assessment, because you are not Mr. Harris. Therefore, the most you can ever do is point to a source you believe is authoritative and say, "But he said so!"

I am doing something more concrete than that. I am actually describing the games to you in detail that indicates the depth of gameplay. That is direct and confirmable fact that you can corroborate from any source you care to investigate.

You do not argue with an engineer about the state of his equipment based on some third hand authority. He works with his equipment and is himself, considered an expert on it. First hand information trumps references. It always does.



If a professional game reviewer (two if you count Yahtzee) says so, it is not a bad reason at all.


We will have to disagree on that. If the best information you can present to substantiate your opinion isn't even your own, then I am content to leave things as they are. The discussion speaks for itself.

Triaxx:



Yes, by actually reading instead of filling in the words. Do the definitions mean that there's not some cross-over between them? No.

So, it's casual because people play it as nothing more than a twitch shooter?

And eighteen holes is the only possible way to play the game?


Those definitions only make sense in the context of exclusivity. When they cross over, then they lose their meaning.

If you define a game as "casual" and "hardcore" purely on the basis of time investment, and then can point to innumerable (and I can provide more examples, if you wish) crossovers, then the meanings become meaningless. Clearly, you are classifying them with some other factors.



Yes, the Asian ladder. Because that's the only place anyone ever plays, and they go there instantly after buying the game.


I fail to see the relevance. I only referred to the Asian ladder because that is where I have the most experience. Level 10 on the Bnet ladder is quite low - even relative newbies can finish games in 30 minutes.

[PLUN]

I'd say they're keepers. Metroid Prime 3 was an engaging, fun shooter that replaced robotic wrist action with actual hand eye, and i'll not lie the initial transition threw me a cuveball. The other two are being re released for Wii with new functionality, cant wait for that.

Shovelware? I bought Kane & Lynch for PS3. THAT'S shovelware. It actually features a shovel even. We actually broke the game in co op ten minutes in (first mission was never actually designed with it in mind. The 'story' dictated it be barely playable. First. Mission.) I'd prefer a hundred obvious cash ins that I know to avoid instinctively to a game by a company I trusted being a load of garbage hidden under vaugely nice ideas and graphics. Which happens a lot with 'hardcore' titles.

The Wii has a load of great titles. I don't see how it's less of a console because a lot of them are multiplayer orientated. Multiplayer with real life people, no less. I love that. I shouldn't need to hook up to the internet to get bonus content or avoid having to punch out the AI again.

[Triaxx]

The thing is that you're taking them as rules of time that MUST be invested, not as time that CAN be invested.

That was Sarcasm. One has to learn the basic mechanics of the game before going online, or simply be crushed and tossed aside. And that's where all the 'supermastergodplayers of doom' are supposedly at so...

[Roxlimn]

Triaxx:

Your definition grows more nebulous by the second. No game requires you to play it. It only requires as much as it requires. A game that's not fun until you're 30 hours in could be described as "hardcore," but very, very few games qualify under that standard, and certainly, the majority of modern games on any platform won't.

[Pie Guy]

Hardcore games are less happy, for lack of a better word, than casual games. WSR has your character go on vacation, while Starcraft has rebellions and people getting turned into monsters.

Unfortunately this exempts many old games, which are just insane.

[Roxlimn]

So... ...if Wuhu was re-skinned to be a post-apocalyptic zombie island and we put a bunch more blood animation in the game, that makes it hardcore?

The difference between hardcore and casual is skins?

[Green-Shirt Q]

The way I see it:

Hardcore games: Games that have a story and/or rising action.

Casual games: games without rising action, that revolves around small games or puzzles.

I could be wrong, though.

I play both kinds of games, so I win either way. Go me! :smallbiggrin:

[Triaxx]

The problem is that it means that all games are hardcore, because almost all have an excuse plot at least.

Roxlimn: Can you play StarCraft Casually? Yes. Can you play Zuma Hardcore? Yes. Does that make them that kind of game? No. Does it mean that Casual Zuma, or Hardcore StarCraft are any less valid? No. Or make playing them the other way more valid? Of course not.

In any case, the definitions are totally invalid, but I like them as they were intended, so I'm going to use them.

[Roxlimn]

Fair enough. Here is my own definition:

Casual: anything accessible and easy to pick up and play. That includes games like Halo, DOTA, and House of the Dead: Overkill.

Hardcore: obtuse, hard to play games. This includes games with specific bugs, graphical glitches, or simply lack of a manual. Examples would be Rise to Flight, Flight Simulator X, ArmA2, and Dawn of Discovery. A game that asks you to experiment to find out each of the 35 varying functions of each of 20 context-sensitive hotkeys scattered over the keyboard is a hardcore game.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Games aren't hardcore or casual. Gamers are. While it's true that many games are more conducive to hardcore or casual play, the games themselves are not hardcore or casual.

[Roxlimn]

Most games today can be played by anyone. That is why, by and large, the "hardcore/casual" divide as defined by media and gamers in general is quite bogus. However, hardcore as defined by Merriam-Webster is a real word. There are some games that are designed almost entirely for the most dedicated crowd only - they are hardcore games.

Imagine a game like Halo - except you have to eat and sleep, have to manage your ammo weights, have a large variety of guns with various special abilities, and can level up to level 200, selecting from 1000 different unique special powers, all without in-game descriptions. And the game ships without a manual.

There are games out there that are only for the most dedicated of gamers. Most games aren't, but some games are.

[Trazoi]

I don't think casual and hardcore have formal definitions, but from the way I've seen the words used by other developers they refer to different market segments. A "casual game" is simply one that is primarily aiming for the casual gamer segment, likewise for hardcore games and hardcore gamers.

As for what separates a casual gamer from hardcore: I don't think there's a hard and fast line, but my take is that a casual gamer is primarily playing for relaxation and enjoyment, while a hardcore gamer takes their gaming more seriously, aiming for specific achievements and display of gaming skill. Example: A casual player would play Solitaire or Minesweeper purely as a moment to take their mind of things, while a hardcore player might be aiming to beat their previous time.

Many games try to reach to a wide spectrum of playing styles, but there are some that specifically aim for the hardcore. Really hardcore gamers like to see game progression as a expression of skill - they don't like it to be too easy to get rewards as then any newb could get them. A good example would be an ultra-realistic flight sim or a painstakingly accurate and unforgiving turn-based tactical war sim.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik:

A doctor has more than 7 years of schooling and experience to back his opinion, and he will tell you himself that it is only an opinion - you should feel free to ask for alternatives.

Whether there are alternatives or not is wholly irrelevant. His opinion is based on both experience and knowledge with reviewing games, and should be considered.


Mr. Harris scores worse than me in WSR, and has probably played less hours. He is not as authoritative as I am in that sense.

How long have you worked for IGN reviewing games again?


Clearly, he is wrong when he is proposing a fact, not an opinion.

How can "lacking depth" be anything but an opinion?


No, but criticizing them as shallow games when you're at odds with someone who is more familiar with them renders your criticism questionable.

You do not have to be intimate with a game to realize it is shallow. You merely have to compare it to other games.

If WSR was the only game in existence, he couldn't make a claim to its depth no matter how long he played it, because that is an inherently comparative statement.


And no, it is not an ad hominem. His score is mediocre, I don't see how that is an attack on his person in any way.

Ad hominem: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem): "an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."

No, it is not a personal attack, but neither is his score relevant to his assessment of the game. His score in WSR is dependent on a number of factors, including his skill with the Wii-mote, his aptitude at those sorts of games, and yes, the length of time he devoted to playing it and improving, but NOT his experience as a game reviewer.


For the purposes of this discussion, you cannot discuss, and I do not expect you to defend Mr. Harris's assessment, because you are not Mr. Harris. Therefore, the most you can ever do is point to a source you believe is authoritative and say, "But he said so!"

Clearly you are wrong, because I did just that.

I can't use Mr. Harris' argument because I'm not him? So only the source of a quote can use that quote in any argument or essay?


I am doing something more concrete than that. I am actually describing the games to you in detail that indicates the depth of gameplay. That is direct and confirmable fact that you can corroborate from any source you care to investigate.

No, it is your direct opinion of the games' depth. An opinion, might I add, with which I disagree.


You do not argue with an engineer about the state of his equipment based on some third hand authority. He works with his equipment and is himself, considered an expert on it. First hand information trumps references. It always does.

There is a world of difference between an engineer's qualified assessment of his equipment and an anonymous person's opinion on a message board of a game that he enjoys. Your only qualification is having a higher score at the game than myself, which as I've pointed out depends on a number of other factors besides your as yet undemonstrated experience with reviewing games.


We will have to disagree on that. If the best information you can present to substantiate your opinion isn't even your own, then I am content to leave things as they are. The discussion speaks for itself.

I did include my own opinion. All I had to do thereafter was cite an authoritative source that agreed with it. A professional game reviewer is an authority on reviewing games; QED.

[Roxlimn]

Optimystik:



Whether there are alternatives or not is wholly irrelevant. His opinion is based on both experience and knowledge with reviewing games, and should be considered.


Alright. Why? How is his opinion more authoritative than mine as far as WSR is concerned?



How can "lacking depth" be anything but an opinion?


You yourself enumerated a bunch of fact-based characteristics that could be considered part of a game's depth. In that sense, "lacking depth" is not an opinion, but something that can be factually confirmed or rebuffed.



You do not have to be intimate with a game to realize it is shallow. You merely have to compare it to other games.

If WSR was the only game in existence, he couldn't make a claim to its depth no matter how long he played it, because that is an inherently comparative statement.


Alright - fundamental disagreement here. I do not agree that you can claim that a game lacks depth if you are not familiar with it.



No, it is not a personal attack, but neither is his score relevant to his assessment of the game. His score in WSR is dependent on a number of factors, including his skill with the Wii-mote, his aptitude at those sorts of games, and yes, the length of time he devoted to playing it and improving, but NOT his experience as a game reviewer.


None of his experience as a game reviewer matters in game assessment except in terms of familiarity with games. I can claim similar authority as a serious gamer.



Clearly you are wrong, because I did just that.

I can't use Mr. Harris' argument because I'm not him? So only the source of a quote can use that quote in any argument or essay?


No.

You can only use Mr. Harris' argument insofar as you are familiar with the intricacies of it. You cannot because Mr. Harris never goes in depth.

For instance, take cycling. Mr. Harris declares it dull and boring. Based on that, tell me why it has no depth.



No, it is your direct opinion of the games' depth. An opinion, might I add, with which I disagree.


No again. The fact that you can throw the Frisbee in any of 4 basic ways to get to a target is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree that it is possible to do that, then you are not expressing an opinion, but a factual statement that is wrong.

The fact that you have to use drafting in cycling to win any major event is also a fact, not an opinion.

All of these are easily confirmable facts. Declaring them otherwise does not do anything.

My declaration of the depth of these games has been based on YOUR criteria. Therefore, it is not MY opinion that these games have depth - it is, in fact, yours! You simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.



There is a world of difference between an engineer's qualified assessment of his equipment and an anonymous person's opinion on a message board of a game that he enjoys. Your only qualification is having a higher score at the game than myself, which as I've pointed out depends on a number of other factors besides your as yet undemonstrated experience with reviewing games.


You are quite free to confirm if everything I have said here about WSR is true. I am quite aware that I am simply an anonymous person on a message board. The strength of my argument comes not from authority but from facts. You can play WSR yourself and see that it is so.



I did include my own opinion. All I had to do thereafter was cite an authoritative source that agreed with it. A professional game reviewer is an authority on reviewing games; QED.


Sure. I will take Mr. Harris' word on anything regarding reviewing games. I will not take his word on anything about those games themselves. If he tells me that reviewing games is hard work - I'll take his word for it.

The problem here is that your argument is misassigning authority. A professional reviewer is an authority at reviewing games but he is no more authoritative than a serious gamer at games themselves.

I can easily trump Mr. Harris at any of the games that I mentioned because he does not have the time to devote to them - he has other games to review. I am easily the more authoritative source.

[Optimystik]

Alright. Why? How is his opinion more authoritative than mine as far as WSR is concerned?

He's a game reviewer. You aren't.


You yourself enumerated a bunch of fact-based characteristics that could be considered part of a game's depth. In that sense, "lacking depth" is not an opinion, but something that can be factually confirmed or rebuffed.

But I also pointed out that depth is a comparative quality, and depends on the other games you've played. Someone who's only played Tetris or Solitaire would consider WSR to be amazingly deep. To someone who's played Bioshock or Psychonauts... not so much.


Alright - fundamental disagreement here. I do not agree that you can claim that a game lacks depth if you are not familiar with it.

Your definition of "familiarity" is flawed, as it seems to hinge on having a high score. But I already pointed out to you that you can be familiar with a game without being good at it, as Mr. Harris is.


None of his experience as a game reviewer matters in game assessment except in terms of familiarity with games. I can claim similar authority as a serious gamer.

You are both not a professional, and clearly biased in favor of WSR. Your authority is therefore suspect.


No.

You can only use Mr. Harris' argument insofar as you are familiar with the intricacies of it. You cannot because Mr. Harris never goes in depth.

For instance, take cycling. Mr. Harris declares it dull and boring. Based on that, tell me why it has no depth.

From the written review:

"But nothing's as weak as Cycling. This is the "space filler" of the Wii Sports Resort bunch, and really doesn't feel like it belongs in the pack at all. This game is as bad as some of the third-party Wii Sports rip-off compiliations, with players controlling their bikes by "pedaling," or waggling the Wii Remote and Nunchuk, then steering by leaning left and right. There's nothing redeeming or fun here – it's just a frustrating mess of a design that makes the dreadful Wii Sports boxing feel like a classic in comparison. "


No again. The fact that you can throw the Frisbee in any of 4 basic ways to get to a target is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree that it is possible to do that, then you are not expressing an opinion, but a factual statement that is wrong.

The fact that you have to use drafting in cycling to win any major event is also a fact, not an opinion.

All of these are easily confirmable facts. Declaring them otherwise does not do anything.

My declaration of the depth of these games has been based on YOUR criteria. Therefore, it is not MY opinion that these games have depth - it is, in fact, yours! You simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Plainly false. Here are my criteria again, since you seem to have forgotten them:

"An engaging storyline" - None here.

"Multiple paths to victory" - Not here either. If I *have* to use drafting in cycling to win, as you claim, there is only one path.

"Changing gamestate" - I make the same basic motions no matter how long the minigame has gone on. In cycling, I'm pedaling from start to finish with no thought of doing anything else; with fencing, beating the 5th opponent is no different from beating the first; With table tennis, the table is the same, the paddles are the same, the ball is the same throughout... I could go on.

"Complex controls" - Being able to tilt the remote is an improvement over the first WS, but hardly a cerebral endeavor.


You are quite free to confirm if everything I have said here about WSR is true. I am quite aware that I am simply an anonymous person on a message board. The strength of my argument comes not from authority but from facts. You can play WSR yourself and see that it is so.

Sure. I will take Mr. Harris' word on anything regarding reviewing games. I will not take his word on anything about those games themselves. If he tells me that reviewing games is hard work - I'll take his word for it.

The problem here is that your argument is misassigning authority. A professional reviewer is an authority at reviewing games but he is no more authoritative than a serious gamer at games themselves.

I can easily trump Mr. Harris at any of the games that I mentioned because he does not have the time to devote to them - he has other games to review. I am easily the more authoritative source.

A professional game reviewer has two things necessary to assess games properly; exposure to many different titles, and the mindset of going into each one not merely to have a good time, but to specifically expose the flaws and virtues of each in order to render an opinion. I can trust that you have the first, but not the second.

Thus if a game reviewer says a game lacks depth, logically he has made that conclusion both by comparing the title in question to other games, and by being alert throughout the play experience to aspects of the game that exceed expectations and fall short. Even better, I can trust that his enjoyment of the game or lack thereof has not tainted his remarks with bias. I have no such assurance where your opinion is concerned.

Based on this, I assert that I have not misassigned authority as you claim. All I have from you is the fact that you are a serious gamer, and have devoted significant time to titles that you enjoy. From Mr. Harris, I also have a serious gamer, but one with no reason to favor or disfavor any one game in his assessment of it.