The irony of the Wii

[Neo Kaiser]

PS2 still sells apparently cuz PS3 is 104% craptacular

lol fiexd

Pure mindless fanboyism.

[sweener2001]

except for the fact that there hasn't been a game yet that you NEED a ps3 for. heavenly sword came close, from what i hear, though. there really isn't a point in owning a ps3 until MGS4 comes out. it took the 360 a full year. the wii had zelda at launch.

i never had a doubt that the wii would do amazingly well. it's just that outside of wii sports, i have three games, and i don't see that expanding until mario, and then not again until smash bros. the wii has a stupendous crap to quality ratio, and not in a good way. same with the ds. the ds has the benefit of being out longer, so that you have more good games to choose from.

the wii just needs a couple more blockbusters, the ps3 needs a game to justify 500$ (the 40GB model is a joke), and the 360 seems to be doing alright right now. minus the fact that i want a SKU with HDMI.

[Neo Kaiser]

except for the fact that there hasn't been a game yet that you NEED a ps3 for. heavenly sword came close, from what i hear, though. there really isn't a point in owning a ps3 until MGS4 comes out. it took the 360 a full year. the wii had zelda at launch.

i never had a doubt that the wii would do amazingly well. it's just that outside of wii sports, i have three games, and i don't see that expanding until mario, and then not again until smash bros. the wii has a stupendous crap to quality ratio, and not in a good way. same with the ds. the ds has the benefit of being out longer, so that you have more good games to choose from.

the wii just needs a couple more blockbusters, the ps3 needs a game to justify 500$ (the 40GB model is a joke), and the 360 seems to be doing alright right now. minus the fact that i want a SKU with HDMI.

Folklore is enough for now. But by the time I'll buy a PS3 all the expected games will come. Oh and about the Wii I hope that Oroboro Muramasa ans Tales of Symphonia 2 comes to America.

[FitzRoy]

if you're a retarded monkey.
I find keeping track of both screens to be no trouble at all.
And the extra view makes Mister Driller MUCH easier. Especially in "Pressure Driller" mode, which would be impossible on a conventional 1-screen setup.

Well, in some cases you really don't need to. In quite a few games, including metroid, it's a touchpad for aiming. This doesn't need a display and you don't need to look at it any more than you would a d-pad. In other cases, you can see how two screens are either utterly redundant or do nothing but separate information that could easily (and has historically) fit on one screen or be toggled. Just look at this video for reference:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IhcV3UrM56M

It all just seems horribly inefficient to me and it probably dissuades porting of old games since you probably couldn't market as well a DS game that only used one screen instead of two. So again, I like the touchpad+screen idea, but two screens seems to invite pointless separation of data.

except for the fact that there hasn't been a game yet that you NEED a ps3 for. heavenly sword came close, from what i hear, though. there really isn't a point in owning a ps3 until MGS4 comes out. it took the 360 a full year. the wii had zelda at launch.

There are plenty of non-exclusive titles I would buy a PS3 right now to play, but I guess your rationale is that since they are on the meltbox 360 as well, that I should buy that and the PS3 is redundant. Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't I need a PS3 for Oblivion and Orange box because I would rather play them without being distracted by noise or worrying about my console dying or having to use a controller I don't like very much? And maybe I'm sick of upgrading my PC and want access to a larger library of games than what the PC can offer.

You think exclusives, the minority of games, are any reason to plunk that kind of money down on a system? You can play most of the games 360 has on the PS3 as well. The PS3 just comes with some perks that many people find worth the extra money. Built-in blu-ray support, upgradeable HD, linux+emulation, free netplay, etc.

The Wii did have Zelda, but it was also on the gamecube, by the way, and you aren't missing much with that version.

Some of my favorite soundtracks use nothing more than synths.

While that's true for me as well, you have to consider how you would likely prefer a streamed audio version if one existed. It's safe to presume that we would have gotten something worse, yet equally adored, if it had been an N64 exclusive.

And I realize that not all PS1 games had streamed audio. But the point is that it had the potential, the support for it, and it resulted in some pretty cool things that I wouldn't trade loading times for. I don't know too many people who defend the N64 or Nintendo's decision to abandon the SNESCD. Any Nintendo fan I know would have wanted Nintendo to go ahead with CDs because they would have continued dominating the market and the Playstation likely would have never existed.

[Panzer88]

there seems to be a lot of focus on having a system that can have potentially amazing games, and not enough focus on systems that actually have amazing games, that you remember for years and years to come. if you take a tally, your ideology is tying at best, and I wouldn't even go that far.

on a side note Neo Kaiser, when a person uses terms like "104%" and lol's, I wouldn't take it entirely seriously. He was just being inflammatory in a joking way (and totally dissing the PS3 )

[Gil_Hamilton]

It all just seems horribly inefficient to me and it probably dissuades porting of old games since you probably couldn't market as well a DS game that only used one screen instead of two.

Oooohhh... maybe screen 2 was added specifically to stop portage.
Given the #1 gripe about the GBA was that the library was "nothing but SNES ports"....



I DO see games that don't use it well, or ignore it totally.
And some where it's masterful.

And while it's certainly easy to toggle, I think having Castlevania show a constant map screen is a major improvement.

[Panzer88]

he was talking about later porting DS games to another system, I think, not the other way around, but either way that's assuming they don't make another 2 screened devise EVER AGAIN. it's happened twice already...

[Gil_Hamilton]

he was talking about later porting DS games to another system, I think, not the other way around, but either way that's assuming they don't make another 2 screened devise EVER AGAIN. it's happened twice already...

Given he explicitly mentions the difficulty of marketing a DS game that only uses one screen, I doubt it.
He's clearly talking about porting games TO the DS.

[corronchilejano]

There are plenty of non-exclusive titles I would buy a PS3 right now to play, but I guess your rationale is that since they are on the meltbox 360 as well, that I should buy that and the PS3 is redundant. Why can't it be the other way around?

Because the 360 is worth half what the PS3 is (at least over all south america) and my friends in the US also say the same. People usually mod it over here, so it doesn´t break down as much, or they try the "towel" recovery.

The PS3 just comes with some perks that many people find worth the extra money. Built-in blu-ray support, upgradeable HD, linux+emulation, free netplay, etc.

Nobody cares about blu-ray, the HD thing is nice if you haven´t modded a 360, emulation comes with modding, and yeah, the free netplay is a biggie, but to play online I´d rather play PC for some reason (unless it´s Halo, and that craze isn´t as big as before).

The Wii did have Zelda, but it was also on the gamecube, by the way, and you aren't missing much with that version.

I have both, and I prefer the Wii version even if it´s just for the control.

Any Nintendo fan I know would have wanted Nintendo to go ahead with CDs because they would have continued dominating the market and the Playstation likely would have never existed.

Im not entirely sure about that one. For some reason I don´t think the Nintendo of that time would´ve exploited the potential of a CD, and thus they would´ve ruined everything.

[sweener2001]

nintendo could have kept final fantasy, end of story.

and wow, he called it a "melt"box. i've had mine for nearly a year with zero problems. and it is the exclusives that matter. the idea that calling it a meltbox automatically makes me seem stupid doesn't quite work. if you want madden, you buy whatever console you feel like. the fact is, madden has never moved one console. hardware in general, maybe, but one system? i bought a 360 knowing it would have halo, and not oblivion or any other game that was on other systems. exclusives move hardware. i don't see myself trying to get a ps3 until FFXIII, at the earliest. consoles need a game to demand owning it, and THEN you buy the multi releases. perhaps that's just the way i think and no one else, but it makes sense.

i also have a wii, and after playing a scene near the beginning with me on horseback needing to take out goblins on pigs, i don't ever see myself playing it on GCN. the controls alone NEARLY make it a different release.

note that i never said anyone should buy any console. i happen to own a 360, and i fail to see the point in buying a ps3 so i can play the orange box if i already have a 360. i also own a wii just in case you wanted to write me off.

the "perks" that you mention make the ps3 viable for non-gamers. if you want a cheap blu-ray player, you buy a ps3. sure, die hard sony supporters will be fine playing multi-platform games and waiting for something that really justifies their system of choice, but that's not how i purchase.

i see no reason to own a ps3 at the moment, the 360 actually has a couple, and so does the wii.

it's not like i want this to turn into a fanboy/flamewar argument. i was stating my reasoning for the ps3's abysmal hardware sales. i also would like a ps3, i just need a reason that's a game, and not casino royale on blu-ray.

[odditude]

I can't wait to get my hands on Ratchet & Clank Future, but I don't want to shell out $400 for a console I have no other reason to touch.

Bah.

[sweener2001]

that'd be where the multi-releases fitzroy mentioned come into play. if you haven't played ninja gaiden(almost a completely new beast, but not quite) or marvel ultimate alliance or oblivion or any of those other ports, they could help. or you could buy pirates and spiderman in blu-ray.

[Panzer88]

I think once we all start debating our words become more and more, "but this is my opinion" I'm like the worst at that.

so fitz, this isn't a rigged question, just wondering -- What do you think Nintendo should have done instead of the Wii as we now know it in YOUR opinion? I mean they have a lot of resources so they had a lot of options.

Also keep in mind why they made the decision they made, I mean you may think it was a dumb one but their company is run by veteran businessmen, engineers, and game programmers, they know what they're doing.

I think if they had gone a different direction a bunch of us would still be supporting them anyways, like I did during the gamecube lifecycle, there really wasn't anything wrong with the GC and it was more powerful than the PS2 and had a lot of good games.

BUT I think it's pretty clear that this strategy is doing much, MUCH better for them. I mean if it was this or lose lots more money I'd still chose this even if I thought like you do. (which I clearly don't) This ensures not only the continuing life of Nintendo but a growth and domination of Nintendo. This means I get to see the next version of all my favorite IPs and new IPs too.

It's not that I don't like other systems, I do, but I think it's fair enough to want more of my favorites, you can call it fanboyistic or not but I think it makes sense.

Plus, this conversation isn't about if I, or anyone else for that matter, likes system X, Y, or Z, it's about Nintendo's strategy with the Wii, and regardless of you stance on gaming philosophy I think it's pretty clear that the strategy is working.

[Neo Kaiser]

There are plenty of non-exclusive titles I would buy a PS3 right now to play, but I guess your rationale is that since they are on the meltbox 360 as well, that I should buy that and the PS3 is redundant. Why can't it be the other way around?

Because the 360 is worth half what the PS3 is (at least over all south america) and my friends in the US also say the same. People usually mod it over here, so it doesn´t break down as much, or they try the "towel" recovery.

The PS3 just comes with some perks that many people find worth the extra money. Built-in blu-ray support, upgradeable HD, linux+emulation, free netplay, etc.

Nobody cares about blu-ray, the HD thing is nice if you haven´t modded a 360, emulation comes with modding, and yeah, the free netplay is a biggie, but to play online I´d rather play PC for some reason (unless it´s Halo, and that craze isn´t as big as before).

The Wii did have Zelda, but it was also on the gamecube, by the way, and you aren't missing much with that version.

I have both, and I prefer the Wii version even if it´s just for the control.

Any Nintendo fan I know would have wanted Nintendo to go ahead with CDs because they would have continued dominating the market and the Playstation likely would have never existed.

Im not entirely sure about that one. For some reason I don´t think the Nintendo of that time would´ve exploited the potential of a CD, and thus they would´ve ruined everything.

1- The H-DVD is dying! 2- PS3 library will increase soon. Folklore is a awesome game and I played it a little bit of it. 3- You are rigth about the SNES CD because Nintendo was too late to add that. But if Nintendo added it sooner the we would had Rondo of Blood on the SNES long time ago instead of arriving many years after on the PSP.

[Panzer88]

H-DVD is dead, it never existed, the HD-DVD on the other hand, I wouldn't call THIS dead.

Look, the PS3 library will get bigger, DUH, unless they stopped making games it's always going to get bigger but here is the bottom line. They have no holiday season killer app, and they are always going to be one step behind the competition at this point in the software arena, for a number of reasons, two of which being a later start and harder to support hardware (even if it is good)

but listen to me I'm just being bitchy again. meh.

[FitzRoy]

Given he explicitly mentions the difficulty of marketing a DS game that only uses one screen, I doubt it.
He's clearly talking about porting games TO the DS.

You're right, I was. With the same horizontal resolution of 256, the DS is basically a 4:3 cutdown of the NES and SNES. The GBA is a head-scratching 240x160. Also disappointing was that the 1991 SPC700 was still far superior to the 2001 GBA. Not to mention it had an inferior backlight to the 1991 gamegear. Sure it was a battery/cost issue then, but ten years later? So you can barely see the damn thing and it still sells like hot cakes. That's what I don't understand about Nintendo. The intentionally cheap out on hardware, yet with the profit margin they are making ($100 per wii?), is it really necessary to undercut the specs THAT MUCH? Especially when that profit will naturally increase over time as the console's static internals age and become less expensive to manufacturer?

so fitz, this isn't a rigged question, just wondering -- What do you think Nintendo should have done instead of the Wii as we now know it in YOUR opinion? I mean they have a lot of resources so they had a lot of options.

I think that they should have stayed in the portable market, but forsaken building home consoles after the N64 and focused entirely on developing games for MS and Sony. The DS Lite is their best effort yet, but I still think an SNES Portable would have been way better than the GBA. And I wouldn't even care about the PSP if it wasn't for the fact that you can play practically the entire PS1 library on it.

[DancemasterGlenn]

Also disappointing was that the 1991 SPC700 was still far superior to the 2001 GBA.

The SPC700 was ironically designed by Ken Kutaragi himself... which still sounds like a joke even though I know it's true.

I think that they should have stayed in the portable market, but forsaken building home consoles after the N64 and focused entirely on developing games for MS and Sony. The DS Lite is their best effort yet, but I still think an SNES Portable would have been way better than the GBA. And I wouldn't even care about the psp if it wasn't for the fact that you can play practically the entire PS1 library on it.

I think that this could have been profitable for them, but I think honestly Nintendo was too proud to back out of home console production. I can't say I blame them, since they were pretty much pioneers of that type of product. I'm glad they stuck with it, but, as Panzer stated previously, "this is my opinion."

[Panzer88]

so fitz, this isn't a rigged question, just wondering -- What do you think Nintendo should have done instead of the Wii as we now know it in YOUR opinion? I mean they have a lot of resources so they had a lot of options.

I think that they should have stayed in the portable market, but forsaken building home consoles after the N64 and focused entirely on developing games for MS and Sony. The DS Lite is their best effort yet, but I still think an SNES Portable would have been way better than the GBA. And I wouldn't even care about the psp if it wasn't for the fact that you can play practically the entire PS1 library on it.

that's a fair enough assesment, and I understand your reasons on quality of hardware, but that would have been a huge business mistake.They are making millions because of this! If you were them, would you have backed out of billions of dollars? I think not. I know I sure as heck wouldn't have.

The SPC700 was ironically designed by Ken Kutaragi himself... which still sounds like a joke even though I know it's true.

that is awesome on so many levels.

You're right, I was. With the same horizontal resolution of 256, the DS is basically a 4:3 cutdown of the NES and SNES. The GBA is a head-scratching 240x160. Also disappointing was that the 1991 SPC700 was still far superior to the 2001 GBA. Not to mention it had an inferior backlight to the 1991 gamegear. Sure it was a battery/cost issue then, but ten years later? So you can barely see the damn thing and it still sells like hot cakes.

and yeah, Nintendo is cheap, especially when it comes to handhelds, the resolutions should be at least SNES level as standard. Verbatim. And yet... all their choices make the battery life longer and the manufacturing price go down. Add in a couple of hit titles and they just crushed every handheld that is better than them technically because of business tactics.

I do miss Sega, Sega made the best hardware IMO, and all their handhelds kept being a portable version of their previous console (with full cart backwards compatibility). If the Saturn had been a hit I swear we would have seen a portable Saturn when the Dreamcast had come out. The Dreamcast was way ahead of it's time, if you want to see the best video game hardware company, IMO it was Sega, and they got burned for it. it's not even that they had bad games. It just didn't make the most business sense, and they went under. Sony isn't going to go under but the PS3 looks like it might just end the ULTRA winning streak of the PlayStation, it's not going to fail, but it isn't gonna win either.

also up until the Dreamcast where they mimicked the PlayStation architecture, the last systems GPU was the new systems SPU, and they were pretty efficient overall. I wish they would have been able to keep going on.

being the latest and greatest clearly isn't the key to success in the console market, it's more about having the AAA developers/EASY to develop on (this killed the Saturn and it's hurting the PS3) , namebrand/marketing, price point.

at least that's this layman's basic observations.

R.I.P. Sega http://segafailuresaves.ytmnd.com/

[Neo Kaiser]

H-DVD is dead, it never existed, the HD-DVD on the other hand, I wouldn't call THIS dead.

Look, the PS3 library will get bigger, DUH, unless they stopped making games it's always going to get bigger but here is the bottom line. They have no holiday season killer app, and they are always going to be one step behind the competition at this point in the software arena, for a number of reasons, two of which being a later start and harder to support hardware (even if it is good)

but listen to me I'm just being bitchy again. meh.

You are right the HD-DVD is not dead but struggling to survive.

[Panzer88]

they've got a good half of hollywood supporting them. Why would they support a failing format? in any case I care about neither, Digital Distro is going to take over physical formats, it's just a matter of time. it's a total moot point.

[franpa]

And maybe I'm sick of upgrading my PC and want access to a larger library of games than what the PC can offer.

no console as of yet has a library bigger then the PC.

[Neo Kaiser]

they've got a good half of hollywood supporting them. Why would they support a failing format? in any case I care about neither, Digital Distro is going to take over physical formats, it's just a matter of time. it's a total moot point.

Maybe when a single person can afford to pay a T1 connection by himself.

[Panzer88]

they've got a good half of hollywood supporting them. Why would they support a failing format? in any case I care about neither, Digital Distro is going to take over physical formats, it's just a matter of time. it's a total moot point.

Maybe when a single person can afford to pay a T1 connection by himself.

I don't think you'd need a T1, but wireless speeds are going up all the time. On top of that I figure in the US a Fiber Optic network will be established sometime between 2o10 and 2o15, in time for the next console war. Microsoft is already preparing test markets in the major cities to provide service for Fiber Optics people with their XBOX platform.

in case you didn't know Fiber Optics go FAST.

[corronchilejano]

They have no holiday season killer app, and they are always going to be one step behind the competition at this point in the software arena, for a number of reasons, two of which being a later start and harder to support hardware (even if it is good)

but listen to me I'm just being bitchy again. meh.

I know the biggest problem of the PS3: It was released too soon. IMHO all titles where rushed in order to have early releases, and in the end the quality of those goes down. Nintendo rarely produces a bad title (I´m looking at YOU Mario Party) however they usually extend the release dates in order to ensure that they have a quality product.

My best two examples:
1. Lair SUCKED, why? Controls. Unofficially firmware update 1.92 or 1.93 (dont remember) happened to address that specific issue. What would´ve happened if they had taken a bit more time to test the game? Two or three months? They could´ve fixed the controls a bit, added analog control option, and also those disturbing clipping and aerial fighting glitches.
2. Metal Gear Solid 4. They take their time, they KNOW it has to be awesome.

[Panzer88]

true, but MGS4 is going to miss the holiday window, they need that killer app so bad it's not pretty.

with Halo 3 (360), CoD4, and Crisis (PC), and Mario (Wii) coming this is not going to be Sony's happiest holiday if you know what I'm saying.