The irony of the Wii

[Gil_Hamilton]

When I think about all the PSX soundtracks I enjoyed, particularly Symphony of the Night, I think about how much poorer they would have sounded on the N64's synth chip, necessitated by the limited storage capacity of ROM cartridges.

LOL!!!

http://www.zophar.net/psf/

See that down there? Symphony of the Night, entire soundtrack, 231 KB.

Do you understand how it's difficult for me to take some people seriously anymore after something like this? There is bias, and then there is pure and simple delusion.

You've actually undermined yourself pretty badly.

That PSF contains the ONLY tune in the game that isn't streaming audio.
ONE TRACK.

It's the librarian music and nothing else.

The rest of the music takes 400 MB, because it's streaming audio.
And would've been better served if it'd been sequenced like the librarian.




The REST of the PSF collections up there do a lot more for your case.
PSFs are, by definition, NOT streaming audio.
And there's some INCREDIBLE sound tracks in there.

Chrono Cross, whatever else anyone says about the game, has an awesome soundtrack.
Better than Symphony of the Night's, both in composition and audio quality.
Valkyrie Profile, Tales of Destiny, Star Ocean, and Parasite Eve are up there too.
And I could go on, but I'd rather listen to the Chrono Cross soundtrack.

[blackmyst]

I can think of one game that could make use of all the asthetic stuff like sand, hair, etc. but it doesn't exist yet, at least not with computers. it's a pen and paper me and my friend made, but that won't be coming out for awhile yet

Tell me how you would use hair and sand simulations more complex than stuff you can do with a PS2, for gameplay ends. No really, I want to hear this. :p

other than that, I think black is right, it's all just for pretty, and who really cares right?

Well I'm not saying I don't care about teh pretty. Just that it's like 90% art direction and 10% processing power. Just growing mildly tired of comments like "this game cannot be done on a Wii ever" or "games on the Wii can't look good becuz no HD" both of which are lies.

As for the Sega comment Joe made, that's right, it wouldn't have worked, it still ticks me off though at people for saying that. It's not like you had to buy that stuff to enjoy Sega's good games, you could have just bought master system, game gear, genesis, saturn dreamcast

I don't think it's a jab at Sega or their games as much as the whole idea of addons themselves. I mean, you're right, all their good games were on the standalone systems.

I'd say the motion control in the wii is still pretty basic though and can be developed further.

Well, obviously. It's the first console ever to make use of it as its standard method of control. It's only going to get better from here.

It goes faster than a normal mouse, you'd have to get a gaming mouse to go that fast. While you may not say it outdoes PC mouse controls it totally thrashes dual analog, sorry pal.

I'd be careful with that, I don't see anything in that video to suggest you can make an instant 180 or even an instant 90.

But that's more because of how Wii FPS controls seem to be implemented right now. I'd love to see someone try an actual 1:1 motion solution, like with a mouse, where you move your mouse to one side, and the screen moves with you and stays there. For the Wii implementation there would have to be a button equivalent for "lifting the mouse off the pad" but it could probably function double as a "freeze screen movement and move cursor only" button, like MP3 has. Maybe I'll try to code this myself for use with the remote on my PC, sometime. Yeah... like I'll ever get to that. : (

wow that was a monster quote. i haven't tried FFXII yet, but I think I could get used to it. granted, it doesn't really follow the FF formula, but i think it would be better than my 360 offerings right now.

Don't be fooled. It's not the new battle system, which I have no real strong opinion about either way. It's the horribly, horribly long, repetitive dungeons, almost to the point of feeling like old school randomly generated NES RPG dungeons sometimes. And they all look the same, by the time you get to the fifth one you'll be groaning "nooo not another one" and realise you've only just started the game. The last one took me 3 effing hours, halfway I was laughing to myself how ridiculous it was.

And the countless battles. It's like the developers said "hey, our real time battles are way too quick compared to the old type, it's not frustrating enough now, let's add 58374584 in every dungeon". And the worst thing is that even though you've sat through hundreds and hundreds of battles, you'll find out that you're STILL too weak to progress through that new area, so you're gonna have to go back and level some more.

It's advertised as less slow paced than older FF's, yet it does exactly the opposite. I guess it's like a singleplayer MMO. All the grinding, the repetition, the huge empty areas with nothing to do but battle... yet none of the social interaction.

it's also been said that the wii mote doesn't work so well for complicated or "hardcore" games because the gnarly shapes that your hand may be forced to take. i believe they used metroid as an example, but i haven't played it. clarity, please?

I have no idea what that could possibly be about. Gnarly shapes? Like... moving your hand? Perish the thought! I believe that's pretty sad nerd talk right there.

I really don't know, I find the split controller more comfortable because you can rest both your hands where the hell you want (save for having to make tiny movements with your right hand to aim, seriously, it's less tiring than using a mouse). If anything, my experience with console games tells me that traditional controllers force your hands into weird shapes just to position them together while trying to relax. I mean really, weird wrist angles that start to hurt after a while. With the Wii you can just be like "yeah whatever" and rest your arms where they feel most natural.

So honestly, that sounds like fanboy bullshit to me.

You've actually undermined yourself pretty badly.

That PSF contains the ONLY tune in the game that isn't streaming audio.
ONE TRACK.

It's the librarian music and nothing else.

The rest of the music takes 400 MB, because it's streaming audio.
And would've been better served if it'd been sequenced like the librarian.




The REST of the PSF collections up there do a lot more for your case.
PSFs are, by definition, NOT streaming audio.
And there's some INCREDIBLE sound tracks in there.

Chrono Cross, whatever else anyone says about the game, has an awesome soundtrack.
Better than Symphony of the Night's, both in composition and audio quality.
Valkyrie Profile, Tales of Destiny, Star Ocean, and Parasite Eve are up there too.
And I could go on, but I'd rather listen to the Chrono Cross soundtrack.

Hahaha, oh man, I guess I'm gonna have to take that one. : (

Really though, before I had the internets, I never used to imagine something like the FF8 soundtrack taking up so little space. Or Xenogears! One non-console example is the first Unreal. I love that soundtrack, it sounds so full and epic, and I was amazed when I started playing with UnrealED to find out they were just synth tracks.

I stand by my previous comment that there is not a single example of so called orchestral audio that stands up to the best synth stuff I've heard.

[Gil_Hamilton]

What about FF7's synth orchestra?!?!?!

[Panzer88]

I can think of one game that could make use of all the asthetic stuff like sand, hair, etc. but it doesn't exist yet, at least not with computers. it's a pen and paper me and my friend made, but that won't be coming out for awhile yet

Tell me how you would use hair and sand simulations more complex than stuff you can do with a PS2, for gameplay ends. No really, I want to hear this. :p

I don't even know if this could ever be converted into an electronic game or not. But basically the idea is that it is a turn based RPG rooted deeply in physics. It's pretty hard to explain without visually showing you how it works and actually watching a battle session play out but basically, it would come to your turn, and you would plan what your character's move would be by carefully manipulating his movement, primarily walking and then any sort of ducking, diving, or head, arm and leg movements. Again, it's hard for me to describe it in any clear way but you would try to predict your opponent's movement patters so you input EXACTLY where you plan to move, kick, or grab.

Instead of having precut and canned animations and hit areas, it would work with advanced collision detection and physics. Feasibly you could grab for someone's head but missed, if they had long hair though, you could still end up getting them there if your hand was in the right place at the right time. you could stumble in uneven or unsteady ground, throw sand in an enemy's eyes, use ANY part of the environment as a weapon or to your advantage. You are only limited by the laws of physics and your character's attributes such as speed, strength, how high you can jump, etc. It would be fun to work characters to a super human state where you could swing your arm or weapon with enough force you fall a tree etc.

the idea is that each player plots out there movement, and then you see the resulting action in realtime. so it isn't actually turn based per se, but simply slowed down so you can plan strategic movement. a lot of it is about deceiving your opponent to get an opening for an attack.

other than that, I think black is right, it's all just for pretty, and who really cares right?

Well I'm not saying I don't care about teh pretty. Just that it's like 90% art direction and 10% processing power. Just growing mildly tired of comments like "this game cannot be done on a Wii ever" or "games on the Wii can't look good becuz no HD" both of which are lies.

true, a lot can be said for art direction, I'm not seeing anything else like Mario Galaxy on other consoles, and I haven't seen anything like Shadow of the Colossus since it came out either.

As for the Sega comment Joe made, that's right, it wouldn't have worked, it still ticks me off though at people for saying that. It's not like you had to buy that stuff to enjoy Sega's good games, you could have just bought master system, game gear, genesis, saturn dreamcast

I don't think it's a jab at Sega or their games as much as the whole idea of addons themselves. I mean, you're right, all their good games were on the standalone systems.

you're right, I was getting a little defensive but I just wanted it you be clear.

I'd say the motion control in the wii is still pretty basic though and can be developed further.

Well, obviously. It's the first console ever to make use of it as its standard method of control. It's only going to get better from here.

yeah, I just didn't want to make it sound like I just thought it was the greatest for no reason or didn't understand the technology behind it, basically right now it is and IR pointer with accelerometers in the middle and developers have been very clever with their implementations of this technology (well, SOME developers have) but I don't even know if it could be used to make a game with 1:1 control or other advanced motion controlling techniques

It goes faster than a normal mouse, you'd have to get a gaming mouse to go that fast. While you may not say it outdoes PC mouse controls it totally thrashes dual analog, sorry pal.

I'd be careful with that, I don't see anything in that video to suggest you can make an instant 180 or even an instant 90.

But that's more because of how Wii FPS controls seem to be implemented right now. I'd love to see someone try an actual 1:1 motion solution, like with a mouse, where you move your mouse to one side, and the screen moves with you and stays there. For the Wii implementation there would have to be a button equivalent for "lifting the mouse off the pad" but it could probably function double as a "freeze screen movement and move cursor only" button, like MP3 has. Maybe I'll try to code this myself for use with the remote on my PC, sometime. Yeah... like I'll ever get to that. : (

I don't know, you don't think that towards the end of that vid where they cranked everything up all the way that it wasn't SUPER FAST. I mean I wouldn't want it to be much if any faster than that. Seriously, the 180s were almost instant.

Don't be fooled. It's not the new battle system, which I have no real strong opinion about either way. It's the horribly, horribly long, repetitive dungeons, almost to the point of feeling like old school randomly generated NES RPG dungeons sometimes. And they all look the same, by the time you get to the fifth one you'll be groaning "nooo not another one" and realise you've only just started the game. The last one took me 3 effing hours, halfway I was laughing to myself how ridiculous it was.

And the countless battles. It's like the developers said "hey, our real time battles are way too quick compared to the old type, it's not frustrating enough now, let's add 58374584 in every dungeon". And the worst thing is that even though you've sat through hundreds and hundreds of battles, you'll find out that you're STILL too weak to progress through that new area, so you're gonna have to go back and level some more.

It's advertised as less slow paced than older FF's, yet it does exactly the opposite. I guess it's like a singleplayer MMO. All the grinding, the repetition, the huge empty areas with nothing to do but battle... yet none of the social interaction.

I completely agree, it is like an MMO without the other people, and even though the battle system wasn't bad, MMOs aren't exactly known for their AMAZING battle systems. and what you said about the dungeons, I don't so much mind the length or level grinding but I felt like the environments in the game were so bleak, blank, and square, not just in the dungeons but the overworld too, I liked the fact that there WAS an overworld (rather than just a map) but I was hoping that it would have a little more substance, style, and stuff.

it's also been said that the wii mote doesn't work so well for complicated or "hardcore" games because the gnarly shapes that your hand may be forced to take. i believe they used metroid as an example, but i haven't played it. clarity, please?

I have no idea what that could possibly be about. Gnarly shapes? Like... moving your hand? Perish the thought! I believe that's pretty sad nerd talk right there.

I really don't know, I find the split controller more comfortable because you can rest both your hands where the hell you want (save for having to make tiny movements with your right hand to aim, seriously, it's less tiring than using a mouse). If anything, my experience with console games tells me that traditional controllers force your hands into weird shapes just to position them together while trying to relax. I mean really, weird wrist angles that start to hurt after a while. With the Wii you can just be like "yeah whatever" and rest your arms where they feel most natural.

So honestly, that sounds like fanboy bullshit to me.

yeah, saying that it's not hardcore, and then saying that gestures are too hard is hillarious (not saying that anyone here is saying it, but I've heard it)

also while I don't know if I'm a fan of the two handed controller, it certainly doesn't bother me and is plenty comfortable, also this allows you to do different gestures with each hand, like tilting this one allows you to aim and tilting that one allows you to dodge etc. (which reminds me that I think a developer should make a game with optional two wiimote control configuration, it would be elite)

[sweener2001]

well alrighty, then.

my doubts cast aside, i'll just stick by my original statement. i always knew the wii would do well. it has also shown that graphics aren't everything, which is a fact that many people still don't know. however, i still think that the 360 and ps3 have their places in the market as well.

[Panzer88]

undoubtedly, being last gens leaders. The company that always steps out to try to be the most technological often times has a harder time though, not to say that it's a bad thing, but a trend in the industry. Kind of sad really, I actually do like state of the art tech, it just seems that people tend to focus on one thing, and I am big on gameplay.

[creaothceann]

I don't see anything in that video to suggest you can make an instant 180

Yay for realism.

[blackmyst]

I don't even know if this could ever be converted into an electronic game or not.


[stuff]

Interesting. Don't mean for this to sound like a typical reply to such a thing :p, but I've actually thought of something similar before, myself, albeit not as elaborate and thought-out as yours. I think something like that might be possible even on current hardware... if anyone would bother to develop it. Which they sadly wouldn't.

I don't see anything in that video to suggest you can make an instant 180

Yay for realism.

Now now, don't tell me you can't stand up and then look and point behind you in a fraction of a second, if you tried. :p

[Panzer88]

I don't even know if this could ever be converted into an electronic game or not.


[stuff]

Interesting. Don't mean for this to sound like a typical reply to such a thing :p, but I've actually thought of something similar before, myself, albeit not as elaborate and thought-out as yours. I think something like that might be possible even on current hardware... if anyone would bother to develop it. Which they sadly wouldn't.

no that's fine, in a way it is already possible on current tech, my friend who's worked on it with me is a programmer and has already come up with really simple game mechanic ideas (as far as how to code it) but he still has a lot to learn in programming, and is currently busy with the marines, so it won't be happening soon. He did figure out a really cool way to do his own on the fly collision detection using databases.

the thing is the user interface would be out of the norm, and to do it the way we really envisioned it would require constant updates and supervision. To actually make a game you'd need a staff and some money, but I'll let you know if it ever becomes a reality.

To be honest, you're right, everyone has thought about something like this because it is aiming for the apex in interactivity, strategy, realism (in some ways, not in others) a sort of UBER sandbox/rpg/tactical game.

I will say that there are a number of features though that I would claim unique to our thing but it would take a long time to expand on it all.

Like I said he's only a basic programmer but still a freaking genius overall, he came up with a really intuitive interface for outside of "battle mode" where you use two mice (yes I know very convoluted) but you use one to control the camera and the other to have complete analog control over an arm and hand that you can interact with objects, grab and throw things, rifle through drawers etc. it's pretty cool.

also the whole idea that all environments are normal game but you can "call battle mode" at anytime which puts you into the "turn based' mode that I told you about. The only reason for this is because it would be impossible to manipulate all your limbs and movement in real time.

It is a little fiddly but theoretically you could have basic control of moving your character and then switch you an arm control, use a mouse to show what you want to do with it and so on. The idea would be that it is fluid enough to not be to cumbersome but actually move at a fair rate unless you were taking awhile to plan out a move. You could also have preset moves but they wouldn't be a canned animation but rather a memorized set of inputs that would come out the same more or less every time.

Since a bunch of games are coming out with destructible environments it is a bit more feasible now but I'd still be skeptical about it. For one it would take a good team with lots of money, I mean EVERYTHING in the environment has to be grab-able (and since any location in the game is a potential are for a battle [it's all up to the player -- bar fights can be awesome] you have to make each area detailed and usable for battle), and have statistics to how flammable, breakable, and bendable they are etc. Moreover, every time you plan and then set into action the battle sequence, there is a lot of on the fly physics and interactions that have to be run and can't be preloaded until the character has completed their input. It would also be neigh well impossible to create good enough A.I. I can't stress enough that it would be MUCH better for multiplayer. The great thing about it though is that it could be somewhat like an MMO only there is NO hack and slash, battles can be fast if you are much more powerful but they are ALL strategic, and you can take out someone that is at a higher level or has greater stats if you are smart, and they are dumb, and of course there is always a small element of chance.

Finally we really aren't like realistic simulator whores, we just love the randomness and strategy the physics and all the different environmental elements things add WHEN you make it "realistic" One thing though, the way we've created it, if you aren't wearing good armor vital area wounds can often be lethal, this is what really makes it shine though. It isn't about two people having a health contest hacking at each other, it's about going for the kill, and NOT getting hit, it's about formation and assault tactics.

we even have our own card game for gambling, and many different venues of things to do within the game, but it really comes down to one after another missions whether they be stealth and steal, escort, defeat the ____, etc. because the battles are so much fun and always different.

It's a lot of fun. Anyways now that I've derailed with a few paragraphs I'll stop.

[FitzRoy]

Alright, sorry about the late reply, here's to make up for all the lost time!

Regarding all the examples, your argument seems to be that we could give the ILLUSION of sand and so forth, not actual objects with weight and interactivity. But you're right. Many of my arguments are about aesthetic, and improving technology so that we are consistently moving to the possibility of virtual reality. I think that much of your defense falls flat due to the fact that, if you are correct, we should never see any new Nintendo consoles. If graphics don't effect gameplay and never have, then why does Nintendo release new consoles, and why should I spend my hard earned money to buy them? It directly contradicts the philosophy you're pushing.

Now that we've moved on: You seem to think that it is absolutely impossible to show anything that evokes any kind of emotion without 32 pixel pipelines and shader model 5.0.

Not at all. But you can't possibly believe that the SNES FX chip could do as good of a job at facial expressions than a later system (though, I have to say that Andross face at the end is at least as advanced as Uncharted). Faces have lots of small, stretchy parts that contort like you wouldn't believe. I'm not sure why you can't see the discrepency between real life and games, even now.

You want beauty? Play Zelda and ride through the Ordon province forest on horseback. I cannot think of a moment in Oblivion that looked a lot better than that.

Wait, so now you care about graphical realism? Also, why again wouldn't that same scene play the same but look better if it was released on the PS3?

What you keep doing is talk about some ridiculously high standards for visual realism that very few games really need, and then discount the Wii in its entirety as a platform based on that. It's irrational, like some PC fanboys calling the Xbox360 and PS3 "underpowered" or some crap.

No, I'm wondering why I have to buy a new $250 console when I already own a gamecube. If graphics don't matter, then why can't Nintendo just keep making gamecube games? And why did it take them until the Wii to realize this airmouse "innovation?"

Nintendo does not have the production capacity or R&D clout to compete with companies like MS or Sony.

Where do you get this info? I clearly remember Nintendo's console having been technically superior to Sony's the last two generations.

Uhhh, the Gamecube was released well after the PS2 came out. Don't tell me you don't attribute it's superior hardware to this fact, but to Nintendo's greater R&D.

That's nearing troll comment area there.

Uhhhh, okay?

You damn well know what cheap low-risk games production is good for. It encourages innovation.

Chevy Bass Fishing 17 and Barbie Dream Boat Puzzle encourage innovation? Gimme a break. The bulk of the DS library is crap like this. Companies will continue to take chances. I agree that there are great games that do poorly sales-wise, but that has always existed, even before this generation. I think HD was a necessary transition that is likely going to stay with us for about forty years. This won't be the end of the line for quirky new ideas on powerful consoles.

The wiimote that is too slow to aim with and has no applications for most genres?

Ok, now that's just some big fat bullshit. Plain, hard bullshit. I just finished Metroid Prime 3, and while I think it's the weakest in the series (mostly for being too much like Halo, but I'll save that rant for later) the aiming is way, way beyond anything that will ever be possible with an analogue stick. I mean, sticks were great for aiming... back on the N64. When all we knew were D-pads. These days though? I'm not sure if I can ever go back to flailing my gun around like a madman in an enemy's general direction and hope to score a hit.

Great, so you describe one game, an FPS, and my logic is toast? Have fun with tons of Wiimote usage on a fighting game or a platformer or an RPG, or a schmup, or a racing game, or a soccer game, etc.

I would also say that the best gamepad player would destroy the best wiimote player in an FPS game, even without auto-aim. I can't offer you much more than an opinion on this, but I have played CS for six years and am CAL level good, so I can tell you that even a joystick on a gamepad can make far quicker movements and turns, even if the learning curve is a lot higher.

That's just horrible. I don't even know what to say. You basically want to excise all smaller studios from making games?

Not really. I'm not sure why you are predicting such a bleak future for HD gaming.

I think it's been said before, but do you seriously, honestly believe people would have wanted to buy an addon controller for their Gamecube, a wifi-attachment, and a thing on top to make it play DVD's (Not to mention some kind of solution for the VC and the other channels)? And call that the Wii? And you think people who didn't have a Gamecube yet would suddenly rush out to buy one plus all the parts for it?

Maybe that wouldn't have been the situation if they had used actual DVDs to begin with on the gamecube. It's hard to justify the Wii based on idiot decisions that they made on the cube. Just by calling it a cube, they would have had to rename any revision not shaped like a cube to something else. It's almost sad how bad their foresight has become.

When I think about all the PSX soundtracks I enjoyed, particularly Symphony of the Night, I think about how much poorer they would have sounded on the N64's synth chip, necessitated by the limited storage capacity of ROM cartridges.

LOL!!!

http://www.zophar.net/psf/

See that down there? Symphony of the Night, entire soundtrack, 231 KB.

Do you understand how it's difficult for me to take some people seriously anymore after something like this? There is bias, and then there is pure and simple delusion.

I think you're deluding yourself, my friend. I'm sorry my opinions struck such a chord. This thread was pretty civil until you jumped in and started attacking my intelligence. Ironic that the most hateful part comes at a part where you post a clearly incorrect counterpoint.

You mentioned earlier how you thought the Wiimote has "no applications for most genres"?

That's exactly the problem with the industry. They're stuck. There's a few genres that work such and so... and that's it. Gamers were indeed getting bored, one more generation of polishing the same old thing, and I'm absolutely sure a few people I know would've quit gaming, quite possibly even me.

New gamers are always taking the place of old ones, and I doubt those people have gotten tired of anything. And I guess I won't see you playing SSBM for the Wii, then. And I guess Zelda was pretty boring for you, too, since it barely used the wiimote. Maybe Nintendo is just the one who needs the wiimote, since all Link ever does is save the princess and fight Ganon over and over again. I can see how you might get bored with that recycled plot.

If developers don't know what to do with the new controls in a certain genre... then invent a new one. That is its importance. It forces developers to think in entirely new ways. Nintendo talk about disrupting the market, and it's exactly what it's doing, and exactly what the market needs.

Sort of, but it doesn't nullify the fun of games that don't rely on it. It's just an airmouse, dude. Games that use a mouse have been getting made on the PC for a long time. Ever play starcraft? I gaurantee you that you'll be more impressed with that application than using it to highlight areas and shake it up and down rapidly to gain bonus points.

And the generation after this, all consoles will feature motion controls, and it won't be Nintendo's exclusive thing anymore. And that's fine! It's good for the entire industry, Nintendo just kickstarted it like they did with so many other things that subsequently became industry standards.

It was included as a marketing equalizer. It's just as unimpressive and genre-limited in other consoles.

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.

BZZZT. It's a touchpad for aiming, a button for the morph ball, buttons to change weapons, and some fairly nicely done slider thing to change your currently equipped weapon. Try all that with no visuals.

So? Create a touchpad with pressable ABXY squares on the bottom.

I say it's bright. Even compared to the DS lite. "lol" I hear you say. But have you ever tried to play a DS lite or a psp outside the house? During a sunny day? I did last holiday. Gone away with some fellow geeks, great weather, thought we'd play some multiplayer Tetris and kart. No dice. These newfangled screens are practically invisible in the daylight.

Seeing as how people are largely wanting to play these things at school, on a car or plane, while lounging at night in their homes, I don't think it's very smart to go for the outside-on-sunny-day-parkbench crowd.

The GBA though? It's perfect. It's not dark. It's merely designed for environments where other handhelds become unplayable. Designed for people to take it outside (yes, scary word, to me as well).

I think this is a total stretch. I'm pretty sure Nintendo cheaped out and used battery life as an excuse. They should have portabalized the 3mhz SNES instead.

[Gil_Hamilton]

The GBA though? It's perfect. It's not dark. It's merely designed for environments where other handhelds become unplayable. Designed for people to take it outside (yes, scary word, to me as well).

I think this is a total stretch. I'm pretty sure Nintendo cheaped out and used battery life as an excuse. They should have portabalized the 3mhz SNES instead.

Why? The SNES was grossly underpowered even at the time, the sound hardware is owned by Sony, and the system isn't remotely compatible with 8-Bit GameBoy games(which WAS relevant when the GBA came out).

[corronchilejano]

This appears to be a private match already.

[Neo Kaiser]

Nintendo focused in innovation this gen and worked. Now they can start focusing on power.

[snkcube]

Nintendo focused in innovation this gen and worked. Now they can start focusing on power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3rPDZm_1rI

[Panzer88]

This appears to be a private match already.

no kidding, talk about being ignored, this whole topic is beginning to be so bogus, lets attack EVERY SINGLE ONE of each other's ideas. Arguments are seldom completely right or wrong, sometimes it's ok to accept that the other person may have gotten one thing right guys.

I will have to say that none of this generation of gaming is really that new, it's all just marketing, we're had stuff like this largely available on the PC for years, "the era of HD games" give me a break.

and yes, the mouse had been around for a long time and that's essentially what the IR part of the Wiimote does, although people always marvel at wireless controllers so a wireless, surfaceless mouse with accelerometers in it sounds pretty good, especially considering the prices of some PC Mouses

[Gil_Hamilton]

This appears to be a private match already.

no kidding, talk about being ignored, this whole topic is beginning to be so bogus, lets attack EVERY SINGLE ONE of each other's ideas. Arguments are seldom completely right or wrong, sometimes it's ok to accept that the other person may have gotten one thing right guys.

NO! YOU ARE WRONG! ONE PERSON IS ALWAYS TOTALLY RIGHT AND THE OTHER TOTALLY WRONG!

and yes, the mouse had been around for a long time and that's essentially what the IR part of the Wiimote does, although people always marvel at wireless controllers so a wireless, surfaceless mouse with accelerometers in it sounds pretty good, especially considering the prices of some PC Mouses

Closer to a lightgun or VR glove, really. Depending on whether you're using the accelerometers or IR.

The IR provides 2D aim tracking. Precise, but within a set area. There's no good way to do arbitrary motion like a mouse-lift(the air mouse people have been trying for years to get something better than "squeeze button to turn mouse on, let go to turn off").

The accelerometers provide 3D location and orientation information.
You can get arbitrary motion ranges in a manner similar to an analog stick by controlling the tilt angle. Of course, it's more flexible, and there's other ways to do it.
But they aren't precise enough to aim with since there's no way to guarantee a 1:1 correlation between real-world motion and measured motion.
So.... lightbar for aiming, accelerometers for moving.

[FitzRoy]

The GBA though? It's perfect. It's not dark. It's merely designed for environments where other handhelds become unplayable. Designed for people to take it outside (yes, scary word, to me as well).

I think this is a total stretch. I'm pretty sure Nintendo cheaped out and used battery life as an excuse. They should have portabalized the 3mhz SNES instead.

Why? The SNES was grossly underpowered even at the time, the sound hardware is owned by Sony, and the system isn't remotely compatible with 8-Bit GameBoy games(which WAS relevant when the GBA came out).

Yes, it's low powered but it seems to get the job done at that resolution. There's no question that better new CPU designs could be used, but I'm not sure if they were worth the tradeoff of forsaking an existing library. There would also be some obvious additions, like an included co-processor for new games to take advantage of, and likewise tweaking to the original if limits on ROM size needed increasing. The SPC700 probably could have been contracted out from Sony. In fact, I think they were still doing it on newstyle SNES's even after the SNESCD fell through. I'm not sure if the gameboy compatibility would have mattered. It didn't matter that the SNES couldn't play NES games.

[Panzer88]

Closer to a lightgun or VR glove, really. Depending on whether you're using the accelerometers or IR.

The IR provides 2D aim tracking. Precise, but within a set area. There's no good way to do arbitrary motion like a mouse-lift(the air mouse people have been trying for years to get something better than "squeeze button to turn mouse on, let go to turn off").

The accelerometers provide 3D location and orientation information.
You can get arbitrary motion ranges in a manner similar to an analog stick by controlling the tilt angle. Of course, it's more flexible, and there's other ways to do it.
But they aren't precise enough to aim with since there's no way to guarantee a 1:1 correlation between real-world motion and measured motion.
So.... lightbar for aiming, accelerometers for moving.

ah, Gil a voice of reason, yeah I wasn't very specific yet but the Wiimote certainly is a lot more limited than people think, if they stick with the tech hopefully we'll see a game use REAL 1:1 in a fun way.

honestly I think there is truth in both sides, people compete over good looking games, it's the truth, people care, on the other hand, we're all still playing SNES games.

there is balance, there is no point in having graphics just for the sake of it, there has to be a good game, I'm tired of this, this is a losing conversation no matter how you look at it.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Yes, it's low powered but it seems to get the job done at that resolution.

And HOW many SNES carts used coprocessors?
The system was chronically dependent on outside help.

There's no question that better new CPU designs could be used, but I'm not sure if they were worth the tradeoff of forsaking an existing library.

An existing library that had been out of production for 5 years at the time? Where every known title was larger than even the original GameBoy?

Nintendo was trying to make a new portable system, not fanwank the guys that were still playing SNES.


As neat as it was, the Sega Nomad was a horrible idea that never should've happened. And the Genesis was still alive(barely) when THAT came out.

There would also be some obvious additions, like an included co-processor for new games to take advantage of, and likewise tweaking to the original if limits on ROM size needed increasing.

At which point it ceases to be an SNES-compatible.

Unless you include multiple systems and toggle cart slot configurations based on inserted software. At which point the SNES is not there to play the new software, and should be eliminated to reduce cost, size, and power.


This is, as it happens, the approach the GBA takes to 8-bit compatibility. The switch in the cart slot is responsible for selecting 8-bit or 32-bit mode.
But GB/C carts are a lot smaller and less pwoer-hungry than SNES carts.

The SPC700 probably could have been contracted out from Sony. In fact, I think they were still doing it on newstyle SNES's even after the SNESCD fell through.

You think Nintendo wanted to go back and start paying their single largest competitor money?

I'm not sure if the gameboy compatibility would have mattered. It didn't matter that the SNES couldn't play NES games.

So.... you're saying they should have made a less-capable system that was 5 times larger so that it would be backwards-compatible with out-of-print software instead of in-production software? Because backwards-compatibility doesn't matter? You're contradicting yourself here.


And new GBColor games continued to be released all the way up until the DS came out, though a non-compatible GBA would almost certainly have ended that much faster.



But ignoring all that.... if you can't see the marketability of a system that plays Pokemon then you're either retarded or delusional.

[Nightcrawler]

Yes, it's low powered but it seems to get the job done at that resolution.

And HOW many SNES carts used coprocessors?
The system was chronically dependent on outside help.

A negligible percentage of the total software released for the SNES used co processors actually. It's probably less than 2% with maybe 40 or 50 games total across both Japan and US and all chips if you do the math. Sorry, I wouldn't call that 'chronically dependent on outside help', not by a long shot.

You're aggressive attitude with incorrect assumptions like this makes me not want to respond to the rest of your post.

[creaothceann]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Su ... ment_chips

[Panzer88]

I think that they could have made something equal in power if not greater than the SNES in all respects without having to have the same internal components, it seems like a big hassle to make it backwards compatible or even have to support the system architecture making it bigger. but I DO think the resolution should be higher, amoung other things.

maybe not a lot of the SNES library used coprocessors, but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of them that did were pretty big hits. I'd rather see those games remade on a home console though then trying to make them on a handheld that can't do those things, or try to make a convoluted handheld just to do those games.

[Gil_Hamilton]

I think that they could have made something equal in power if not greater than the SNES in all respects without having to have the same internal components

And it's called... a GameBoy Advance.

Well, sound excepted. The GBA has atrocious sound.

it seems like a big hassle to make it backwards compatible or even have to support the system architecture making it bigger.

Which was my point, given FitzRoy was emphasizing the existing library of SNES games a GBA done his way could utilize.

but I DO think the resolution should be higher, amoung other things.

There's not a huge difference in resolution. GBA is the same horizontal resolution as the SNES(ignoring high-res mode, as most games did).

The resolution difference, while making vertical games unfeasable, is only a real issue to SNES ports.


The things the GBA needed were:
A. a better d-pad.
B. sound hardware that wasn't abysmally shitty.


There's no C because I'm far less passionate about the light than most people.
Only game I had issue with was Circle of the Moon, which I don't think was ever tested on a real GBA display.

I found the SP1 to be a major step BACKWARDS, since
1. the frontlight washed out detail on the edges,
2. it has a ghosting issue from the screen reflecting off the LCD cover(most obvious in CotM's map screen), and
3. it's darker than a GBA with the light off, making it needed in more circumstances(which is an issue due to the washout effect).

It's also too small to play comfortably, but that's another topic.


SP2's backlit LCD is nice. I dunno if they fixed the ghosting issue.

[Panzer88]

yeah, the sp was getting mighty small for comfortable play, especially with games involving a lot of L and R action on top of everything else.

buttons on opposite sides of a screen are always a good thing, you can keep the thing small but just allow a little space between the hands.

GBA games overall seemed more colorful overall, (due to the 32bit color) but seemed fuzzier, or not as sharp to me. Maybe I'm just crazy. In any case 2D games on DS seem to have improved on a lot of those fronts so no sense in complaining anymore I guess.

[Gil_Hamilton]

yeah, the sp was getting mighty small for comfortable play, especially with games involving a lot of L and R action on top of everything else.

buttons on opposite sides of a screen are always a good thing, you can keep the thing small but just allow a little space between the hands.

GBA games overall seemed more colorful overall, (due to the 32bit color) but seemed fuzzier, or not as sharp to me. Maybe I'm just crazy. In any case 2D games on DS seem to have improved on a lot of those fronts so no sense in complaining anymore I guess.

Low resolution CAN'T make for less-sharp images. It can make for TOO sharp(OH NO! THE JAGGIES HAVE LANDED!), but not fuzzy.

My best guess was ham-handed attempts at anti-aliasing. Those wind up just looking fuzzy.