Topic: no one seems to think.............

oh so your of THOSE gamers, who thinks gaming is all about processing power

If I was like that I wouldn't own such a technically inferior console, chief.

I'm just not blind to the advantages of more processing power, like some Wii fans.

Thank the lawd.

I knew there was someone out there.

Have you developed for all the consoles, AlexSays?!
Wii would be like the most, best funnest to work with, I'd say.
And the users don't need to deal with paying for 'live' online stuff.
I just didn't want to say what you were saying, because
it's careless to just say processing power advantage.
Because when you want to play soccer or frisbee or something in real life,
oh, do you say, ahh, these balls are pointless, without digital clock or accelometer
or some processsing power, and say that it's a better ball?!
No, not for us, the processing power would just make the ball act differently, or useless.

So, you don't have to try and make us say what you think,
we have priorities surpassing that of any processing power:
human-mind choice.

Let's all say it together:
'A lot of power, ai, mechanics don't necessarily make a good fun game,
unique, engaging game-play and story does.' Repeat a few times if need be.

So, if you want to reply to this, I know you like mentioning processing power of other consoles,
but everyones' like missing the point that,
FPS on Wii is wicked compared to where it actually originated.
So, continue with your mis-understanding of other people not understanding,
we just don't really care about replying, when we could be stating more positive things,
or actually playing those games.

Peace.

If I was like that I wouldn't own such a technically inferior console, chief.

Again, that is relative and simply an opinion. And what were the costs of this gens relatively 'technically superior' consoles? I will tell you.

1. MS in a rush to be first, manufactuered an extremely faulty and defect prone console, resulting in millions of broken 360's and costing then billions of dollars in warranty. As a MS customer, you are in fact paying for that boondongle.

2. Sony, in an attempt to use the PS3 to shore up their movie licensing bankroll, and to sell HDTV's, priced the PS3 apparently beyond the value of the games to be played on it. Because of the non-neccessary, (highly technical) expense of the Bluray format they have lost most of their former PS2 3rp party exclusives and their first party offerings are not (in the eyes of the market) the works of Nintendo.... AS a Sony customer, you are in fact paying for that overreach. If you are only interested in Sony gaming, you have been asked to subsidise so much more than their gaming division.

no ones even considering resi 4 that has superb controlls insterlising the wii's diffrent controlle scheme and it was better that resi 5...............(not on the wii)

listen man, referring to your previous post.. no metroid could not have been better in any way by being on a more powerful console, it could have been shinier perhaps but thats it, because frankly, its amazing in every way possible. there is simply no part of the game that feels 'downgraded' for the Wii.

Now its true the Wii is less powerful and i'm not blind to it, but the PS2.. hell the PS1 and N64 have some amazing games. There are some games that require power (I dont pretend to imagine anything like infamous will ever be on Wii) but sometimes art direction, innovation and clever coding is all that is required to make a good game. The Wii is very Adequate to have good games.

Say, you people do realize that the Wii being an inferior system in terms of specs doesn't make it a worse system by virtue of that alone, right?

I seem to think, therefore I seem to am.

Are people not enjoying the Conduit? I don't understand the context of this thread. Is it in response to anything particular? We just got Water Warfare and The Conduit. Sure, it's just two games, but two games in one genre within the same month? Seems like a good sign to me.

I hope so because they're acting like I hate the thing. lol

No, I'm saying rocks are hard and water is wet. The other consoles providing much better hardware is a fact, and most games (besides those like Tiger and Boom Blox) can take advantage of that extra power.

Extra power for AI, physics, number of things going on on-screen, graphics, and EVERYTHING else besides controls is better with that extra power. None of this should be too confusing.

I think I read in one of the older "Iwata ask's" that the main reason for the wii's lack of power was to lower cost both monetary and electrical since it seem nintendo is fairly enviormentaly conscience. Being an environmentalist myself Im fine with that wii's lack of power.

@alexsays

in theory what you say could be right. but how often do developers really use such complex AI, physics, and such that couldn't be done on the wii? Actually there's not such a huge difference in processing power that would make a realistic difference in any other areas besides graphics and number of thing on screen. with the latter being one area where you are right with no need to look beyond dead rising for proof.
still I think the reality isn't doesn't show much of a gameplay difference in most situations and truthfully more things and more complex things don't always make for a better game.
by your same logic one could argue that wii games will always be better cause motions controls are more immersive and intuitive. though while some games really benefit from motion controls others do not. while some games benefit from added complexity others are better for being simpler and more minimalistic.

@ Malnin
They are? Green Peace doesn't seem to think so. Nintendo doesn't care about the environment enough to nix their bread and butter's processing power. The Wii is what it is because they wanted to be able to price it low and perhaps due to being rushed to production, though that's only speculation.

lol

Yeah, you can be a good one for baseless speculation.....

The reason Greenpeace gives Nintendo bad grades is because they are political and Nintendo does not cooperate with them. Because they have ZERO athority, and it is none of their damn business. If you look at power consumption of the consoles Wii is more environmentally friendly by a damn site. They get a poor grades 'cause Nintendo will not play their game, good for Nintendo.

Greenpeace is full of crap, and most 'green' consumers are too - much of the green movement is either marketing or easy choices that do not amount to much, very few people make any real sacrifice. But they can feel superior, or guilty, whcih ever fits their mood.

But back to your comnet - the WIi is not really priced 'low' - it is priced ay $250 with a game, which is a traditional price. Why you think it was 'rushed to production' I have no idea. Maybe you could provide a link?

Right, because the word of a twice-banned member is more trustworthy. I really don't appreciate the baseless accusation. Keep your insults to yourself, Mr. "I'm going to try to get along."

You're may be right about the rest, but in the absence of any other ecological authority, I can only defer to them.

But you're missing the point anyway. They said Nintendo as a company is not green friendly, not that the Wii specifically isn't. The reason they ranked so low is more because of lack of good waste disposal and stuff of that nature, business policies and such that aren't good for the environment. Aside from the materials used to make the Wii and DS, they're pretty efficient in their energy use.

And the "rushed to production" comment is what I said was speculation. It's common industry speculation that it was rushed since it is so similar to the Gamecube in hardware. Whether or not that's true, I don't know or care. That's why I said it was speculation in the first place -- not that it was my speculation.

It's true Greenpeace is pretty quick to jump to conclusions, and the numbers you are referring to are based mostly on the fact that Nintendo simply wouldn't supply information about most of the criteria that GP wanted to judge these companies by so they then automatically scored very low.

I'd say their criteria for a computer company providing disposal options for it's hardware doesn't fit very well with a game console such as the Wii anyway, since the market for such a system is very different than a computer; i.e. you don't buy a Wii or a DS then throw it away in a year or less to upgrade or replace it with another. The lifespan, even second hand is so much longer so holding the corporation responsible for a percentage of it's disposal is silly compared to that of say Dell for old disc drives and hard drives.

By the same token it's worth noting that the low power consumption of the Wii (carefully modeled after the low DS power consumption), was not, a decision made out of "environmental responsibility", though you could spin it that way if you like. I remember reading among early hype interviews around launch their clear reasons for that low power consumption were simply that they wanted to keep the Wii that compact and small for 1; looks, and also so that people could use Wii connect 24 (always have it on) without encountering the overheating issues that are common among systems that need to stay on for long periods. The power for both lit DS screens had given them lots of headway in researching successful methods of doing so for a very small console so it worked out well, but I never heard a peep about "lets save power to use less energy to help america save the earth".
I'm a Nintendo nerd, too, but I wouldn't speculate that they're trying to be environmentally conscious. I like that the Wii is not packaged in styrofoam like most consoles used to be (the cardboard design is very nice and good for re-packing), but I imagine they're all that way these days, I'm not sure.

I agree wholeheartedly about the whole "green" movement myself, since I consider myself to be a pretty conscious about energy consumption, waste and such issues, but many people with money love to just pay it lip service with the recent "green" marketing fad here in the US.
Regarding Alexsays:
It's funny for a while the way he refutes peoples points so meticulously, but ultimately ridiculous and baseless so don't get sucked in. He always begins with some good points based in fact, you refute them, and he comes back well until you have a real solid point; then he devolves into short snotty retorts that stray off topic or push a subjective opinion often bordering on insult. I too can build ridiculous tales of speculation based loosely in unrelated facts to win debate, but honestly I don't have that much time to do so for my love of a high powered CPU's and blooming effects.

Nice post Ren!

I am not saying Nintendo is green, just that greenpeace is untrustworthy in general....but you made great points about power consumtion and wii design - nicely done.

I have to disagree, Ive gone from the conduit to playing halo and back again with no trouble

as for the greenpeace thing they have stated before that it is because the plastic that makes nintendo consoles in the past doesnt bio degrade. And since they have been making consoles for a looooong time (25 years I think) there are a lot of non decomposing consoles out there. More than Microsoft and sony (obviously because they have not been in the market as long)