Topic: the reality for the wii!!!

How I wish that was true. Heavy Rain... excuse me? Just about the lamest excuse for entertainment ever. Cut scenes that you can interact with by pressing a few buttons, demanding even less skill then the dumbest of RTE's. Wow. To call it even a game is a disgrace. ...Insert gorgeous looking but generic PS3/360 shooter here... will instantly sell a lot more then any original video game out there. All that 'those' people want is something to dribble over and show off to their friends. All I want is to play good games, and there's nowhere better to do that then Nintendo, as a handheld and as a box to sit next to my TV.

I don't play Mario games because of Mario. I play them because I like the games.

Everyone plays them because they like the games. Mario and Zelda are two of (if not the two) most critically and commercially successful game series in history

Magi's comment was ignorant.

I cannot understand all these radical fundamentalists defending just a pieze of white hardware over a pieze of black or gray hardware. Wii is way way way outclassed by everything, but XBoX 360 and PS3 are also way outclassed by modern gaming PCs with monster graphic cards that can be directly plugged into your 50" Full HD TV. Looking at the latests releases in PC compared with the same in XBoX/PS3 is like comparing PS3/XBoX with the Wii. Sooner or later, more and more people with connect their PCs to the livingroom TV, PCs will become more compact, cheap and will always be way way more powerfull than any console, and for every game you have for the Wii/PS3/XBoX, you have 10 games or more for PC and way way cheaper. I think the future is there, gaming PCs. Same will happen with portable consoles (PSP, DS), none of them will survive much more time as everybody will use more powerfull cellphones also as portable gaming consoles.

But what you fail to understand, is that how a game looks is not all that matters. There is a little thing called 'gameplay' that sort of messes up your PC > Xbox360PS3 > Wii argument.

We play games, not just look at them. Yes?

You would make a bad psychic.

Agreed. Fortunately, the majority of people aren't just hardware power whores out to measure their e-peens. Most of us actually like games.

Do you think ninty need to sign first party developers like they did with rareware,as some of there best games were made by rare....

Ninty took a chance with wii and it paid off,but if they do it wrong with wii HD/2 then they could go downhill.
ps3/360 have HD good graphics,ps3 has bluray for none or casual gamers and looking more actrative to buy bluray for their HD tv's,not to mention PS MOVE and wii ports Lord of the rings,gladiator etc.
.

if you play a good story driven game with nextgen visuals,sound,texture,animations,AI,cinematics its not going to make a game any worse is it.
Imagine zelda,metriod,mario,brawl,f-zero1080p 60fps draw distance,scope,starfox epic space battles.
Your not going to say im not buying that because it looks crap.
Problem today is people agree to disagree.
There is a large ninty fan base out there that not only want your mario's or zeldas but want next gen graphics experience for better gaming and multiplatform games how they were meant to be played.
The last thing ninty want to do is lose its core gamers to other consoles and lose money,because how long will it be when none/casual gamers get get bored of the wii,and the core gamers have moved over for a better exsperience.

As much as I love a good gaming PC, most people (especially those under 18) either can't or won't spend $800+ on a gaming PC.
And as much as I like being able to play games on my iPod, it lacks certain features (like buttons). Of course other cellphones have their own games that use buttons, but the buttons aren't set up for gaming.
If you take a phone and add a widescreen display and a D-Pad, what do you get?

_{edit: btw I sure hope we get an HD Nintendo console soon}

Or misunderstood.

I read it as saying that Nintendo isn't making an effort to release good games, and that the improved tech of PS3/360 would dominate over Wii. Both of those statements are wrong, in my opinion.

From Magi's clarification that might not have been his intended message, but it was what I took away from the comment.

Just like to add,sony on stage said there going for the wii market(microsoft also).
Does this mean ninty need to keep its customers by releasing an HD/Bluray and new inovation to keep what it has now?..

Nope. I mean people who always buy games in a franchise because they're games in that franchise. It's possible that the games are good, of course, but "good" is relative. For example, I might be considered a "Gears of War" fanboy because: I am a passionate fan of various elements of geek culture. In this case, Gears of War. I would buy the third one just for the sake of buying it because it's GoW.

Bowotsik, if you don't understand the comments, ask for clarification, lest your own ignorance become apparent. Wether you care to admit it or not, there are people who will run out and buy a game, just because it's the next one in the series. CLEARLY, someone wouldn't buy the next game in the series because they DIDN'T like it, right? o.O

Perhaps. He weakens any point he might have been trying to make by resorting to a pointless 'fanboy' mention. As soon as you say that word, your argument collapses.

Yes, but in those 2 franchises, 'the games are good' and 'the games are in that franchise' tend to be the same thing.

Most people buy Mario and Zelda because over the years, and the console generations, these games have been quality, fun products.

In general, the likes of Mario Bros, Bros 3, World, 64, Galaxy, Zelda, A Link To The Past, Ocarina, Majoras, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess are considered good titles.

I take it you wouldn't really argue with this?

Bowotsik, if you don't understand the comments, ask for clarification, lest your own ignorance become apparent.

The only ignorance in this thread is manifested in the rather uniformed, clumsy, and slightly infantile way you try to put your 'points' across. Say fanboy, you have no argument.

I don't mind being called a fanboy, geek, nerd, or whatever because in various shapes, forms or fashions, I am one. I'm just looking for the t-shirt. I'm not debating which franchises are good or which ones are bad. I'm stating that there are people who choose to buy game xyz in a franchise because it's in that franchise.

Actually, I'm not really sure what I'm debating any more but I do know I'm slowly starting to lose my will to live because of this "debate". Just to keep it so easy a caveman could do it:
motion controls across all 3 platforms = good
when the Wii loses that edge over the other 2 consoles, then I believe it must rely on it's games to make it the preferred gaming device (or innovate again)

Following your quite wrong and typical nintendo fan logic, Nintendo had no real need to move from 64 to GC, why not to keep with the N64 forever? Ups, but why to have a N64 when you can have a supernintendo with many more and better games? Your very same argument were used by fan-atics when nintendo moved from famicon to supernintendo, the same from snes to N64, and the same over'n over. Nintendo will be left far behind quite fast by its competitors starting with DS which they better replace next year. And not so far its competitors will be left behind too by gaming PCs connected to TVs. I already know a good bunch of people using what is known as multimedia PCs in the living room, music, films, games, internet, work, all from your sofa, multitask and with wireless controls. I really dont know how the consoles will be able to compete with this in the near future. And BTW, for every good game you have for the Wii, you have 100 better games for the PC. The main problem of Wii owners (including myself), is that they are slaves of the quite limited number of decent games available, so every one seems like a little treasure (even if being objetively just mediocre).

Perhaps, the point being Mario and Zelda are better than most of the other stuff out there. You can hardly call someone who buys, say, Galaxy 2 without reading a review a 'fanboy'. It will almost certainly be good.

When you have mastered the art of the paragraph, you get back to me. I'm sure what you have written is both insightful and brilliant, but, alas, humans can't read it.

So close, and yet, so far.

There are a few flaws in your logic. First of all, in case you were too involved in your multimedia pc to notice, we are in rough economical times. People can't go around spending as much money as they used to. Another thing: yes, the graphics got better as time went on, but graphics were not the only improved things. Let me use NSMBW as an example. With NES hardware, 4-player was not possible. With the Wii, it is. Games can be bigger. Look at how big SSBB is. I think you are assuming that everyone follows your opinion, when in reality, your opinion is in the minority. Almost no one considers PC games better that PS3, 360 or Wii games. The controls aren't as natural, you don't get the same feel, etc. Also, I don't know why you think Nintendo was left far behind by competitors. Look at how well Nintendo is doing compared to Sony and Microsoft. The main fact is: Gaming consoles will most likely always be what people use for gaming.

Yes, you're right. Good graphics aren't worse. But an unplayable atrocity of a game with excellent graphics is one that nobody will be satisfied with. Graphics are almost superfluous - they are the container, not the content, of a good game.

You're also accusing current-gen hardware like the Wii (and last-gen hardware) of having such bad graphics that it completely ruins the experience. This is not true, since it is more powerful than the PS2 - which had fairly recent games out which were praised for their graphics. Ham-fisted graphical improvements like pushing more polygons and putting layers of canned shaders over rendered scenes don't improve the gameplay experience, unless the game specifically requires a level of visual realism for immersion and story-telling purposes. Games like Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain get improvements because of that. Mario and Zelda, uh, wouldn't. (Unless we get Super Mario: War and Peace.) The Wii has enough power that it can present convincing 3D graphics at a reasonable and believable level of detail.

Any "core" gamer worth their salt should have more interest in playing good games than running through levels while gaping at how detailed the wall texture is, or how pretty the water looks, or discussing the finer points of bloom shaders.

Also, "the way games are meant to be played" is however their developer damn well decides it to be.

@Bowsotnik, you hit the nail on the head.

Terms like "fanboys", "(hard)core gamers" and "casual gamers" are all meaningless anyway. @Magi, you seem to have forgotten that "fanboy" is and has always been used as an insult - namely, a label for one who is so caught up in adoration for a certain product or organisation that they fail to have a rational view on the subject. So claiming you are a fanboy is strange, to say the least.

"Hardcore gamers" don't exist, and neither do "casual gamers". No one can agree on what these terms mean. Someone who plays Bejewelled several hours every day and gets immense high scores can be called a hardcore gamer because they've gained a great deal of skill through their repetitive playing, regardless of the fact that the game appeals to people who don't associate themselves with gamer culture. Someone who plays Gears of War 2 co-op only when they have friends over could be called a casual gamer, since they don't play it often enough to get any skill and only play it for its interpersonal dynamic.

EDIT: Sorry for essay.

Fan Boy is what people resort to saying because they have no argument. Nothing more, nothing less.