They made a hell of a lot more money than Microsoft from gaming over the past few years. So does that mean you think Gamecube was more successful than Xbox?
Uhm.. Yeah?
Perhaps you've not heard of marketshare and mindshare, but in modern business they are more important than profitability.
HAHAHAHA! Sure, if you redefine "success" to be "whatever I'm doing right now," then you're always successfull. Good luck with that. Some of us actually need money to survive.
"Adult" and "mature" are words that are seriously abused when it comes to gaming. I'm an adult person, and I love to play Mario games. I don't need them to be destroyed by guns, violence or sex.
Frankly, to me, most PS2 games look the same. Dark, grey, washed-out, blurry. I have nothing against those games, but I want a bit of color now and again, too.
Hardcore challenges count too. Even though some games are frustratingly difficult -- hardly what one would consider fun -- the reward of finally beating it more than makes up it.
So for you, games are like work, except you don't get paid?
Thank you very much, but I'll stay with my fun games.
It's not that big an issue
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree that it's entirely possible (although far from certain - it depends on how well the nunchuck will sell, and since it isn't too expensive, it might sell so well that developers won't have to worry) that many multiplayer games will go for a control scheme which won't use the Nunchuck. And this is a pity.
I also agree that the controllers cost too much. Maybe Nintendo should have tried bundling the nunchuck with the Wiimote for the current price of the Wiimote. I guess they did not do that because the Wiimote probably costs quite a bit to manufacture.
However, I don't agree that the Wii ends up costing too much. If you buy a Wii with three additional Wiimotes, that's 370 bucks. And you get Wii Sports, which is a multiplayer game that is playable with the Wiimotes.
If you get the Nunchucks, that ends up being 430 bucks. Still well below a PS3 with one controller and no games.
And finally, the idea seems to be that people buy "their own" controller and take it to their friend's place, so for lots of people, it's probably a non-issue. Not for me, not for you - lots of my friends aren't going to buy Wiis, and I want to play against those people, too.
It's an issue, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be.
WTF are "truly dedicated gamers"?
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Few expect truly dedicated gamers to choose the Wii over the PS3 or Xbox
Come again? Who the hell are those "truly dedicated gamers" that prefer a 360 or a PS3 to the Wii?
I have in my living room right now about a dozen consoles - from the Pong to the Gamecube. I have about 30 more consoles stored in various places. I own tons of new and vintage consoles. I also own portables. I own a PSP, a DS, and every version of the GBA. I am a "truly dedicated gamer" if there ever was one. Guess what? I haven't yet bought a 360. When it came out, I thought I'd get one about a year after release, but so far, there's simply nothing which compells me to buy one. I probably won't get a PS3 until late in its lifespan, either. There's simply not a whole lot of stuff going on with those two "next-gen consoles" that excites this particular "truly dedicatd gamer." Same games with better graphics? Sign me up... Not!
I'll get both a 360 and a PS3 - as soon as some really compelling and interesting games come out for them, and as soon as the prices start to reach less absurd levels. For now, neither console interests me all that much.
I will, however, get a Wii the day it comes out.
Because I'm a "truly dedicated gamer," not despite of it.
They did, and I always found that pretty confusing. For quite some time I thought they wanted to claim third place in the console race - behind the Xbox and the Cube. Weirdos.
Over here in Europe, most people aren't familiar with the concept of "the third place" and probably didn't get the slogan.
Reading through the posts, I see a lot of weird arguments being modded up. We should take a step back and try to look at this whole issue objectively instead of automatically jumping on anyone who implies that there might be a connection between playing (certain) videogames and violence.
First, let's look at some of the arguments from "our side" and why they're wrong.
The title implies a wrong argument. Was there violence before videogames? Of course. Does that tell us anything at all about whether games can make people act more violently? Of course not.
The "it did not make me violent" argument: First of all, if you're making this argument, you're assessing yourself. You can't do that objectively. Second, you don't know how you'd be if you did not play these games. Third, nobody claims that videogames are the only reason for violence, or that they always and inevitably lead to violence.
The "Pac-Man didn't make people run around in dark rooms while eating pills" argument. It should be obvious why this argument is flawed.
The "we don't see more violence despite more people playing games" argument: Flawed, because again, games certainly aren't the only factor creating violence.
The "everyone knows it's just a game" argument. Yeah, everyone knows it, but that doesn't mean it won't affect you. I'll say a bit more on that further down.
The "it helps me get rid of my aggressions" argument. Well, the human psyche doesn't work that way. You're a neuronal net, not a boiling pot of water that needs to let some steam out. You're a learning machine. Some games teach you that violence is a valid way of solving problems. That has an influence on you, whether you want it or not.
Frankly, I don't quite understand how people can argue that games don't affect people. Well, most of these people have of course no problem with the concept that games like "Brain Training" affect gamers positively, but they do have a problem with the concept that games could have a negative influence. I don't understand this.
Everything you do affects who you are. Games probably do that more than many other things because they can immediately reward you for actions you play out. Violent games reward you for violent actions. Your brain remembers that, whether you want it to or not. I do not know whether that effect is measurable, but I would not be surprised if it was.
Does that mean that we should outlaw violent games? Of course not. But we as gamers should have an interest in knowing what we're doing to ourselves if we play them - mindlessly repeating the same stupid arguments whenever somebody implies that this whole thing might be an issue at all is not helping you, it's not helping the games industry and it's not helping society as a whole. In addition to that, I think outlawing the sale of certain games to minors is perfectly acceptable.
Their parents can still get these games for their children, but at lest they'll have to make that decision (and don't bring up the "parents are always at fault" argument. I don't care. If games do make people violent, I want to force parents to at least think about this).
No, it didn't take long to clean those off - but that's no excuse for them being there in the first place.
Uhm... Those appliactions aren't trial or crapware. The Omni apps are full versions of pretty cool (and pretty expensive) applications. StuffIt Expander used to come with Mac OS X, but does so no longer. The reason it came with Mac OS X was that lots of applications were delivered in.sit files, and you need Expander to open these. Contratulations on "cleaning them off," though - dragging a few applications to the Trash must have been a really complicated undertaking.
I want my computers to work when I pull them out of the box.
Having just bought my first "pre-made" computer in years (a new laptop from Compaq), I find this statement *hilarious*.
Yeah. You find this hilarous because you're talking about PCs. Dells, for example, get this absolutely crappy annoying Dell application that constantly reminds you of stuff that's supposedly wrong with your computer. Windows in general is annoying, with little bubbles popping up telling you about icons on your desktops you no longer use and stuff like that.
Well, what I actually wanted to say is: Macs are different. They actually do work out of the box, and do not contain all those crappy little vendor-specific annoying extensions.
Wanna know what's really unimpressive? Spending millions on developing the fastest gaming hardware, being a year late and still looking like shit compared to moderately recent PCs. Yeah, I'm talking about the PS3. Most unimpressive console release ever.
Wanna know what's not unimpressive? Creating a new, amazing controller that has never been done before and excites gamers all over the world.
it's backwards
Yeah, totally changing the main input interface for the first time in 20 years of console history is backwards, but selling the same basic console with better graphics is innovation. And war is peace.
and it doesn't have the price advantage
Except that it costs half as much as a PS3.
to make it look any better than the 'big boys'.
Big boys, yeah, I can agree with that. The PS3 really is monstrous.
It was underpowered compared to the XBox and the PS2
I can't believe any sane person would still believe Sony's marketing crap. You obviously have either never played with a PS2 or never played with a Gamecube. Hence, you're not qualified to comment on the Cube's games.
Well... I guess I'm the exception, but I actually have (among other consoles) an Atari 2600, an NES and a SNES (semi-permanently) hooked up to my beamer:-D
(Although the SNES picture has a weird kind of "jitter" when playing it on my beamer - works fine when playing on the TV.)
Dunno where you got this idea, but it's just plain wrong. Most Mac OS X applications are installed via drag-and-drop, just like on Mac OS 9. Some are installed via installers, but that has been the case since at least System 7.
Yeah, if you only want one player next to your TV, it's an issue. It doesn't matter to me. I have a DVD player (code-free, divx compatible - I'm living in europe, so the non-code-free Wii DVD player would be useless to me anyway), a VHS player and a stereo. In addition to that, I have a bunch of consoles. So one more or less doesn't matter to me...
But would somebody really replace the Xbox/PS2 with a Wii if it could play DVDs? Because then you couldn't play your PS/Xbox games anymore. And DVD players are like 30 bucks a piece, half what a Wii controller costs...
you can definately tell the difference between a 128kpbs song from iTunes and a song that you ripped yourself at 192 or more kbps
I actually did some blind tests about a year ago. I encoded a music piece in different formats at different bitrates, jumbled the names and tried to figure out which one was which. It's definitely possible to hear the difference between a 128 MP3 and a 192 MP3. Interestingly, I wasn't able to hear the difference between lossless, 192 MP3 and 128 AAC. Now I'm not saying that with better stereo equipment and/or better ears than mine, you couldn't hear it. But for me personally, 128 AAC is quite simply good enough.
I hope you're joking. Do you realize that if you encrypt and then decrypt a file, you get the exact same file as the one you started out with? I mean, every single bit will be exactly the same. Double blind tests have shown nothing like your claim at all.
Wii Sports does not cost Nintendo 50 bucks. The controller costs 60 bucks because there's more in it than in the controllers for the Xbox or the PS3 (that's why you get the cheaper controllers to add to the main controller). Do you know anyone who doesn't already have a DVD drive? I agree with the other points, but guess what, Microsoft and Sony are doing the exact same thing with region codes and price markups.
And one more thing: Lower price does not always mean more sales. Sometimes it also means that people perceive something as being cheap and thus not worth buying.
Wow, this is awesome. Are you for real? I mean, do you actually believe what you're writing, or are you simply trying to annoy people? You're a troll either way, I'm just wondering whether it's a conscious behaviour on your part.
You wouldn't work for me if I was the last person on earth? Uhm, yeah, that seems obvious. Me being the last person on earth implies that you don't exist anymore. At least not on earth. So you couldn't possibly be working for me.
Maybe we can import a few consoles from you Americans then, huh? I hope you don't mind. The thing is, if Nintendo is up to its usual shenanigans, it'll be february 07 until we get any Wii love over here. So I'll probably import one or two for me and my pals.
All that waiting is driving me insane, too. Not to mention that I live in fucking europe, so I'll probably have to wait another few months or something...
Slashdot Mirror
As always, daringfireball.net has an interesting article on this. And The Macalope chimes in, too, with a link to an article by Glenn Fleishman. Enjoy.
"Frustrating" definitly isn't fun.
Uhm.. Yeah?
HAHAHAHA! Sure, if you redefine "success" to be "whatever I'm doing right now," then you're always successfull. Good luck with that. Some of us actually need money to survive.
That reminds me: What Mario would look like on a Sony console. Thank you very much, but I prefer my Nintendo Mario. Look what "making it adult" has done to Sonic.
Screw that.
"Adult" and "mature" are words that are seriously abused when it comes to gaming. I'm an adult person, and I love to play Mario games. I don't need them to be destroyed by guns, violence or sex.
So... blurry grayish graphics are mature?
Frankly, to me, most PS2 games look the same. Dark, grey, washed-out, blurry. I have nothing against those games, but I want a bit of color now and again, too.
So for you, games are like work, except you don't get paid?
Thank you very much, but I'll stay with my fun games.
I agree that it's entirely possible (although far from certain - it depends on how well the nunchuck will sell, and since it isn't too expensive, it might sell so well that developers won't have to worry) that many multiplayer games will go for a control scheme which won't use the Nunchuck. And this is a pity.
I also agree that the controllers cost too much. Maybe Nintendo should have tried bundling the nunchuck with the Wiimote for the current price of the Wiimote. I guess they did not do that because the Wiimote probably costs quite a bit to manufacture.
However, I don't agree that the Wii ends up costing too much. If you buy a Wii with three additional Wiimotes, that's 370 bucks. And you get Wii Sports, which is a multiplayer game that is playable with the Wiimotes.
If you get the Nunchucks, that ends up being 430 bucks. Still well below a PS3 with one controller and no games.
And finally, the idea seems to be that people buy "their own" controller and take it to their friend's place, so for lots of people, it's probably a non-issue. Not for me, not for you - lots of my friends aren't going to buy Wiis, and I want to play against those people, too.
It's an issue, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be.
Come again? Who the hell are those "truly dedicated gamers" that prefer a 360 or a PS3 to the Wii?
I have in my living room right now about a dozen consoles - from the Pong to the Gamecube. I have about 30 more consoles stored in various places. I own tons of new and vintage consoles. I also own portables. I own a PSP, a DS, and every version of the GBA. I am a "truly dedicated gamer" if there ever was one. Guess what? I haven't yet bought a 360. When it came out, I thought I'd get one about a year after release, but so far, there's simply nothing which compells me to buy one. I probably won't get a PS3 until late in its lifespan, either. There's simply not a whole lot of stuff going on with those two "next-gen consoles" that excites this particular "truly dedicatd gamer." Same games with better graphics? Sign me up... Not!
I'll get both a 360 and a PS3 - as soon as some really compelling and interesting games come out for them, and as soon as the prices start to reach less absurd levels. For now, neither console interests me all that much.
I will, however, get a Wii the day it comes out.
Because I'm a "truly dedicated gamer," not despite of it.
They did, and I always found that pretty confusing. For quite some time I thought they wanted to claim third place in the console race - behind the Xbox and the Cube. Weirdos.
Over here in Europe, most people aren't familiar with the concept of "the third place" and probably didn't get the slogan.
Reading through the posts, I see a lot of weird arguments being modded up. We should take a step back and try to look at this whole issue objectively instead of automatically jumping on anyone who implies that there might be a connection between playing (certain) videogames and violence.
First, let's look at some of the arguments from "our side" and why they're wrong.
Frankly, I don't quite understand how people can argue that games don't affect people. Well, most of these people have of course no problem with the concept that games like "Brain Training" affect gamers positively, but they do have a problem with the concept that games could have a negative influence. I don't understand this.
Everything you do affects who you are. Games probably do that more than many other things because they can immediately reward you for actions you play out. Violent games reward you for violent actions. Your brain remembers that, whether you want it to or not. I do not know whether that effect is measurable, but I would not be surprised if it was.
Does that mean that we should outlaw violent games? Of course not. But we as gamers should have an interest in knowing what we're doing to ourselves if we play them - mindlessly repeating the same stupid arguments whenever somebody implies that this whole thing might be an issue at all is not helping you, it's not helping the games industry and it's not helping society as a whole. In addition to that, I think outlawing the sale of certain games to minors is perfectly acceptable.
Their parents can still get these games for their children, but at lest they'll have to make that decision (and don't bring up the "parents are always at fault" argument. I don't care. If games do make people violent, I want to force parents to at least think about this).
Uhm... Those appliactions aren't trial or crapware. The Omni apps are full versions of pretty cool (and pretty expensive) applications. StuffIt Expander used to come with Mac OS X, but does so no longer. The reason it came with Mac OS X was that lots of applications were delivered in .sit files, and you need Expander to open these. Contratulations on "cleaning them off," though - dragging a few applications to the Trash must have been a really complicated undertaking.
Yeah. You find this hilarous because you're talking about PCs. Dells, for example, get this absolutely crappy annoying Dell application that constantly reminds you of stuff that's supposedly wrong with your computer. Windows in general is annoying, with little bubbles popping up telling you about icons on your desktops you no longer use and stuff like that.
Well, what I actually wanted to say is: Macs are different. They actually do work out of the box, and do not contain all those crappy little vendor-specific annoying extensions.
Wanna know what's really unimpressive? Spending millions on developing the fastest gaming hardware, being a year late and still looking like shit compared to moderately recent PCs. Yeah, I'm talking about the PS3. Most unimpressive console release ever.
Wanna know what's not unimpressive? Creating a new, amazing controller that has never been done before and excites gamers all over the world.
Yeah, totally changing the main input interface for the first time in 20 years of console history is backwards, but selling the same basic console with better graphics is innovation. And war is peace.
Except that it costs half as much as a PS3.
Big boys, yeah, I can agree with that. The PS3 really is monstrous.
I can't believe any sane person would still believe Sony's marketing crap. You obviously have either never played with a PS2 or never played with a Gamecube. Hence, you're not qualified to comment on the Cube's games.
Well... I guess I'm the exception, but I actually have (among other consoles) an Atari 2600, an NES and a SNES (semi-permanently) hooked up to my beamer :-D
(Although the SNES picture has a weird kind of "jitter" when playing it on my beamer - works fine when playing on the TV.)
Dunno where you got this idea, but it's just plain wrong. Most Mac OS X applications are installed via drag-and-drop, just like on Mac OS 9. Some are installed via installers, but that has been the case since at least System 7.
Nothing has changed.
Yeah, if you only want one player next to your TV, it's an issue. It doesn't matter to me. I have a DVD player (code-free, divx compatible - I'm living in europe, so the non-code-free Wii DVD player would be useless to me anyway), a VHS player and a stereo. In addition to that, I have a bunch of consoles. So one more or less doesn't matter to me...
But would somebody really replace the Xbox/PS2 with a Wii if it could play DVDs? Because then you couldn't play your PS/Xbox games anymore. And DVD players are like 30 bucks a piece, half what a Wii controller costs...
I actually did some blind tests about a year ago. I encoded a music piece in different formats at different bitrates, jumbled the names and tried to figure out which one was which. It's definitely possible to hear the difference between a 128 MP3 and a 192 MP3. Interestingly, I wasn't able to hear the difference between lossless, 192 MP3 and 128 AAC. Now I'm not saying that with better stereo equipment and/or better ears than mine, you couldn't hear it. But for me personally, 128 AAC is quite simply good enough.
In that case you should start looking for a new job.
Please.
I hope you're joking. Do you realize that if you encrypt and then decrypt a file, you get the exact same file as the one you started out with? I mean, every single bit will be exactly the same. Double blind tests have shown nothing like your claim at all.
I really hope you're just trolling.
Wii Sports does not cost Nintendo 50 bucks. The controller costs 60 bucks because there's more in it than in the controllers for the Xbox or the PS3 (that's why you get the cheaper controllers to add to the main controller). Do you know anyone who doesn't already have a DVD drive? I agree with the other points, but guess what, Microsoft and Sony are doing the exact same thing with region codes and price markups.
And one more thing: Lower price does not always mean more sales. Sometimes it also means that people perceive something as being cheap and thus not worth buying.
clever :-)
Wow, this is awesome. Are you for real? I mean, do you actually believe what you're writing, or are you simply trying to annoy people? You're a troll either way, I'm just wondering whether it's a conscious behaviour on your part.
You wouldn't work for me if I was the last person on earth? Uhm, yeah, that seems obvious. Me being the last person on earth implies that you don't exist anymore. At least not on earth. So you couldn't possibly be working for me.
Maybe we can import a few consoles from you Americans then, huh? I hope you don't mind. The thing is, if Nintendo is up to its usual shenanigans, it'll be february 07 until we get any Wii love over here. So I'll probably import one or two for me and my pals.
The Wii is looking better and better :-)
All that waiting is driving me insane, too. Not to mention that I live in fucking europe, so I'll probably have to wait another few months or something...
NOW! I WANT IT NOW!!!