I understand the edge because they have been some crazy stuff said about the power of the PS3 but that fact remains that the PS3 pushes twice as many Flops as the 360. How it is used is an entire different subject. Chances are you are not going to see much of a difference in multiplatform games and that will pretty much kill any comparisons. In the long run you are going to have to compare exclusives to exclusives, in which most arguements will fail because of asthetics and game design.
I don't care how many Flops are pushed. I never listen to system specs like that anymore, since there's so much bunk. Proponents of each system will quote the benchmark that makes THEIR system appear better. Talking about stuff is pointless.
Anyways, I agree that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to compare games across platforms, due to the issues you talked about. But I'd rather do that than talk try to compare stupid benchmark numbers.
For me, it's big news. GH2 was going to be the last reason to keep my PS2 hooked up, after finishing with Okami and FFXII. However, with news that its also coming to the 360, it's buh-bye Sony consoles for a loooong time. (Well, until FFXIII comes out, although who knows, Squeenix might make it multiplatform by then)
Is it Slashdot newsworthy though? Not really. It probably should have just been lumped in with all the other X06 news.
I don't agree with you. I don't see the point of playing a Wii game by being passive on a couch and doing simple flicks of the wrist. That to me looks incredibly boring. I think the fun in playing the Wii is making the actual motion with your arm. Also, please tell me how you'd similuate a golf swing or a baseball swing with just your wrist. Seems clunky to me. I might as well just push a button.
I think a lot of people, unfortunately, have the same expectation as you do. A lot of it comes from the initial Wii video that Nintendo debuted, which showed people jumping around their couch, etc.
It's already been mentioned by several developers and 1st hand accounts that many of the Wii motions ARE going to be simple flicks of the wrist. A lot of it is due to arm strength issues. I cringe at the thought of playing a first-person shooter (like Metroid), where I have to keep my arm outstretched for long periods of time for aiming. (Try it yourself, you'll cave in a few minutes, no matter how fit you are... unless you're a gymnast)
The exception, though, are the sports games... where you ARE able to simulate an actual golf or baseball swing. That's not a big deal, since there is plenty of time between pitches and swings to rest up, just like the "real life" versions.
Of course they question the Wii. They always question the Wii. They are a broken record.
They also eat babies.
Why is questioning a yet-to-be-released console ever a bad thing? Especially one with a vastly different (although very interesting) control scheme?
People will naturally want to question anything that they don't have, and can't experience for themselves. Plenty of people questioned the 360 before it came out. And plenty of people are questioning both the Wii and the PS3. And many more will question future games and future consoles. This is a GOOD thing.
The alternative is to NOT question anything, and just keep building up hype, to the point that the product can't achieve the bloated expectations. Personally, I'd rather be "pleasantly surprised" rather than horribly disappointed.
Hasn't this guy ever heard of tennis, golf, foootball, etc etc. These are activities that require much more that swinging a remote control around and yet every day thousands of people voluntarily go out and perform them. In the case of golf and some others they even pay.
Sports is not a good analogy. That's a wide range of activities that exercise different muscles, and at different rates. Moore does bring up a good point, and it *is* something to worry about.
Here's something to try at home or wherever you are. Lift your arms straight in front of you. You don't even need to hold anything in them. Keep them outstretched. How long do you think you can keep them there, carrying nothing? You may be surprised how fast you get tired (generally in only a few minutes). This was a "neat trick" I learned when I was doing martial arts. Heck, even your uber football player may have problems with this, especially if their arms are really bulked up with muscles.
Granted, when you play the Wii-mote, your arms generally won't be outstretched like that for very long. Hopefully with most games, they can stay mostly near your body. But it still might be something to be concerned about. That's frankly one of my main concerns for the console, and one of the first things I'll watch for when I pick up the Wii.
All the Sony fanbois who seem to think that the PS3 is magically so much more powerful than the 360, are going to be greatly depressed. First of all, I doubt Bethesda is going to change the game assets all that much, so it is going to be a straight port, and look just like one. However, your casual gamer is not going to realize this, and when he sees that Oblivion for the PS3 looks pretty much like the one for the 360 (maybe a liiittle better, but certainly not "$100-200 more" better), it's going to kill a lot of the technical-superiority momentum Sony and its fanbois are trying to drive.
Actually, you can see the same thing now with Assassin's Creed, another multiplatform game coming out for both systems. The game looks much the same between the PS3 and 360. I would imagine and hope that the PS3 version is a *bit* better looking, the same way Xbox titles had a slight edge over PS2 multiplatform games, simply because that console had a full year longer to mature than the 360. But we'll only able to tell when the PS3 finally ships and its in people's homes.
Now, I don't think the PS3 is a bad system simply because it's not two times better than a 360. What I'm bashing is the unrealistic hype Sony fanbois have been trying to build up. (The same way Nintendo fanbois have been unrealistically hyping the Wii) I will likely own all three consoles, and I'd like to judge for myself the strengths and weaknesses of each. If anything, the stupid "PS3 is that much better than a 360!" hype is going to hurt Sony more than it helps, since it'll appear to be yet another Sony un-truth to gamers, once they see the games/systems for themselves.
I imagine backwards-compatibility is going to become less and less important as time goes on. IMHO, BC has always been one of those bullet point features for systems, that's rarely utilized by most gamers. Obviously, it's most important when the console first launches, when you've got a number of slightly-older titles that you still want to check out. But as time goes on, many of those slightly-older titles will end up being ones on the next-gen system anyway. And it's rather rare to want to play a REALLY old title.
Of course, there are exceptions. But in those times, gamers usually have the original system anyway, and can just re-hook it up. Or there's also the emulator-route. And with Xbox Live Arcade and the Wii Virtual Console, lazy gamers can play the really old titles on their new machines anyway (with some potentially added features, like multiplayer and achievement tracking).
Personally, I would have been fine if Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo didn't focus at all on backwards compatibility, especially if it meant reducing the cost of the system, or adding some other extra feature that I might actually leverage. I know there ARE some people that are big on playing the same X game on every version of a console, but I would imagine that's a pretty small percentage of the total audience.
I think everyone "gets" what the issue is. No is technically being "forced to buy" a PS3, since obviously they can choose to just not buy it, or get a 360 or Wii instead. But many gamers feel like they are "forced to buy" a PS3, since it's the only way to play several games that are PS3-exclusive.
"Forced to buy" arguably isn't the right term to use, but it is often used that way in the vernacular. So the grammar police should cut these folks some slack.
And finally, the argument that Blu-ray is an essential part of the system, and that it's pointless to argue about "being forced to buy this feature"... is rather subjective, and quite cloudy. I doubt anyone here can truly know if the PS3 could have been developed without Blu-ray, unless they happened to work in Sony. There's certainly SOME doubt, since there are comparable next-gen consoles that appear to do just fine without requiring a high-def DVD drive for games. But then again, the PS3 hasn't shipped yet, and who knows, maybe we'll all be clamoring for Blu-ray and HD-DVD games next year (although that does seem rather doubtful).
So in the end, it seems like if you favor Sony, you're going to take one side of the argument. If you favor MS, or at the very least are anti-Sony, then you'll take the other. So, agree to disagree, and let's move onto something else...
Halo the toilet paper, Halo the lunchbox, Halo the flamethrower! (The kids love this one).
Good thing the game industry is such a source original thought and creativity.
Every industry, be in TV or movies or games, takes advantage of good franchises. The most obvious examples (especially for us geeks) are Star Wars and Star Trek. Numerous TV shows have had spinoffs, some made into movies, and vice versa.
The games industry is definately no stranger to this. Nintendo is arguably the first to do this (or at least do it well). There are Mario Bros. characters in all sorts of genres: platformer, sports, puzzle, RPG, and even rhythm (Mario DDR for the GameCube). You've also got Square-Enix with the very strong Final Fantasy franchise, which has found itself in all sorts of different platforms (mobile, portables, various consoles) and genres (traditional RPG, MMO, and even action).
Why bother? No, it's not terribly original or creative, but people eat it up (myself included). If you happen to be a fan of that franchise, you often WANT to see more of it. And you'll gladly pay money for it. The exception is when developers and producers start stretching the franchise too thin, or just do a bad job representing it. Star Trek is a great example of this, where lots of fans balked at the recent TV series and numerous bad Star Trek games. We'll see if this is the case with Halo, but obviously it's still too early to tell. (At least play the games first!)
So, the fact that Halo is becoming the uber first-party franchise for MS is no surprise. It's exactly what they want and needed out of that IP. And, frankly, it's what a lot of fans want. It's hard to argue against that.
There is actually quite a bit of story in Halo and Halo 2, and certainly more than your typical FPS. There's enough in the "Halo universe" to spawn a few books as well, not to mention the Halo movie that Peter Jackson is working on.
I'm not a Bungie cultist myself (although I have a friend that works there), but I think there is definately enough to like in the Halo universe, if you're a general sci-fi fan like I am. And if you don't, there's nothing wrong with avoiding what you don't like.
As for people yelling at MS to be more original, and to stop milking the franchise for all it's worth, you can easily say the same for Nintendo's games. How many Zelda, Metroid, and Mario games have there been? And how many of them have been good? Plenty. Franchises != the suck.
I agree. Blue Dragon will probably be a nice "consolation prize" for those in Japan who aren't lucky enough to snap up one of the few PS3s being released for that region. And if the game is good enough, they just might forget about Sony altogether, at least until FFXIII comes out (which won't be for another year, at least).
I was surprised by how many J-RPGs are being released for the 360. Sure, many of them may end up being rather mediocre, but that's certainly more than 0. (And Japan has its fair share of mediocre RPGs to begin with) All it takes is for one mega-hit to bring in the masses. If I had to guess, MS is banking on Blue Dragon to be Japan's "Halo" game.
From what I've heard, Blue Dragon was advertised everywhere around TGS. I think they were handing out shopping bags with the logo, which people would use to carry other TGS swag, and provide ample advertising while doing so. I think there was some handouts taking place on subways and such as well.
But yeah, it looks like Lost Odyssey didn't get too much love for some reason. My guess is that Mistwalker/MS wants to put all their eggs in one basket, promote Blue Dragon (especially since it'll be a pack-in game for the 360 core version), and once people realize that Mistwalker Studios is for real... that they'll naturally seek out the other title they're releasing for the 360.
I'm not a marketer, so I don't know how smart of a tactic that actually is, but that's my 2 cents. We'll see in a few months how well it worked.
Great thanks for the reply. Hadn't heard about any 360 framerate issues, but I'm also not reading a lot of 360 reviews etc... Good to know though.
Ehh, I'd be wary of getting any type of advice from Sony fanbois.:P
Really, framerate issues should be tied to the game, not the console. It's not the console's fault if developers write bad/unoptimized code, or are just stressing the console past its limits (whatever that may be). Comparing two different games on two platforms is certainly not "apples to apples".
A better way to do actual console comparison is to take a multiplatform game and compare it on both. You also have to make sure the game was developed at roughly the same stage. 2nd generation 360 titles will often do better than 1st generation PS3 ones (of course there will be exceptions, as there always ARE exceptions).
Honestly, despite all the FUD flying about (from BOTH parties), I don't think gamers are really going to get a feel for how much more powerful one system is over another, until a few years from now. And with multiplatform development generally leveling the playing field, it may be moot altogether.
Of course, better graphics does not necessarily make a better game. But I'll leave it to the Wii-fanbois to explain that one.;)
Sony is promising a Live-like service, but allowing to play multiplayer online for free. They will have the best hardware. They will have a huge launch in Japan. They have tons and tons of third-party support. They still have plenty of huge exclusive franchises.
First of all, I agree that no matter what the Slashdot and extreme-gamer crowd think, Sony is still going to do awfully well this console generation. I am by no means a Sony fanboi either when I say this.
That said, you talk about their "Live-like service", but it's a bit disconcerting that we haven't heard much more about this. I think a lot of gamers were hoping to hear more about this mythical service, aside from some shaky-cam videos and screenshots, in a more official setting. TGS would have been it. If it weren't for the Japanese PS3 Core price-drop, and the inclusion of HDMI in all models, the lack of online-service details might have been the talk of the town/blogosphere.
Will Nintendo release a (free?) devkit to make Nintendo Wi-Fi games (for the Wii and/or the DS)?
Since they'll already have the setup in place to sell games for console emulators, why not indie games too?
I agree. The concept of the virtual console just begs for low-cost development of more casual games, which is precisely the crowd Nintendo is going for. Alas, I don't think they've announced anything like that yet, focusing more on the retro titles that many fans are looking for first (old NES, SNES, N64 games). But I can't imagine why Nintendo WOULDN'T want to open it up. Besides, I believe Sony is doing the same thing with their online network, so it'd be yet another thing Nintendo is "left out" of (and arguably, something they should be driving in full force to begin with).
However, I highly doubt it would be a free devkit. Come on, this is Nintendo we're talking about. Just Google around... they aren't exactly known to be developer friendly.:) (*cough outrageous licensing fees back-in-the-day cough*)
IMHO, one of Nintendo's biggest pressures (and arguably their largest problem too), will be the hype generated by all the Nintendo fanbois. They are hyping the Wii as if it's the biggest thing EVER for gaming. All you need to do is read the buzz being generated here and on all sorts of gaming forums. There's a lot of "Nintendo can do no wrong" sentiment, which is very, very dangerous.
I want the Wii to succeed, but I don't like to be told by fanbois that it will (or "wii-ll") succeed, without them or myself even having tried out the console ourselves. I still have a lot of doubts, such as how sensitive the control will be, whether or not I'll get tired after a period of time, how long it takes me to adjust to, and more importantly, just how much "more fun" Wii games are, versus titles on other platforms.
I think it's healthy to be skeptical, but it seems like everyone brings up these valid points, a Nintendo fanboi shoots them down, saying that it's not going to be a problem, bashing all the other consoles, and claiming that Nintendo games have a monopoly on fun games. Puh-lease! This is starting a very dangerous precedent.
Don't get me wrong, I like what Nintendo is doing with the Wii, and I will get one this year. But you Nintendo fanbois need to back down a bit and let people have their doubts. Like or not, we're all going to get the real story once the dang thing ships.
So is it? Nintendo of UK said "We are region locked." What does that mean? Their GAMES will be? Or their systems? How does that impact Wifi connectivity? Will people from Japan be able to play against people in the US on the Wii? I still don't see a straight answer here. You seem to have a better grasp of the situation than I, so perhaps you'll be able to clear up my confusion. Is the console region locked? Is Nintendo planning on region locking its first party games in Japan? The US? Europe? Since third partys have the option to region lock, which developers are the most likely to do so?
I guess I haven't been clear enough in my last few posts: games can't be region locked if the console isn't. So yes, the console is region locked.
If the console WEREN'T region locked, then games wouldn't know which region the system they were playing on. Well, the game could determine that through whatever region/language/etc. the USER selected, but that's definately not strong enough, as the user could simply change that at will in the system settings. Region locking the hardware means that as the console itself is manufactured, some switch is hardcoded to tie that console to the region. That's why you usually have to get a console modded to override it.
when it seems to be coming to light that EVERYTHING is region locked. You didn't really have it straight yourself. Thus, it's not the fanboys that are confusing it: whenever a company contradicts itself, there's always confusion over who's telling the truth.
Region-locking isn't confusing, it's just not something that becomes an issue most of the time, excepting special cases like gamers who travel or people buying unreleased games from Japan.
Actually, it is confusing because you, yourself, don't appear to understand the whole issue.
It's rare to have everything region-locked. Each developer can CHOOSE whether or not the game enforces it. For example, even though the 360 is not region-free, the developer of Enchanted Arms decided not to region lock that game. Others developers could follow suit, although many will take advantage of region locking. As I mentioned, Nintendo may decide not to region-lock its particular games, which would be cool... but the MAIN thing hardcore gamers want is to have no such region-enforcement on the console itself. If it isn't in the hardware, then no developers can utilize it.
When people talk about region locks in consoles, that's what they're referring to. Whether or not a developer chooses to region lock their game (assuming the console supports it), isn't nearly as interesting. That's the confusing part I was referring to.
Anyways, I agree that it's unfair for Nintendo to be slammed for just something their rep said (although she IS a VP). But it's the fanboism that just irks me.
The parent proves that the grandparents is completely unfounded in their reasoning. The fact that even HE can't get his story straight shows there IS doubt, and that an announcement from NoJ is really the best way to clear this whole thing up, and by saying that, I'm not just being a fanboi: I truthfully don't know what the hell is going on, one way or the other, and a nice clear announcement would at least confirm it, set it in stone.
As I pointed out already, I think it's really the Nintendo fanbois that are clueless. It seems pretty clear to me and the media, that the Wii is not region-free. And I doubt NoJ is going want to send a clear announcement that their US branch messed up, but I think they may have to "thanks" to the confusion of their hardcore fan-base.
Also, remember that the whole concept of region-locking is fairly confusing to begin with. Most consumers don't really understand why it's done in the first place. So for many gamers, it would just be an extra bullet point on the back of the box that they never use. They won't miss not having it. It would have been FAR better for Nintendo to just not announce it in the first place.
Mother-ship is probably none too pleased at this, and will probably try to put Nintendo EU in its place, especially seeing that public shaming (which is what they did to Nintendo of America) is extremely taboo in Japanese culture. I think we'll soon see a pretty strong response from Nintendo of Japan, clarifying their statements, and by clarifying, I mean telling Nintendo of EU to "grow up and deal with it." I don't say this out of any love of Nintendo (though I do like their products), but as a realistic assessment of coorperate power structure.
Well, that's a fanboism statement if I've ever heard one. No, that's what you WANT to happen.
It's already been a day since the news broke that the Wii is NOT region-free. Even though it's the weekend, if it were true that Nintendo EU was incorrect, don't you think we would have heard otherwise by now? Puh-lease.
And before anyone accuses me of being anti-Nintendo, I *want* the Wii to succeed, and am also a fan of Nintendo's products. But I don't tie myself to one console either, and I try to be realistic about the things that I read about. I swear, it's the Nintendo fanbois that are going to be the downfall of the Wii. There's been so much hype about the controller everything else about the Wii, that there's the very real danger of disappointment when the system finally gets into people's homes. Let people judge the facts for themselves. Coming up with excuses or denying bad news like this may ultimate hurt Nintendo more than it helps.
Imagine you were Nintendo, and not sure about how region locking actually affects sales because there is no hard data on that. Would you consider collecting the data yourself? As in, have two lackeys make contradictory announcements, and watch the customer responses?
No. Nintendo is a large enough entity that they can afford doing their own customer surveys, polling, studies, etc. rather than "testing the public" through mistakes in their press conferences. You would also do such investigation MUCH earlier, and not 2 months before ship. (And remember, Wii is already in manufacturing already) Whether or not you allow region-locking has far more implications on the business-side, and we should all know how long it can take for legal and business departments (between Nintendo and 3rd party developers) to work things out and agree on something.
And as someone else mentioned, the "customer responses" are not useful. You would only be polling the hardcore fanbase that actually pays attentions to these press conferences. The bulk of their sales (especially considering Nintendo is going after the more mainstream crowd), will come from people that probably don't even know what region-locking is, and would not understand why anyone in their right mind would import a game that's not in their language.
I'm waiting for the word from Nintendo of Japan before I believe anything.
Oh come on. Now, I know fanbois generally have the habit of accepting any good rumors and denying any bad news, but you're just being silly. It's not like this was a rumor from the "Interweb", but something that's been confirmed several times (see the links in the original story). Here's in all likelihood what happened:
1) VP of Marketing at US conference announces that Wii is not region locked for some reason (probably some a mistake/confusion on their part) 2) Nintendo freaks out and realizes the mistake 3) However, Nintendo is not about to put out a major press release or bring out Iwata to say, "Oh we ARE region locked"... you don't do that with bad news 4) So, Nintendo tactfully announces the bad news in the UK conference, and clarifies to the media the mistake that was made
Those fanbois who think that "Oh, it didn't come from NOJ, so it must not be true!" are doing EXACTLY what Nintendo intended (either purposely or as a "convenient side-effect") to do, which was build enough doubt that its most ardent supporters will still think that it's region-free, while not outright lying to the media.
Now, I imagine what some of the confusion might stem from is that first-party titles are not region-locked, so there might be some truth to what the VP of Marketing said, but it certainly isn't what most fans really wanted (which was no region-locking functionality in the hardware at all, preventing 3rd parties from using it).
That said, I'm not blaming or looking down on Nintendo for not being able to make the Wii region-free. I happen to know how difficult it is to do this, from a business standpoint, although it obviously sucks for consumers. I applaud Nintendo for at least having its portables being region-free. And it is unfortunate that they screwed up the announcement in the first place, but mistakes happen.
What I just can't stand is "fanboism", which results in gamers like you that are willing to be misled so easily. Let's be realistic here.:P
Re:The Pros and Cons of the Mii Channel
on
The Wii Takes NYC
·
· Score: 1
I like the idea of an cartoony, silly FPS that's customizable, but that's something that can be done on any platform. There are lots of games that let you personalize your profile (which may include avatar functionality). The only difference is that the Mii is across the platform, so you could go from one silly FPS to another and not have to re-input settings. But that in itself, doesn't seem like a big deal to me. You have to especially consider that you may WANT to look different in one game over another (fantasy vs. sci-fi avatar).
The Pros and Cons of the Mii Channel
on
The Wii Takes NYC
·
· Score: 1
Mii, on the other hand, is just dripping with Potential. Right now Wii Sports & Wii Play are the only games that actually use the Miis in game. But they could create a whole series of games that effectively let you create an avatar, and then stat track that avatar through various games. You can create your Mii, and keep track of his Golf Handicap, his Homerun %, and other stats. It'll be the rough equivalent of achievements, except you can have multiple avatars per person.
I'm still not convinced that the Mii channel is all that great. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's more analagous to the gamer pictures from Xbox Live, but with several pros and cons.
Pros: Can be used in games, very customizable, and it appears you can have multiple "Mii" avatars per person
Cons: Not all games may use it, may be somewhat limiting (only human models?), could have the problem of everyone looking pretty much the same
The nice thing about the gamer pictures is that there's really a wide variety of images to choose from. It's easy to show which happens to be your favorite game of the moment (or in my case, I have my college's logo right now). I'm guessing you'll eventually be able to do something similar with the Mii avatar (different clothing perhaps? maybe different models?), but you'll still be limited to something that has to be an avatar.
As for being able to use the avatar in games, it just sounds too gimmicky for me. I'd only see use for it in multiplayer party or sports games. Who would want to use their avatar in a RPG or FPS? I think Nintendo *wants* it to be for mainly casual use, which makes sense, but that limits what you can do with it. There's also the problem that many avatars may look pretty similar (especially in Japan!). However, that's easily fixed by releasing more customizable options (clothing, etc.).
I do agree that compared to all the other channels, the Mii is the most likely to succeed, but I just don't see it being a huge star or anything. I'm still going to want the Wii for the games.
Based off the movies on wii.com, this thing will probably set Japan aflame in numbers similar to the DS and DS Lite. Further comments below...
The interface looks relatively easy to navigate, though I wonder how long I can hold that controller out in front of me. The Mii Channel is another step in the development of online personas. Yahoo! Avatars, anyone? Regardless of how similar it is, this will definitely draw in the chick clique. Being able to take "yourself" in a remote is a bonus. How Westerners pick it up depends on whether or not they'll respond like they did with The Sims... Wii Weather really does look cool. The News Channel is cool; I wonder if we'll have different sources to pick from. The centerpiece of the Wii (or, at least, what's being displayed here and touted as a Big Reason to get one) resembles an AOL-TV like Internet portal, but it can play games. I'm not going to expect this thing to be my Firefox replacement or anything.
I don't know, the functionality just seems overrated to me. I agree the interface looks cool and obviously very intuitive, but the channels themselves? Here's my cynical view:
Mii Channel: Avatars themselves are nothing new. I happened to just discover Yahoo! Avatars the other day, as you mentioned. Neat, but I wouldn't say they're taking the world by storm. This *could* be pretty big with the female audience (main demographic of Sims users), but you'd have to convince developers to use these avatars everywhere in their game.
I guess in a way, these avatars are just Nintendo's way of competing with the gamer pics on the 360. Same concept, only taken to the next level. But it's only a nice accessory, the same way customizable gamer pics are on the 360. Cool, but not OMGWTFAWESOME cool. (And it's yet TBD what the PS3 will have)
Wii Weather & News: But we've done the AOL-like portal on the TV, many times, and it's never been a huge success. For example, my cable box has this exact same feature, although obviously the look & feel and the interface is different. I guess if it's super-customizable, that might be a benefit, but I don't think Nintendo should be in the business of building something like that.
I think the main reason why News/Weather portals have never really taken off on the TV, is because most people are already set on getting news and information their own way. Many people (like myself), will continue to use the Internet to get our fix. Other folks read the newspaper, or listen to the radio, or catch the news from TV stations. I can't imagine the Wii news as being compelling enough to want to change my daily routine, *just* so I can catch it on my new console.
That said, I can understand why Nintendo did what they did with the channels. It's just more "me too" features to compete with the functionality that the 360 and PS3 provide (or will provide). They're by no means system sellers, but icing on the cake, and extra bullet points on the box... even though many people may not utilize them. And I'm fine with that, especially considering the price of the console is still relatively cheap. (Versus the Blu-ray, which undoubtedly bloated the PS3 price considerably)
Note, I am biased (see my profile), but I will be buying a Wii this year. However it'll be for the games and not because of Wii channels.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care how many Flops are pushed. I never listen to system specs like that anymore, since there's so much bunk. Proponents of each system will quote the benchmark that makes THEIR system appear better. Talking about stuff is pointless.
Anyways, I agree that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to compare games across platforms, due to the issues you talked about. But I'd rather do that than talk try to compare stupid benchmark numbers.
For me, it's big news. GH2 was going to be the last reason to keep my PS2 hooked up, after finishing with Okami and FFXII. However, with news that its also coming to the 360, it's buh-bye Sony consoles for a loooong time. (Well, until FFXIII comes out, although who knows, Squeenix might make it multiplatform by then)
Is it Slashdot newsworthy though? Not really. It probably should have just been lumped in with all the other X06 news.
I think a lot of people, unfortunately, have the same expectation as you do. A lot of it comes from the initial Wii video that Nintendo debuted, which showed people jumping around their couch, etc.
It's already been mentioned by several developers and 1st hand accounts that many of the Wii motions ARE going to be simple flicks of the wrist. A lot of it is due to arm strength issues. I cringe at the thought of playing a first-person shooter (like Metroid), where I have to keep my arm outstretched for long periods of time for aiming. (Try it yourself, you'll cave in a few minutes, no matter how fit you are
The exception, though, are the sports games
Why is questioning a yet-to-be-released console ever a bad thing? Especially one with a vastly different (although very interesting) control scheme?
People will naturally want to question anything that they don't have, and can't experience for themselves. Plenty of people questioned the 360 before it came out. And plenty of people are questioning both the Wii and the PS3. And many more will question future games and future consoles. This is a GOOD thing.
The alternative is to NOT question anything, and just keep building up hype, to the point that the product can't achieve the bloated expectations. Personally, I'd rather be "pleasantly surprised" rather than horribly disappointed.
Sports is not a good analogy. That's a wide range of activities that exercise different muscles, and at different rates. Moore does bring up a good point, and it *is* something to worry about.
Here's something to try at home or wherever you are. Lift your arms straight in front of you. You don't even need to hold anything in them. Keep them outstretched. How long do you think you can keep them there, carrying nothing? You may be surprised how fast you get tired (generally in only a few minutes). This was a "neat trick" I learned when I was doing martial arts. Heck, even your uber football player may have problems with this, especially if their arms are really bulked up with muscles.
Granted, when you play the Wii-mote, your arms generally won't be outstretched like that for very long. Hopefully with most games, they can stay mostly near your body. But it still might be something to be concerned about. That's frankly one of my main concerns for the console, and one of the first things I'll watch for when I pick up the Wii.
All the Sony fanbois who seem to think that the PS3 is magically so much more powerful than the 360, are going to be greatly depressed. First of all, I doubt Bethesda is going to change the game assets all that much, so it is going to be a straight port, and look just like one. However, your casual gamer is not going to realize this, and when he sees that Oblivion for the PS3 looks pretty much like the one for the 360 (maybe a liiittle better, but certainly not "$100-200 more" better), it's going to kill a lot of the technical-superiority momentum Sony and its fanbois are trying to drive.
Actually, you can see the same thing now with Assassin's Creed, another multiplatform game coming out for both systems. The game looks much the same between the PS3 and 360. I would imagine and hope that the PS3 version is a *bit* better looking, the same way Xbox titles had a slight edge over PS2 multiplatform games, simply because that console had a full year longer to mature than the 360. But we'll only able to tell when the PS3 finally ships and its in people's homes.
Now, I don't think the PS3 is a bad system simply because it's not two times better than a 360. What I'm bashing is the unrealistic hype Sony fanbois have been trying to build up. (The same way Nintendo fanbois have been unrealistically hyping the Wii) I will likely own all three consoles, and I'd like to judge for myself the strengths and weaknesses of each. If anything, the stupid "PS3 is that much better than a 360!" hype is going to hurt Sony more than it helps, since it'll appear to be yet another Sony un-truth to gamers, once they see the games/systems for themselves.
I imagine backwards-compatibility is going to become less and less important as time goes on. IMHO, BC has always been one of those bullet point features for systems, that's rarely utilized by most gamers. Obviously, it's most important when the console first launches, when you've got a number of slightly-older titles that you still want to check out. But as time goes on, many of those slightly-older titles will end up being ones on the next-gen system anyway. And it's rather rare to want to play a REALLY old title.
Of course, there are exceptions. But in those times, gamers usually have the original system anyway, and can just re-hook it up. Or there's also the emulator-route. And with Xbox Live Arcade and the Wii Virtual Console, lazy gamers can play the really old titles on their new machines anyway (with some potentially added features, like multiplayer and achievement tracking).
Personally, I would have been fine if Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo didn't focus at all on backwards compatibility, especially if it meant reducing the cost of the system, or adding some other extra feature that I might actually leverage. I know there ARE some people that are big on playing the same X game on every version of a console, but I would imagine that's a pretty small percentage of the total audience.
I think everyone "gets" what the issue is. No is technically being "forced to buy" a PS3, since obviously they can choose to just not buy it, or get a 360 or Wii instead. But many gamers feel like they are "forced to buy" a PS3, since it's the only way to play several games that are PS3-exclusive.
... is rather subjective, and quite cloudy. I doubt anyone here can truly know if the PS3 could have been developed without Blu-ray, unless they happened to work in Sony. There's certainly SOME doubt, since there are comparable next-gen consoles that appear to do just fine without requiring a high-def DVD drive for games. But then again, the PS3 hasn't shipped yet, and who knows, maybe we'll all be clamoring for Blu-ray and HD-DVD games next year (although that does seem rather doubtful).
...
"Forced to buy" arguably isn't the right term to use, but it is often used that way in the vernacular. So the grammar police should cut these folks some slack.
And finally, the argument that Blu-ray is an essential part of the system, and that it's pointless to argue about "being forced to buy this feature"
So in the end, it seems like if you favor Sony, you're going to take one side of the argument. If you favor MS, or at the very least are anti-Sony, then you'll take the other. So, agree to disagree, and let's move onto something else
Every industry, be in TV or movies or games, takes advantage of good franchises. The most obvious examples (especially for us geeks) are Star Wars and Star Trek. Numerous TV shows have had spinoffs, some made into movies, and vice versa.
The games industry is definately no stranger to this. Nintendo is arguably the first to do this (or at least do it well). There are Mario Bros. characters in all sorts of genres: platformer, sports, puzzle, RPG, and even rhythm (Mario DDR for the GameCube). You've also got Square-Enix with the very strong Final Fantasy franchise, which has found itself in all sorts of different platforms (mobile, portables, various consoles) and genres (traditional RPG, MMO, and even action).
Why bother? No, it's not terribly original or creative, but people eat it up (myself included). If you happen to be a fan of that franchise, you often WANT to see more of it. And you'll gladly pay money for it. The exception is when developers and producers start stretching the franchise too thin, or just do a bad job representing it. Star Trek is a great example of this, where lots of fans balked at the recent TV series and numerous bad Star Trek games. We'll see if this is the case with Halo, but obviously it's still too early to tell. (At least play the games first!)
So, the fact that Halo is becoming the uber first-party franchise for MS is no surprise. It's exactly what they want and needed out of that IP. And, frankly, it's what a lot of fans want. It's hard to argue against that.
There is actually quite a bit of story in Halo and Halo 2, and certainly more than your typical FPS. There's enough in the "Halo universe" to spawn a few books as well, not to mention the Halo movie that Peter Jackson is working on.
I'm not a Bungie cultist myself (although I have a friend that works there), but I think there is definately enough to like in the Halo universe, if you're a general sci-fi fan like I am. And if you don't, there's nothing wrong with avoiding what you don't like.
As for people yelling at MS to be more original, and to stop milking the franchise for all it's worth, you can easily say the same for Nintendo's games. How many Zelda, Metroid, and Mario games have there been? And how many of them have been good? Plenty. Franchises != the suck.
I agree. Blue Dragon will probably be a nice "consolation prize" for those in Japan who aren't lucky enough to snap up one of the few PS3s being released for that region. And if the game is good enough, they just might forget about Sony altogether, at least until FFXIII comes out (which won't be for another year, at least).
I was surprised by how many J-RPGs are being released for the 360. Sure, many of them may end up being rather mediocre, but that's certainly more than 0. (And Japan has its fair share of mediocre RPGs to begin with) All it takes is for one mega-hit to bring in the masses. If I had to guess, MS is banking on Blue Dragon to be Japan's "Halo" game.
From what I've heard, Blue Dragon was advertised everywhere around TGS. I think they were handing out shopping bags with the logo, which people would use to carry other TGS swag, and provide ample advertising while doing so. I think there was some handouts taking place on subways and such as well.
... that they'll naturally seek out the other title they're releasing for the 360.
But yeah, it looks like Lost Odyssey didn't get too much love for some reason. My guess is that Mistwalker/MS wants to put all their eggs in one basket, promote Blue Dragon (especially since it'll be a pack-in game for the 360 core version), and once people realize that Mistwalker Studios is for real
I'm not a marketer, so I don't know how smart of a tactic that actually is, but that's my 2 cents. We'll see in a few months how well it worked.
Ehh, I'd be wary of getting any type of advice from Sony fanbois.
Really, framerate issues should be tied to the game, not the console. It's not the console's fault if developers write bad/unoptimized code, or are just stressing the console past its limits (whatever that may be). Comparing two different games on two platforms is certainly not "apples to apples".
A better way to do actual console comparison is to take a multiplatform game and compare it on both. You also have to make sure the game was developed at roughly the same stage. 2nd generation 360 titles will often do better than 1st generation PS3 ones (of course there will be exceptions, as there always ARE exceptions).
Honestly, despite all the FUD flying about (from BOTH parties), I don't think gamers are really going to get a feel for how much more powerful one system is over another, until a few years from now. And with multiplatform development generally leveling the playing field, it may be moot altogether.
Of course, better graphics does not necessarily make a better game. But I'll leave it to the Wii-fanbois to explain that one.
First of all, I agree that no matter what the Slashdot and extreme-gamer crowd think, Sony is still going to do awfully well this console generation. I am by no means a Sony fanboi either when I say this.
That said, you talk about their "Live-like service", but it's a bit disconcerting that we haven't heard much more about this. I think a lot of gamers were hoping to hear more about this mythical service, aside from some shaky-cam videos and screenshots, in a more official setting. TGS would have been it. If it weren't for the Japanese PS3 Core price-drop, and the inclusion of HDMI in all models, the lack of online-service details might have been the talk of the town/blogosphere.
I agree. The concept of the virtual console just begs for low-cost development of more casual games, which is precisely the crowd Nintendo is going for. Alas, I don't think they've announced anything like that yet, focusing more on the retro titles that many fans are looking for first (old NES, SNES, N64 games). But I can't imagine why Nintendo WOULDN'T want to open it up. Besides, I believe Sony is doing the same thing with their online network, so it'd be yet another thing Nintendo is "left out" of (and arguably, something they should be driving in full force to begin with).
However, I highly doubt it would be a free devkit. Come on, this is Nintendo we're talking about. Just Google around
IMHO, one of Nintendo's biggest pressures (and arguably their largest problem too), will be the hype generated by all the Nintendo fanbois. They are hyping the Wii as if it's the biggest thing EVER for gaming. All you need to do is read the buzz being generated here and on all sorts of gaming forums. There's a lot of "Nintendo can do no wrong" sentiment, which is very, very dangerous.
I want the Wii to succeed, but I don't like to be told by fanbois that it will (or "wii-ll") succeed, without them or myself even having tried out the console ourselves. I still have a lot of doubts, such as how sensitive the control will be, whether or not I'll get tired after a period of time, how long it takes me to adjust to, and more importantly, just how much "more fun" Wii games are, versus titles on other platforms.
I think it's healthy to be skeptical, but it seems like everyone brings up these valid points, a Nintendo fanboi shoots them down, saying that it's not going to be a problem, bashing all the other consoles, and claiming that Nintendo games have a monopoly on fun games. Puh-lease! This is starting a very dangerous precedent.
Don't get me wrong, I like what Nintendo is doing with the Wii, and I will get one this year. But you Nintendo fanbois need to back down a bit and let people have their doubts. Like or not, we're all going to get the real story once the dang thing ships.
I guess I haven't been clear enough in my last few posts: games can't be region locked if the console isn't. So yes, the console is region locked.
If the console WEREN'T region locked, then games wouldn't know which region the system they were playing on. Well, the game could determine that through whatever region/language/etc. the USER selected, but that's definately not strong enough, as the user could simply change that at will in the system settings. Region locking the hardware means that as the console itself is manufactured, some switch is hardcoded to tie that console to the region. That's why you usually have to get a console modded to override it.
Actually, it is confusing because you, yourself, don't appear to understand the whole issue.
It's rare to have everything region-locked. Each developer can CHOOSE whether or not the game enforces it. For example, even though the 360 is not region-free, the developer of Enchanted Arms decided not to region lock that game. Others developers could follow suit, although many will take advantage of region locking. As I mentioned, Nintendo may decide not to region-lock its particular games, which would be cool
When people talk about region locks in consoles, that's what they're referring to. Whether or not a developer chooses to region lock their game (assuming the console supports it), isn't nearly as interesting. That's the confusing part I was referring to.
Anyways, I agree that it's unfair for Nintendo to be slammed for just something their rep said (although she IS a VP). But it's the fanboism that just irks me.
As I pointed out already, I think it's really the Nintendo fanbois that are clueless. It seems pretty clear to me and the media, that the Wii is not region-free. And I doubt NoJ is going want to send a clear announcement that their US branch messed up, but I think they may have to "thanks" to the confusion of their hardcore fan-base.
Also, remember that the whole concept of region-locking is fairly confusing to begin with. Most consumers don't really understand why it's done in the first place. So for many gamers, it would just be an extra bullet point on the back of the box that they never use. They won't miss not having it. It would have been FAR better for Nintendo to just not announce it in the first place.
Well, that's a fanboism statement if I've ever heard one. No, that's what you WANT to happen.
It's already been a day since the news broke that the Wii is NOT region-free. Even though it's the weekend, if it were true that Nintendo EU was incorrect, don't you think we would have heard otherwise by now? Puh-lease.
And before anyone accuses me of being anti-Nintendo, I *want* the Wii to succeed, and am also a fan of Nintendo's products. But I don't tie myself to one console either, and I try to be realistic about the things that I read about. I swear, it's the Nintendo fanbois that are going to be the downfall of the Wii. There's been so much hype about the controller everything else about the Wii, that there's the very real danger of disappointment when the system finally gets into people's homes. Let people judge the facts for themselves. Coming up with excuses or denying bad news like this may ultimate hurt Nintendo more than it helps.
No. Nintendo is a large enough entity that they can afford doing their own customer surveys, polling, studies, etc. rather than "testing the public" through mistakes in their press conferences. You would also do such investigation MUCH earlier, and not 2 months before ship. (And remember, Wii is already in manufacturing already) Whether or not you allow region-locking has far more implications on the business-side, and we should all know how long it can take for legal and business departments (between Nintendo and 3rd party developers) to work things out and agree on something.
And as someone else mentioned, the "customer responses" are not useful. You would only be polling the hardcore fanbase that actually pays attentions to these press conferences. The bulk of their sales (especially considering Nintendo is going after the more mainstream crowd), will come from people that probably don't even know what region-locking is, and would not understand why anyone in their right mind would import a game that's not in their language.
Oh come on. Now, I know fanbois generally have the habit of accepting any good rumors and denying any bad news, but you're just being silly. It's not like this was a rumor from the "Interweb", but something that's been confirmed several times (see the links in the original story). Here's in all likelihood what happened:
1) VP of Marketing at US conference announces that Wii is not region locked for some reason (probably some a mistake/confusion on their part)
2) Nintendo freaks out and realizes the mistake
3) However, Nintendo is not about to put out a major press release or bring out Iwata to say, "Oh we ARE region locked"
4) So, Nintendo tactfully announces the bad news in the UK conference, and clarifies to the media the mistake that was made
Those fanbois who think that "Oh, it didn't come from NOJ, so it must not be true!" are doing EXACTLY what Nintendo intended (either purposely or as a "convenient side-effect") to do, which was build enough doubt that its most ardent supporters will still think that it's region-free, while not outright lying to the media.
Now, I imagine what some of the confusion might stem from is that first-party titles are not region-locked, so there might be some truth to what the VP of Marketing said, but it certainly isn't what most fans really wanted (which was no region-locking functionality in the hardware at all, preventing 3rd parties from using it).
That said, I'm not blaming or looking down on Nintendo for not being able to make the Wii region-free. I happen to know how difficult it is to do this, from a business standpoint, although it obviously sucks for consumers. I applaud Nintendo for at least having its portables being region-free. And it is unfortunate that they screwed up the announcement in the first place, but mistakes happen.
What I just can't stand is "fanboism", which results in gamers like you that are willing to be misled so easily. Let's be realistic here.
I like the idea of an cartoony, silly FPS that's customizable, but that's something that can be done on any platform. There are lots of games that let you personalize your profile (which may include avatar functionality). The only difference is that the Mii is across the platform, so you could go from one silly FPS to another and not have to re-input settings. But that in itself, doesn't seem like a big deal to me. You have to especially consider that you may WANT to look different in one game over another (fantasy vs. sci-fi avatar).
I'm still not convinced that the Mii channel is all that great. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's more analagous to the gamer pictures from Xbox Live, but with several pros and cons.
Pros: Can be used in games, very customizable, and it appears you can have multiple "Mii" avatars per person
Cons: Not all games may use it, may be somewhat limiting (only human models?), could have the problem of everyone looking pretty much the same
The nice thing about the gamer pictures is that there's really a wide variety of images to choose from. It's easy to show which happens to be your favorite game of the moment (or in my case, I have my college's logo right now). I'm guessing you'll eventually be able to do something similar with the Mii avatar (different clothing perhaps? maybe different models?), but you'll still be limited to something that has to be an avatar.
As for being able to use the avatar in games, it just sounds too gimmicky for me. I'd only see use for it in multiplayer party or sports games. Who would want to use their avatar in a RPG or FPS? I think Nintendo *wants* it to be for mainly casual use, which makes sense, but that limits what you can do with it. There's also the problem that many avatars may look pretty similar (especially in Japan!). However, that's easily fixed by releasing more customizable options (clothing, etc.).
I do agree that compared to all the other channels, the Mii is the most likely to succeed, but I just don't see it being a huge star or anything. I'm still going to want the Wii for the games.
I don't know, the functionality just seems overrated to me. I agree the interface looks cool and obviously very intuitive, but the channels themselves? Here's my cynical view:
Mii Channel: Avatars themselves are nothing new. I happened to just discover Yahoo! Avatars the other day, as you mentioned. Neat, but I wouldn't say they're taking the world by storm. This *could* be pretty big with the female audience (main demographic of Sims users), but you'd have to convince developers to use these avatars everywhere in their game.
I guess in a way, these avatars are just Nintendo's way of competing with the gamer pics on the 360. Same concept, only taken to the next level. But it's only a nice accessory, the same way customizable gamer pics are on the 360. Cool, but not OMGWTFAWESOME cool. (And it's yet TBD what the PS3 will have)
Wii Weather & News: But we've done the AOL-like portal on the TV, many times, and it's never been a huge success. For example, my cable box has this exact same feature, although obviously the look & feel and the interface is different. I guess if it's super-customizable, that might be a benefit, but I don't think Nintendo should be in the business of building something like that.
I think the main reason why News/Weather portals have never really taken off on the TV, is because most people are already set on getting news and information their own way. Many people (like myself), will continue to use the Internet to get our fix. Other folks read the newspaper, or listen to the radio, or catch the news from TV stations. I can't imagine the Wii news as being compelling enough to want to change my daily routine, *just* so I can catch it on my new console.
That said, I can understand why Nintendo did what they did with the channels. It's just more "me too" features to compete with the functionality that the 360 and PS3 provide (or will provide). They're by no means system sellers, but icing on the cake, and extra bullet points on the box
Note, I am biased (see my profile), but I will be buying a Wii this year. However it'll be for the games and not because of Wii channels.