It is stilly because it cripples the online experience a lot without a good reason. Nothing wrong with Nintendo doing some child-protection, but then please do so without pissing of all the older gamers around. Online play on DS for me is pretty uninteresting, because its really no different then playing against some intelligent bots, better then nothing, but lightyears behind of what true online gaming is all about.
Why is it distressing? The Gamecube managed quite well without any online to speak of, and it didn't have the luxery of Sony constantly shooting itself in the foot.
Well, third place in a race of three, not very exciting. The reason why no Third Party online is important, is because it shows that Nintendo still has a problem with Third Party developers and in the end that is the only thing that will decide if a console is successfull or not. Nintendo can do the greatest Marios and Zeldas of all times, but unless there is also a GTA and a MetalGear it simply won't matter.
Yep, it didn't stop them, but it probally stopped quite a few others. Not everybody has the time and resources to make binary drivers that actually work well, even with Nvidia it took quite a while till the whole package actually worked as flawlessly as it does now. And if something wouldn't work flawlessly, its simply to much of a risk to even try due to support costs. Last not least the benefit with stable ABI doesn't stop at proprietary drivers, for OpenSource ones it would be equally usefull, especially for new hardware it can be quite a pain to get stuff compiled. If things are integrated into the main kernel most problems go away, but that can often take quite a few months till after the release of a first working OpenSource driver for a piece of hardware.
BTW, the NVidia and Atheros drivers are a perfect example of the sort of short-term compromises ESR is saying we should make.
Not really, ESR goes far bejoint that, he wants to *pay* Apple and friends so that we are allowed to use their codecs, not even OpenSource them, just allowed to use them. Which is really quite stupid, since codecs are already not much an issue. Mplayer/w32codec works under Linux, they work better then anything of the legal tools you can get for Windows, and so does the iPod and basically most other USB/Firewire drivern gadgets. There of course is still a lack of OpenSource software that is easy to use in combination with those devices, but there isn't really much of a need for proprietary software. It really looks like ESR wants to bring the whole DRM hell to Linux, which really is completly inacceptable.
Only reason I can think of is because he was 'here' in the open source/free software community since its very beginning, at a point in time where a lot of regular slashdotters probally wheren't even born, but beside from that there is really nothing of large importance of what ESR has done, lots of talk and writing, but not much else.
I mean no amount of bitching at LKML will make Broadcom opensource their drivers.
How about Linux providing a stable ABI for kernel drivers? It wouldn't help open source drivers, but it would help to actually get drivers. I don't blame the hardware developers for not doing Linux drivers, since Linux is trying everything it can do make it hard to impossible for them to actually provide some.
That of course doesn't mean that I don't want open source drivers, but I would like to decide myself if a proprietary driver is worth the effort or not, and not kernel people doing that decision for me by avoiding a stable ABI.
If Windows is capable of doing these things, and Linux isn't, then the average user is going to assume that Linux is crippled in that regard.
Have you ever tried to watch a video under Windows? Its a *huge* pain to get Windows to play Videos with codecs that are even a little bit "exotic", heck, I can't even watch a plain DVD with standard Windows tools thanks to MPAA and friends. Similar issues under MacOSX, fullscreen in Quicktime? You have to spend some more money on QTplus or professional or whatever it is called since standard player doesn't provide that, what the heck?
With installing Software it is a similar pain, we have come to a point where installing software intentianally destroys or cripples your OS, even your hardware (Starforce, WGA,...).
Windows is at a point where its borderline unusable, the only reason why most people don't realize it is because the distributors always add a ton of extra tools and stuff that adds some basic functionally back and because everybody spends a lot of time to work around all those issues.
And now that Windows is pretty much ruined you expect the Linux community to join forces with those bastards and cripple Linux as well? Sorry, not with me. I like the current state of Linux. Sure, getting w32codecs up and running can be a bit of a pain depending on the distribution, but after that basically everything in terms of video just works, oh, and my players can do fullscreen as well. I also like that installing software does not intentionally try to destroy my OS.
That doesn't mean that Linux is flawless, there are still tons of little things that should be improved, but its a lot more enjoyable to work with then anything proprietary and the only way to stay that, is to stay clear of any intentional crippling due to licenses, patents and friends. If that sometimes means to go against the law or at least into gray areas, so be it, make it clear to the user, don't force it on the user, however allow it do be done easily. If things should change civil disobedience is a good start, joining with the enemy however really isn't.
I think the core problem with the idea is psychological and has little to do with the actual money you spend. The problem here is that the classic videogame logic gets turned upside down, if I am good and advance in a game I want a reward, be it another level, cutscene or the credits at the end of the game. Now however the 'reward' is to spend another 10 dollars, not exactly what we were used to.
It of course depends a lot on the timing, ie. is the basic game in itself complete and enjoyable and the $10 extra stuff is really extra stuff or will I get half a game for $15 that will abruptly stop at the climax and basically force me to pay $10 to know how it ended? With the first choice I might welcome the extra content, while with the second one I might get really pissed of with them selling me only half a game.
In the end it depends how this 'feature' is actually used in games, it could be used for good as well as for quite annoying things, especially when it is not made clear from the beginning for you get and what you don't get for the first $15 you spend.
That's the sort of thing I was talking about - real 1:1 action/reaction with the controller, without the need for complex real-world physics.
Yep, that sounds exactly like the thing I want to have, even without all the dynamic animation stuff that would at least be a step in the right direction. Wiimote really needs to map 1:1 into the game, else a lot of the intuitiveness could be lost. ProjectHammer for example looks like it has a quite large delay between swinging the Wiimote and actually swinging the Hammer in the game, most likly because time is wasted to detect the Wiimote stroke and then again to launch the apropriat pregenerated action, so the game always lacks behind your actions. A real 1:1 mapping from Wiimote to Hammer could of course reduce the delay to pretty much zero.
Whether that will come to fruition versus their generic gesturing system, we can only hope. I seriously doubt it was a CPU issue though.
Its also a development issue. LucasArts Euphoria is still rather new and beside some tech demos we havn't seen anything actually using it and the first game to release using it won't be available for quite a few month, maybe a year or more. No idea if other developers have even started implementing similar stuff. So yep, its more then just lack of CPU, but I also doubt that you can do that stuff without quite a bit of free CPU, since it goes bejoint just the classic box-physics and contains beside the character behaviour stuff like realistically breaking wood and other materials (it will splinter and break exactly where you hit it).
Are "sidestepping" the direct control issue and "solving" it really mutually exclusive?
I would say so, that of course doesn't stop the Wii from being successfull or the games from being good, but it would rule out quite a few interesting gameplay ideas or at least cut their potential down quite a bit. In the end its of course the gameplay that matters, not the physics engine, but physics engine can play a larger part of the game experince and especially with Euphoria it really looks like it could provide 'nextgen gameplay'. Ok, that is LucasArts marketing speech, but the improvments are similar like the jump from prerendered-3D to realtime-3D, not really obvious at first, but they may change the way games are done quite fundamentally. Ironically of course the XBox360 lacks the controller to really make full use of Euphoria and if the PS3s motion detection is actually up to the task we will see. Will probally take a while till we actually see the true nextgen games, so far, almost everything, no matter what console, is still pretty much the same as the last gen and developers, as always, need to actually figure out what to do with all the new power and controls.
For example, Project HAMMER looks like it does a lot of what you're talking about,
Project Hammer actually looks like a regual current generation hack&slay game, it doesn't seem to make all that much use of the Wiimote, you juggle around a bit here and there with the Wiimote, but all stuff gets translated into generic standard actions, at least as far as I can tell from the few videos that are around from the game.
SuperMarioGalaxy doesn't look different either, juggling the controller lets Mario spin and beside from that you can click around on the screen with a mouse-pointer that you control with the Wiimote.
I am thinking more about the games that actually allow you to directly control your weapon, ie. Red Steel as a lot of people imagined it and how it not turned out to be (no real sword swinging in that game so far, just generic actions that have little todo with your actual movements). Now ResidentEvil4 looks of course nice, but its really more sidestepping the issue then solving it. The core issue is simply that direct control would require more sophisticated physical simulation on the game site, one can of course 'solve' that by not allowing direct control in the first place, which all games so far seem to do, but it really means that the Wii would fall flat of what a lot of people expect it to be. Time will tell how it really turns out.
2 - We've seen in-game videos and they certainly look good enough for me
This is not about look, but about "feel". Sure a Wii game can look good, the question however is will it behave realistically, ie. will there be physic simulation to handle your Wiimote sword swings and such? No matter how good the graphics are, if the feedback you get from the game world is nothing more then a pre-scripted animation all you Wiimote sword swings will be basically useless, since they don't influence the world in an indivulial way.
Its true that Nintendo hasn't released any final specs, however so far there is nothing even hinting that it will come anywhere near XBox360 or PS3, neither in GPU or CPU power. And the demonstrated Wii games so far arn't exactly impressive either Mario, Zelda and Metroid look a bit better then on the Cube, but not really that much better, so Wii speed will be better then Gamecube, but not that much better, especially since Wii games already should be a lot more optimized then XBox360 or PS3 games due to the familiar single-processor architecture of the Wii vs the multi core architecture of the others.
It's a software problem, not a device problem - the devices are all there - sound output in the Wiimote, rumble in the Wiimote, sound output on screen, visual feedback on screen.
Yep, the controller in theory has everything that would be needed, at least I hope, still not sure if its really full 3D or just close to it, there is something optical involved that might require you to point it to the sensor-bar to fully function. Anyway, the reason why probally nobody has tried it is most likly because its simply so different from how games are done these days. Full realistic sword fight would require dynamic animation, not just on the side of the hero, but also from the enemy. If you hit an enemy you want a realstic reaction, not just cheap rag-doll stuff, but something that also works when the enemy just got hurt and not just when he drops dead. And of course you might want to have an environment that actually reacts in an equally realistic manner, something which a good physic engine could do, which is something I haven't really seen so far on a Nintendo system. There is of course also an issue with CPU power, even if you could write all the software to do all the physic and body simulation, would the Wii be fast enough to actually calculate it?
The Wii will certainly allow some new games, but I think expecting realstic sword fighting could lead to some huge disapointments down the line. I think where the Wiimote will work much better, especially in the beginning, is in the little things, like opening a door with your own hand, not just an generic open-animation or picking up of items in an equally non-automated way.
My technical question is: exactly how are they going to deal with sword resistance
The answer is quite simple: they don't. So far no games allows you to swing a sword in a remotly realistic manner, its all just predefined attacks mapped to strokes from the Wiimote. So since you never actually control the sword, there is no reason to handle resistance in the first place.
If there actually will come realistic sword games we will see, but so far most discussion on that subject is more about dream than about what the Wii will actually provide.
"Plotline" is a bit kind. Shoot aliens, rescue some guy, protect some guys, rescue the same guy again, shoot different aliens
Hey, you forget the part where that guy died in the end and all that rescueing turned out to be pointless.
But yeah, the story of Halo is really nothing to be proud of, it was for most part simply pointless, nothing ever had meaning, since the next mission would basically cancel out everything you did down to the point that the last mission takes places right at the same point where you started.
A game with Halo's scenario and an actual plot and some more gameplay freedom inbetween could actually a lot of fun, but just shooting aliens over and over again just tends to not be so much fun any more, to much been there done that, even when the scenerio itself is nice.
Even if it's a particularly nice-looking GC game, I'd hate to think it was held back by the requirement to run on the GC.
I would expect some sharper textures, maybe some more effects here and there, but nothing too big, the Wii is after all not that far away from the GC in terms of power, so even with fully using its power, it can't do miracles. From what I have seen of Zelda it is at the moment however actually the best looking Wii game, so I wouldn't fear the visuals to much.
Controls on the other side could turn into a big issue, Wii launch is not that far away and Nintendo still doesn't seem to have fully figured out what to actually use the Wiimote for, a little gymicky here a little gymicky there, but nothing fully convincing. Especially since it looks like the Wii version will not allow Gamecube controls it could get really ugly, imagine the best launch title ruined by the Wii controller, that wouldn't create good press.
Nope, you are not alone, I am not much a big Halo fan either. Especially the Flood levels where just boring and repeating over and over and over again, Library of course too. There was also a bit running around in circles to find out how to continue, but I didn't found that much worse then most other games. My main problem with Halo was however the story, it was just so very damn pointless, run around in circles for a few hours till everybody of your comrades is killed just to then return to where you started and blow your own ship up, well great, so why again did I play this game? The last level was also extremly annoying, actually one of the worst I have ever seen, not sure if there actually is a way to drive around that track in anything remotly fluid, but I certainly didn't manage to and it turned into a try&error where the outcome was more luck then anything, certainly wasn't fun.
Art direction of Halo on the other side was quite good, the large bright outdoor environments are certainly a lovly change compared to all those games that try to be all dark and ugly. Enemys tend to look a bit to much like Muppets here and there, but that aside they looked nice and colorfull stuff. Vehicles and transporters also looked great.
Can't say anything about multiplayer, but the singleplayer mode didn't hold up to my expectations, it wasn't the worst I have seen, but neither was it anything I would bother to play again, never touched Halo2.
My guess would be that it launches the game directly, like the PSP, since you can after all quit the game at any time to go back to the menu without reboot, there isn't really much reason to not do so.
Java and C# will never be suitable for production, real-time 3D games because of their asynchronous garbage collection and runtime argument verification.
Microsoft thinks different and provides XNA. Now I don't expect the next Doom or Halo3 to use Java or C#, but for a lot of games its really a non-issue these days, computers are fast enough and the most grunt work is done by the GPU anyway, which doesn't care if the rest of the programm is written in Java or C# or hand optimized assembler. There is of course still a speed benefit of C++, but its getting smaller and smaller and its certainly at a point where the success of a game will no longer depend on it.
As demonstrated by games such as Goldeneye, you need to use the D-pad and stick to both move and look at the same time. While this doesn't represent most games, Goldeneye is part of a genre popular enough to make this significant.
Can it be that you are trying to play Goldeneye on a PC on a N64 emulator? If so, then please fix your key mappings, since that game does *not* require such a braindamaged control setup, moving happens with analog stick, looking around with the C-buttons with strafing/turning swaped compared to say Halo if I remember correctly. As far as I remember the game (PerfectDark at least could, assume that Goldeneye offered similar stuff) could also be configured to allow the use of two controllers, thus two analog sticks, a little configuration should thus give a control that gives you walking on one analogstick and lookaround on the other.
This seems to be really an issue of trying to play a game with a device it wasn't created for and a key mapping that is plain awefull, this has really nothing todo with todays controllers.
I'm sorry what world do you live in..? D-pads and sticks very rarely have to be used together, so we just moved our thumbs from the D-pad to the left stick and TA DAR problem solved.
ACK, I have yet to see a single game that actually requires you to use buttons/dpad and analog stick at once. Every once in a while I use both at once, ie. switch weapons while running, but then I use my right-thumb for the Dpad not the left index finger (ok, XBox/Gamecube-style layout helps here of course, PS2-like not so much) and that isn't because its required by the game, but simply because its easy to do and doesn't require to stop walking.
Anyway, since he is refereing to a Cyborg P2500 he is most likly refering to PC based gaming and yeah, gamepads can be a bitch there, since default controls almost never work well and games often don't even come with a proper way to remap keys, so joy2key and other configuration tools are needed to workaround that. Can take quite a while to end up with a satisfing configuration, on consoles on the other side its a non-issue, only PSP might have some throuble due to lack of second analog stick.
Many people were predicting that after a while most games wouldn't bother with touch controls and that we would end up with an overclocked GBA.
And in the end thats also kind of what happened, there are still tons of games around (NSMB, Mario64, AdvanceWars, MarioKart, Castlevania, etc.) which make little or no use of the touchscreen. However the DS is successfull because those games are actually great and because those are not the only games available, there are also those games that do make use of the touchscreen and try to do different things (Nintedogs, BrainAge, etc.). Its that mix of different and good games that makes the DS into a good gaming device, not the touchscreen. The PSP on the other side suffers because it has pretty much no new games, most stuff are games that where already out a month or two earlier for PS2, its no wonder that PSP doesn't sell well if it has no new games to offer that you don't already know.
With the Wii we will see how it turns out, its the games that matter in the end and only the games. The controller might help with a few new ideas, but if it desn't work that well with the normal games, then Nintendo has a problem, since then they have the slowest console around and a controller that won't be used with many games.
Having two versions just lets Nintendo promote the Wii a little more by having a 'killer app' on it. Although why they couldn't stick both a GC disk and a Wii disk inside the same box and charge the price of a normal game is beyond me.
Aehm, that really wouldn't be a good idea. The Correct Solution[tm] would have been to simply allow the Wii version to be played with a Gamecube controller. Nobody expects that the smaller Gamecube disc will hold new textures and stuff, but I definitvly expect that Nintendo can manage to make the controller choosable on the Wii version, doing not so is just a really stupid move to get more focus on the Wiimote.
In the end we will see how it turns out and if the Wiimote actually controls better then standard controller, since when not it could turn out into a marketing neightmare. When Nintendo can't get the most important launch title to actually work better with the new controller, then with the old, it would basically mean that the new controller simply doesn't work and is a useless gymicky thing, not exactly a good start for a console that relies a lot on the new controller to actually work.
Give "Kirby's Canvas Curse" a look. Quite possibly the most revolutionary platformers since the genre went 3D.
Revolutionary platformer, yes, its certainly a new kind of game (even so there are some small parallels to Lemmings and other critter games), however I don't think its an especially good game, its boring and challangeless, I played through half the game and then simply gave up, because there was nothing to care about, no challange, no exciting levels, it all just feld way to passive and uninteresting.
The thing with innovation is that it doesn't gurantee that the result will actually be
fun, sometimes it will like in Katamary or SotC, but Kirby Canvas or Yoshi Touch, nope, wasn't much fun for me, after the 'new' feel was gone, there simply wasn't much of a solid game left. I prefer NewSuperMarioBros over Kirby any day, that said NewSuperMarioBros isn't a great game either by Nintendo standards, compared to SuperMarioBros3 or Yoshi Island it just can't hold up, to short, to easy, to unimaginative.
Now with MetroidPrimeHunters those controls where rather awefull, precise they were, but holding the NintendoDS in such a position for longer amounts of time was a total no-go. This was especially annoying because MetroidPrime(GCN) actually had controls that worked great on normal controllers. That said, the level design of MetroidPrimeHunters was among the worst I have seen in a while, one stupid, boring hunt-the-switch puzzle after another, that just wasn't fun at all, so since the game itself wasn't good, the contorls where actually not the main problem.
With Mario64 I tried the thumbstick quite a few times, but it is simply a lot less presise then the good old Dpad, for one because the virtual-thumbstick has the annoyancy to drift away, so if you have to push forward for a while you run into the edge of the screen and have to reset, extremly annoying, but also the virtual thumbstick doesn't exactly lay in an easy to reach position, stretching thumb out that far is no good for longer amounts of play. I gave up and used the Dpad and had lots and lots of fun with Mario64, my favorite DS game so far. That said, the touchscreen was actually very usefull in that game, not because of the virtual thumbstick, but because of map and camera control.
So while the touch screen can actually be helpfull for map and inventory, as a main control device it so far wasn't really all that good, it allowed some new kinds of games (TraceMemory, TraumaCenter,...), but for many games the classic controls still worked a lot better. I don't think it will be much different with the Wii. In the end it are however the games that matter, control is important, but I don't buy a console for the controller, I buy it for the games, if those aren't good no controller in the world can fix that. Which is why I consider the Wii to be still quite a bit away from winning this generation.
Slashdot Mirror
It is stilly because it cripples the online experience a lot without a good reason. Nothing wrong with Nintendo doing some child-protection, but then please do so without pissing of all the older gamers around. Online play on DS for me is pretty uninteresting, because its really no different then playing against some intelligent bots, better then nothing, but lightyears behind of what true online gaming is all about.
Well, third place in a race of three, not very exciting. The reason why no Third Party online is important, is because it shows that Nintendo still has a problem with Third Party developers and in the end that is the only thing that will decide if a console is successfull or not. Nintendo can do the greatest Marios and Zeldas of all times, but unless there is also a GTA and a MetalGear it simply won't matter.
Yep, it didn't stop them, but it probally stopped quite a few others. Not everybody has the time and resources to make binary drivers that actually work well, even with Nvidia it took quite a while till the whole package actually worked as flawlessly as it does now. And if something wouldn't work flawlessly, its simply to much of a risk to even try due to support costs. Last not least the benefit with stable ABI doesn't stop at proprietary drivers, for OpenSource ones it would be equally usefull, especially for new hardware it can be quite a pain to get stuff compiled. If things are integrated into the main kernel most problems go away, but that can often take quite a few months till after the release of a first working OpenSource driver for a piece of hardware.
Not really, ESR goes far bejoint that, he wants to *pay* Apple and friends so that we are allowed to use their codecs, not even OpenSource them, just allowed to use them. Which is really quite stupid, since codecs are already not much an issue. Mplayer/w32codec works under Linux, they work better then anything of the legal tools you can get for Windows, and so does the iPod and basically most other USB/Firewire drivern gadgets. There of course is still a lack of OpenSource software that is easy to use in combination with those devices, but there isn't really much of a need for proprietary software. It really looks like ESR wants to bring the whole DRM hell to Linux, which really is completly inacceptable.
Only reason I can think of is because he was 'here' in the open source/free software community since its very beginning, at a point in time where a lot of regular slashdotters probally wheren't even born, but beside from that there is really nothing of large importance of what ESR has done, lots of talk and writing, but not much else.
How about Linux providing a stable ABI for kernel drivers? It wouldn't help open source drivers, but it would help to actually get drivers. I don't blame the hardware developers for not doing Linux drivers, since Linux is trying everything it can do make it hard to impossible for them to actually provide some.
That of course doesn't mean that I don't want open source drivers, but I would like to decide myself if a proprietary driver is worth the effort or not, and not kernel people doing that decision for me by avoiding a stable ABI.
Have you ever tried to watch a video under Windows? Its a *huge* pain to get Windows to play Videos with codecs that are even a little bit "exotic", heck, I can't even watch a plain DVD with standard Windows tools thanks to MPAA and friends. Similar issues under MacOSX, fullscreen in Quicktime? You have to spend some more money on QTplus or professional or whatever it is called since standard player doesn't provide that, what the heck?
With installing Software it is a similar pain, we have come to a point where installing software intentianally destroys or cripples your OS, even your hardware (Starforce, WGA, ...).
Windows is at a point where its borderline unusable, the only reason why most people don't realize it is because the distributors always add a ton of extra tools and stuff that adds some basic functionally back and because everybody spends a lot of time to work around all those issues.
And now that Windows is pretty much ruined you expect the Linux community to join forces with those bastards and cripple Linux as well? Sorry, not with me. I like the current state of Linux. Sure, getting w32codecs up and running can be a bit of a pain depending on the distribution, but after that basically everything in terms of video just works, oh, and my players can do fullscreen as well. I also like that installing software does not intentionally try to destroy my OS.
That doesn't mean that Linux is flawless, there are still tons of little things that should be improved, but its a lot more enjoyable to work with then anything proprietary and the only way to stay that, is to stay clear of any intentional crippling due to licenses, patents and friends. If that sometimes means to go against the law or at least into gray areas, so be it, make it clear to the user, don't force it on the user, however allow it do be done easily. If things should change civil disobedience is a good start, joining with the enemy however really isn't.
I think the core problem with the idea is psychological and has little to do with the actual money you spend. The problem here is that the classic videogame logic gets turned upside down, if I am good and advance in a game I want a reward, be it another level, cutscene or the credits at the end of the game. Now however the 'reward' is to spend another 10 dollars, not exactly what we were used to.
It of course depends a lot on the timing, ie. is the basic game in itself complete and enjoyable and the $10 extra stuff is really extra stuff or will I get half a game for $15 that will abruptly stop at the climax and basically force me to pay $10 to know how it ended? With the first choice I might welcome the extra content, while with the second one I might get really pissed of with them selling me only half a game.
In the end it depends how this 'feature' is actually used in games, it could be used for good as well as for quite annoying things, especially when it is not made clear from the beginning for you get and what you don't get for the first $15 you spend.
Yep, that sounds exactly like the thing I want to have, even without all the dynamic animation stuff that would at least be a step in the right direction. Wiimote really needs to map 1:1 into the game, else a lot of the intuitiveness could be lost. ProjectHammer for example looks like it has a quite large delay between swinging the Wiimote and actually swinging the Hammer in the game, most likly because time is wasted to detect the Wiimote stroke and then again to launch the apropriat pregenerated action, so the game always lacks behind your actions. A real 1:1 mapping from Wiimote to Hammer could of course reduce the delay to pretty much zero.
Its also a development issue. LucasArts Euphoria is still rather new and beside some tech demos we havn't seen anything actually using it and the first game to release using it won't be available for quite a few month, maybe a year or more. No idea if other developers have even started implementing similar stuff. So yep, its more then just lack of CPU, but I also doubt that you can do that stuff without quite a bit of free CPU, since it goes bejoint just the classic box-physics and contains beside the character behaviour stuff like realistically breaking wood and other materials (it will splinter and break exactly where you hit it).
I would say so, that of course doesn't stop the Wii from being successfull or the games from being good, but it would rule out quite a few interesting gameplay ideas or at least cut their potential down quite a bit. In the end its of course the gameplay that matters, not the physics engine, but physics engine can play a larger part of the game experince and especially with Euphoria it really looks like it could provide 'nextgen gameplay'. Ok, that is LucasArts marketing speech, but the improvments are similar like the jump from prerendered-3D to realtime-3D, not really obvious at first, but they may change the way games are done quite fundamentally. Ironically of course the XBox360 lacks the controller to really make full use of Euphoria and if the PS3s motion detection is actually up to the task we will see. Will probally take a while till we actually see the true nextgen games, so far, almost everything, no matter what console, is still pretty much the same as the last gen and developers, as always, need to actually figure out what to do with all the new power and controls.
Project Hammer actually looks like a regual current generation hack&slay game, it doesn't seem to make all that much use of the Wiimote, you juggle around a bit here and there with the Wiimote, but all stuff gets translated into generic standard actions, at least as far as I can tell from the few videos that are around from the game.
SuperMarioGalaxy doesn't look different either, juggling the controller lets Mario spin and beside from that you can click around on the screen with a mouse-pointer that you control with the Wiimote.
I am thinking more about the games that actually allow you to directly control your weapon, ie. Red Steel as a lot of people imagined it and how it not turned out to be (no real sword swinging in that game so far, just generic actions that have little todo with your actual movements). Now ResidentEvil4 looks of course nice, but its really more sidestepping the issue then solving it. The core issue is simply that direct control would require more sophisticated physical simulation on the game site, one can of course 'solve' that by not allowing direct control in the first place, which all games so far seem to do, but it really means that the Wii would fall flat of what a lot of people expect it to be. Time will tell how it really turns out.
This is not about look, but about "feel". Sure a Wii game can look good, the question however is will it behave realistically, ie. will there be physic simulation to handle your Wiimote sword swings and such? No matter how good the graphics are, if the feedback you get from the game world is nothing more then a pre-scripted animation all you Wiimote sword swings will be basically useless, since they don't influence the world in an indivulial way.
Its true that Nintendo hasn't released any final specs, however so far there is nothing even hinting that it will come anywhere near XBox360 or PS3, neither in GPU or CPU power. And the demonstrated Wii games so far arn't exactly impressive either Mario, Zelda and Metroid look a bit better then on the Cube, but not really that much better, so Wii speed will be better then Gamecube, but not that much better, especially since Wii games already should be a lot more optimized then XBox360 or PS3 games due to the familiar single-processor architecture of the Wii vs the multi core architecture of the others.
Lets not forget good old DarkForces or how about Outlaws? Story certainly was there long before Halo came around.
Yep, the controller in theory has everything that would be needed, at least I hope, still not sure if its really full 3D or just close to it, there is something optical involved that might require you to point it to the sensor-bar to fully function. Anyway, the reason why probally nobody has tried it is most likly because its simply so different from how games are done these days. Full realistic sword fight would require dynamic animation, not just on the side of the hero, but also from the enemy. If you hit an enemy you want a realstic reaction, not just cheap rag-doll stuff, but something that also works when the enemy just got hurt and not just when he drops dead. And of course you might want to have an environment that actually reacts in an equally realistic manner, something which a good physic engine could do, which is something I haven't really seen so far on a Nintendo system. There is of course also an issue with CPU power, even if you could write all the software to do all the physic and body simulation, would the Wii be fast enough to actually calculate it?
The Wii will certainly allow some new games, but I think expecting realstic sword fighting could lead to some huge disapointments down the line. I think where the Wiimote will work much better, especially in the beginning, is in the little things, like opening a door with your own hand, not just an generic open-animation or picking up of items in an equally non-automated way.
The answer is quite simple: they don't. So far no games allows you to swing a sword in a remotly realistic manner, its all just predefined attacks mapped to strokes from the Wiimote. So since you never actually control the sword, there is no reason to handle resistance in the first place.
If there actually will come realistic sword games we will see, but so far most discussion on that subject is more about dream than about what the Wii will actually provide.
Hey, you forget the part where that guy died in the end and all that rescueing turned out to be pointless.
But yeah, the story of Halo is really nothing to be proud of, it was for most part simply pointless, nothing ever had meaning, since the next mission would basically cancel out everything you did down to the point that the last mission takes places right at the same point where you started.
A game with Halo's scenario and an actual plot and some more gameplay freedom inbetween could actually a lot of fun, but just shooting aliens over and over again just tends to not be so much fun any more, to much been there done that, even when the scenerio itself is nice.
I would expect some sharper textures, maybe some more effects here and there, but nothing too big, the Wii is after all not that far away from the GC in terms of power, so even with fully using its power, it can't do miracles. From what I have seen of Zelda it is at the moment however actually the best looking Wii game, so I wouldn't fear the visuals to much.
Controls on the other side could turn into a big issue, Wii launch is not that far away and Nintendo still doesn't seem to have fully figured out what to actually use the Wiimote for, a little gymicky here a little gymicky there, but nothing fully convincing. Especially since it looks like the Wii version will not allow Gamecube controls it could get really ugly, imagine the best launch title ruined by the Wii controller, that wouldn't create good press.
Nope, you are not alone, I am not much a big Halo fan either. Especially the Flood levels where just boring and repeating over and over and over again, Library of course too. There was also a bit running around in circles to find out how to continue, but I didn't found that much worse then most other games. My main problem with Halo was however the story, it was just so very damn pointless, run around in circles for a few hours till everybody of your comrades is killed just to then return to where you started and blow your own ship up, well great, so why again did I play this game? The last level was also extremly annoying, actually one of the worst I have ever seen, not sure if there actually is a way to drive around that track in anything remotly fluid, but I certainly didn't manage to and it turned into a try&error where the outcome was more luck then anything, certainly wasn't fun.
Art direction of Halo on the other side was quite good, the large bright outdoor environments are certainly a lovly change compared to all those games that try to be all dark and ugly. Enemys tend to look a bit to much like Muppets here and there, but that aside they looked nice and colorfull stuff. Vehicles and transporters also looked great.
Can't say anything about multiplayer, but the singleplayer mode didn't hold up to my expectations, it wasn't the worst I have seen, but neither was it anything I would bother to play again, never touched Halo2.
My guess would be that it launches the game directly, like the PSP, since you can after all quit the game at any time to go back to the menu without reboot, there isn't really much reason to not do so.
Microsoft thinks different and provides XNA. Now I don't expect the next Doom or Halo3 to use Java or C#, but for a lot of games its really a non-issue these days, computers are fast enough and the most grunt work is done by the GPU anyway, which doesn't care if the rest of the programm is written in Java or C# or hand optimized assembler. There is of course still a speed benefit of C++, but its getting smaller and smaller and its certainly at a point where the success of a game will no longer depend on it.
It was called Microsoft Freestyle Pro and it wasn't a prototype, but a product that you could buy everywhere.
Can it be that you are trying to play Goldeneye on a PC on a N64 emulator? If so, then please fix your key mappings, since that game does *not* require such a braindamaged control setup, moving happens with analog stick, looking around with the C-buttons with strafing/turning swaped compared to say Halo if I remember correctly. As far as I remember the game (PerfectDark at least could, assume that Goldeneye offered similar stuff) could also be configured to allow the use of two controllers, thus two analog sticks, a little configuration should thus give a control that gives you walking on one analogstick and lookaround on the other.
This seems to be really an issue of trying to play a game with a device it wasn't created for and a key mapping that is plain awefull, this has really nothing todo with todays controllers.
ACK, I have yet to see a single game that actually requires you to use buttons/dpad and analog stick at once. Every once in a while I use both at once, ie. switch weapons while running, but then I use my right-thumb for the Dpad not the left index finger (ok, XBox/Gamecube-style layout helps here of course, PS2-like not so much) and that isn't because its required by the game, but simply because its easy to do and doesn't require to stop walking.
Anyway, since he is refereing to a Cyborg P2500 he is most likly refering to PC based gaming and yeah, gamepads can be a bitch there, since default controls almost never work well and games often don't even come with a proper way to remap keys, so joy2key and other configuration tools are needed to workaround that. Can take quite a while to end up with a satisfing configuration, on consoles on the other side its a non-issue, only PSP might have some throuble due to lack of second analog stick.
Amazon.de takes preorders for the Playstation3.
And in the end thats also kind of what happened, there are still tons of games around (NSMB, Mario64, AdvanceWars, MarioKart, Castlevania, etc.) which make little or no use of the touchscreen. However the DS is successfull because those games are actually great and because those are not the only games available, there are also those games that do make use of the touchscreen and try to do different things (Nintedogs, BrainAge, etc.). Its that mix of different and good games that makes the DS into a good gaming device, not the touchscreen. The PSP on the other side suffers because it has pretty much no new games, most stuff are games that where already out a month or two earlier for PS2, its no wonder that PSP doesn't sell well if it has no new games to offer that you don't already know.
With the Wii we will see how it turns out, its the games that matter in the end and only the games. The controller might help with a few new ideas, but if it desn't work that well with the normal games, then Nintendo has a problem, since then they have the slowest console around and a controller that won't be used with many games.
Aehm, that really wouldn't be a good idea. The Correct Solution[tm] would have been to simply allow the Wii version to be played with a Gamecube controller. Nobody expects that the smaller Gamecube disc will hold new textures and stuff, but I definitvly expect that Nintendo can manage to make the controller choosable on the Wii version, doing not so is just a really stupid move to get more focus on the Wiimote.
In the end we will see how it turns out and if the Wiimote actually controls better then standard controller, since when not it could turn out into a marketing neightmare. When Nintendo can't get the most important launch title to actually work better with the new controller, then with the old, it would basically mean that the new controller simply doesn't work and is a useless gymicky thing, not exactly a good start for a console that relies a lot on the new controller to actually work.
Revolutionary platformer, yes, its certainly a new kind of game (even so there are some small parallels to Lemmings and other critter games), however I don't think its an especially good game, its boring and challangeless, I played through half the game and then simply gave up, because there was nothing to care about, no challange, no exciting levels, it all just feld way to passive and uninteresting.
The thing with innovation is that it doesn't gurantee that the result will actually be fun, sometimes it will like in Katamary or SotC, but Kirby Canvas or Yoshi Touch, nope, wasn't much fun for me, after the 'new' feel was gone, there simply wasn't much of a solid game left. I prefer NewSuperMarioBros over Kirby any day, that said NewSuperMarioBros isn't a great game either by Nintendo standards, compared to SuperMarioBros3 or Yoshi Island it just can't hold up, to short, to easy, to unimaginative.
Now with MetroidPrimeHunters those controls where rather awefull, precise they were, but holding the NintendoDS in such a position for longer amounts of time was a total no-go. This was especially annoying because MetroidPrime(GCN) actually had controls that worked great on normal controllers. That said, the level design of MetroidPrimeHunters was among the worst I have seen in a while, one stupid, boring hunt-the-switch puzzle after another, that just wasn't fun at all, so since the game itself wasn't good, the contorls where actually not the main problem.
With Mario64 I tried the thumbstick quite a few times, but it is simply a lot less presise then the good old Dpad, for one because the virtual-thumbstick has the annoyancy to drift away, so if you have to push forward for a while you run into the edge of the screen and have to reset, extremly annoying, but also the virtual thumbstick doesn't exactly lay in an easy to reach position, stretching thumb out that far is no good for longer amounts of play. I gave up and used the Dpad and had lots and lots of fun with Mario64, my favorite DS game so far. That said, the touchscreen was actually very usefull in that game, not because of the virtual thumbstick, but because of map and camera control.
So while the touch screen can actually be helpfull for map and inventory, as a main control device it so far wasn't really all that good, it allowed some new kinds of games (TraceMemory, TraumaCenter, ...), but for many games the classic controls still worked a lot better. I don't think it will be much different with the Wii. In the end it are however the games that matter, control is important, but I don't buy a console for the controller, I buy it for the games, if those aren't good no controller in the world can fix that. Which is why I consider the Wii to be still quite a bit away from winning this generation.