Quantcast
Whats so "fun" about the wii?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Whats so "fun" about the wii?

Pristine20 said:

These days, it seems like I'm weird because I don't want to have "fun". But I find it relaxing and interesting playing through LOD while lying on a bed and would rather play COD4 if I wanted to play with friends. We scream when we die (in the game), laugh when we kill someone else (in the game). Even though it could get frustrating when you keep getting killed (in game), its a sweet frustration and altogether "enjoyable" experience.

so you hate the ps3 and love the pc because it offers by far the best gaming experiences for the games that you like =O)

 

congratz.

 



carlos710 - Capitán Primero: Nintendo Defense Force

"Wii are legion, for Wii are many"

Around the Network

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 



People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.

When there are more laws, there are more criminals.

- Lao Tzu

mm i really had fun for what about a week and had played all the killer games like mario galaxy zelda brawl (still play it with my friends but not on my wii) mm some mario kart but i really after 1 week or 2 it just becomes boring not many good games and just like a new controller once u get used to it its not anymore revolutionary so i just sold mine and i am getting a ps3 at september



TheSource said:

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 said:
TheSource said:

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

 

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

 

 

 

Well, that was a redundant post .



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:
TheSource said:

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

 

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

 

 

 

Well, that was a redundant post .

Makes a lot of sense. I would prefer if people didn't use the term so loosely but alas my preference isn't of importance and I realize that the general idea will continue. I think the underlying reason the wii is called "fun" is because nintendo used the term in its marketing. Many wii users just borrow the term and use it to imply that "fun" is absent on the ps360 even though nintendo never included that aspect in its description just like I've adopted sony's "play b3yond" in my sig.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

mario kart, and smash bros are fun, like they were on the gamecube and n64 days.



Pristine20 said:
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:
TheSource said:

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

 

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

 

 

 

Well, that was a redundant post .

Makes a lot of sense. I would prefer if people didn't use the term so loosely but alas my preference isn't of importance and I realize that the general idea will continue. I think the underlying reason the wii is called "fun" is because nintendo used the term in its marketing. Many wii users just borrow the term and use it to imply that "fun" is absent on the ps360 even though nintendo never included that aspect in its description just like I've adopted sony's "play b3yond" in my sig.

isn't that the anwser? so why did you create this thread?

 



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Pristine20 said:
appolose said:
Pristine20 said:
TheSource said:

People say Wii is fun because it has games they enjoy.

Reading your post, don't you find it strange that everyone in your family likes Wii except for you? I'm not trying to knock your tastes as there is plenty of good content on consoles with traditional controls & content (it would be foolish to argue otherwise since Nintendo had plenty of success with NES/SNES/N64/GC/GBA and all had traditional control & games) but at the same time it does show where the astronimical success of Wii in terms of software and hardware sales come from. One of the things I ask my dad, a guy who was my age in the late 1970s and early 1980s is why he stopped playing videogames and never really returned. I used to think it was just how he aged, but more recently we've come to the conclusion that this is the process that happens/happened/is happening to many gamers:

1) Controls are initially simple enough for people enjoy immensely.

2) Gamers who love a certain type of game with a given complexity or in a genre soon master the controls.

3) Developers are left with two choices once gamers beat the - make essentially new levels for the same gameplay different to retain the previous audience (harder/easier, more nuanced/less nuanced), or change the fundamentals in a high risk/high reward scenario in regard to the original audience (change goals, change controls, change story) .

In the late 70s/early 80s people made more of the same type of game - but the controls grew more complicated instead of the game play getting more complicated. So while people like my dad to this day crow about how great Missile Command, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc were, the game controls got too complicated while the genre/game play remained the same. Thats a recipe for boredom/disinterest.

With NES, controls got simpler, and game play got more complicated - thats the ideal, and the secret to success in this industry. Your parents and relatives play Wii because the game play that you enjoyed so much in the PS2 era is now accessible because controls were made simpler. If Nintendo had bit the bullet, and released Wii at comparable graphical power to 360 (risking a loss on hw sales) with the waggle functionality and $249 price point I'm fairly sure it would have made PS3/360 functionally obsolete rather than just graphically high end & ease of control low end competitors because you'd have more sophisticated games with simple control. Wii is really only half the equation, and I think thats the origin of the backlash, people like me who don't mind that enjoy it alot, people who do dislike it rather intently.

NES-SNES, PS1-PS2-PS3, Xbox-X360, N64-GC, Sat-DC are all 'more complex controls', 'similar game play' advancements withthe typical prettier graphics and better physics. PS1 era games and PS2 era games were better suited to the Sony controllers, so the transition to 3D was a  broader success on those platforms, even though Nintendo 64 had 'the blockbusters for teenagers' just as  PS3/360 do right now. The real changes occur when you get better gameplay and simpler controls as you did from SNES/Gen to PS1/N64, Atari 2600/Arcades to NES, GBA to DS, and that we see to a lesser degree from PS2/Xb/GC to Wii in the motion sensing games that aren't mini-game fests (Carnival Games) or overly traditional (Fire Emblem).

 

Nope, I don't. I've always been a traditional gamer while they never played games. We've always been "different" you see. My point was that the word"fun" seemed to have become exclusive to the wii so I started a campaign to set things straight ala this thread. I also played games back in the day but then I was more casual. I got more interested in gaming as  it got more "complicated" lol. I tend to favor complicated things. This is why my sig hails the MGS saga as my favorite game storyline.

I was trying to point out that the ps3 and 360 are also "fun" to their regular users not just the wii. Its obvious to everyone that the wii has introduced more gamers with its new control scheme. However it hasn't redefined what "fun" is. Fun is still an activity thats "enjoyable" which makes it entirely up to the doer of the activity. Hence "fun" is not a term that should be used to blanket anything because there would always be individuals who don't find it "fun"

 

Perhaps this is the problem.  This is a particular definition and usage of the word "fun".  As such, when those who equate the Wii with fun, or say the HD consoles have dropped the idea of being fun, one could either guess they are using that particular definition, or something else.  If they're using your definition, we could try switching it out:  "The Wii is way more personally enjoyable than than the 360 or PS3 for everyone".  That seems rather contradictory, unless you assume that they feel their personal standards are the same as everyone elses.   While it may seem ignorant of them should they think that, I would posit that that's the case.  The standard to which they hold enjoyment probably consists of certain qualities which were utilized in the NES generation, which TheSource detailed.  These qualities, as it so happens, do appeal on a broad scale.  Thus, the enjoyment (and mass appeal, and, therefore, the universal standard) are, for many, connotatively and implicity carried in the enjoyment of game consoles. 

No one's going to argue that a masochist doesn't like mutilating himself, but no one is going to say it's fun either, as they mean fun as universally appealing qualities.   And there are generally desirable qualities, which is what Wii-ists mean (I think). So, I think the problem here is an accidental equivocation.  What is really meant by fun (by those who the Wii is) is that the Wii is the far most generally appealing console, not that no one else can't dislike it.

 

 

 

Well, that was a redundant post .

Makes a lot of sense. I would prefer if people didn't use the term so loosely but alas my preference isn't of importance and I realize that the general idea will continue. I think the underlying reason the wii is called "fun" is because nintendo used the term in its marketing. Many wii users just borrow the term and use it to imply that "fun" is absent on the ps360 even though nintendo never included that aspect in its description just like I've adopted sony's "play b3yond" in my sig.

I know, vague terminology can be ridiculously confusing.  Especially if a person's subconciously switching back in forth between definitions. 

My post made sense?  Wow, I could barely figure out what I was trying to say.  Thank you!

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz

It's fun because it offers a completely different and unique gameplay, with the motion controls.