ookaze said:
[quote]You're pretty delusional, and it shows through what you say : you're trying to change reality to match what you believe is true.
Wii is not competing in a different market at all : it's still competing in the videogame market last time I looked. In the living room videogame market to be more precise.
And it competes in the age 4-77 for everyone, which you fail to see. You think it's weaker than the other consoles for the age 13-29, but that doesn't mean it doesn't compete in this age too. The other too are more limited, competing only in the 13-29 demographic.
First off. You need not start with a personal name calling attack. You're saying that 3 months of sales has created a new reality? I'd rather wait and see. To me it sounds as though you are saying there is a new reality based on an extremely small sample size.
You're still stuck in the old game bubble that game developers tried to break for years.
For example, you say the "novelty of the motion control is great". No, novelty is not great in itself, that's just elitist gamer's nonsense, like polygon counts and huge environments. You just missed most of the Wiimote's benefits. It shows when you compare to the PS3 controller. You can't understand why a casual would not try getting near a PS3 controller, unlike a wiimote. And this despite it having been explained countless times, which just shows the very concept of the wiimote escapes you completely.
If I was stuck in the old gamers bubble Why TF would I care about graphics? I grew up on Nintendo, which while cool, certainly didn't have graphics that were mind blowing. It was indeed based on fun games. "Elitist gamer" where do you even come up with this stuff? The fact that you are labeling me in a category makes you more myopic than my comments have been.
The PS3 controller has many of the same benefits only lacking in depth control. I didn't say depth control wasn't important. But I was pointing out just have motion in and of itself is not a key advantage to me. You are now assuming a casual gamer would not use a PS3 controller, which you have no evidence for at all.
Point out where I mentioned polygon counts, cause I simply did not. Now you are putting words in my mouth. And I certainly never said that huge environments were all I cared about in gaming.
Then, like every gamer stuck in these old times, you talk about power, hard drives, ...
Or think the sole advantage of the Wii is its low price. So just lowering the prices of other consoles would negate this lone advantage. Of course that's all wrong.
You don't even understand these things, you just list lots of powerful thing, and think the more you had, the more you can do more easily. Like talking quad core for a desktop PC is pure nonsense, even more for a game. You talk about this like games were all massively parallell, which is plain wrong.
I didn't say any one advantage was the lone advantage it had. But I certainly think Nintendo could take advantage of current technology and keep it's price point.
What's so wrong with what Sony is doing? They are putting 840 dollars worth of equipment in the PS3 and selling it at 600. Nintendo is putting in parts that are lower than the MSRP of the Wii. So no, I don't think they are doing as much as they could be, they easily could have added some additional features without raising the price and take a small hit in losses. Maybe you should ask why they weren't interested in that. It wouldn't have even changed the demographic they were trying to target or the entertainment value of the machine, it would have contributed.
What was that last part? Was there a point? Cause I didn't understand your sentences. I don't understand them....yeah I sure don't. Whatever man, I'm not even going to get into this with you, but I understand them plenty. And surprisingly, just because you have more technology does not always make something more difficult to do or detract from the device. .
How is mentioning quad cores unrelated? With more cores developers (and programmers especially) are able to specialize parts of the game to create more threads. Most games have programming threads that are run by the CPU, with more CPUs you are able to dedicate the cores to individual threads producing benefits. Like higher frame rates, more realistic motions images, and more functionality within the game.
You talk like PC are the defining example for consoles to follow due to its huge power (if you put the price), which is an argument I heard back in 1990, and is still wrong to this day.
And no, power has nothing to do with immersion in a game. Nothing at all ! That's wishful thinking, and has be debunked countless times by facts (consoles since NES times). You can be immersed in music or by a book. Immersion is just when a media manage to capture your imagination.
How has it been debunked? By your logic we would still be using 8-bit technology and that would be fine for our entertainment value. Sorry, power does have something to do with it, even for the Wii. If motion control was not developed what would the Wii look like? I'm sorry, new technology is applied to games all the time simply because the same thing gets boring over time. Yeah power has nothing to do with it...without that power games could not feature the increased functionality you see in gaming today. Whenever you hear someone talk about a new cool feature a game has, or how you'd never seen a game like that before, or you said wow that game was interesting, power does have something to do with all of that. I didn't say it was the only thing, the most important thing hands down is the story the game tells and how entertaining that story is to you thru the methods the game employs to involve you in the story.
All this talk of power is from elitist people, that just don't want normal people to invade 'their' entertainment, that they should be the only one to master, but they need people to come pour money into it.
The ultimate goals of videogames is NOT VR, that's just stupid. The ultimate goal of videogames is to entertain people !
That's exactly the behaviour I described, you just completely lost the purpose of videogames, you think "it's about pushing the boundaries of the technology". No it's not. Scientists are there for that.
Once again, why am I an elitist? Whatever. I grew up on Nintendo and the graphics and power were sad as heck, but the games were fun. And at the time it was the best thing we had seen in games yet.
You have pulled my words out of context. Yes, the ultimate goal of any game is to be fun. But in terms of technology, the goal of gaming is simulation of life. You know Hideo Kojima is one of the best game makers ever, best story tellers ever, when it comes to games. Even he focuses on the benefits of technology and weaving them into the game to make a great gaming experience. Which if you read any of his comments he says this is the exact reason he choose the PS3, it provided a unique processor architecture, hi-def, and a 50GB disc that would allow him to include all the things he felt he needed to create the story.
One flaw in your argument is you are confusing the console manufacturer with game developer. The game developer makes the game and makes it fun. The manufacturer must provide the technology to do so. Even in Nintendo the engineers responsible for the Wii have nothing to do with the programmers making the game. In order to even do this developers have to be given tools to do, the responsibility of design engineers who have nothing to do with the final games. They provide tools based on the technology they created which is ultimately translated into the final game in how efficient those tools are for game making.
You'd like to believe all games could be made regardless of technology, I like to believe games can be made better given new technology.
The goal of a console is to push the boundaries of games, which is exactly what the Wii is doing. And most people don't care about technology, especially when they buy a console. That's to play games, not to look at high technology. Anyway, Nintendo is pushing new technology. Motion sensing is newer than false 3D on a 2D screen, which was there way before Sony entered the console market.
HD was there too, even if it didn't have the brand name. Nintendo is actually doing the newest things this gen, and pushing the latest technologies (like low power consumption, motion sensing), but you won't admit it, because technology is not even what you want, that's a poor excuse you make for wanting more power.
I'd disagree. When the PS2 came out people certainly cared about the fact that it was incorporating a DVD player in it and more technology than previous generations of consoles. They've cared to the tune of about 120 million consoles world wide now.
"When people buy a console they don't care about technology" What? I think you have gone to an extreme here. I was pretty rational in my point that technology mattered, but not in an ultimate sense. You think technology doesn't matter at all and then in the same sentence point out how the Wii is pushing the boundaries of technology? That makes no sense.
Uh. Games are no longer false 3d on a 2d screen. If they were the motion technology you so love would not work because there would be no true depth in the structure of the games environment.
So in 1994 there was HD. Ok, this is why DVDs were all in 480? 1994, you know when PS1 first came out? If I'm not mistaken Sony was working on motion sensing before Nintendo and there are patents to prove that.
When were HDTVs commercially available? Cause I'm pretty certain it was not in 1994. You couldn't just stroll into a Bestbuy and plop down 25,000 which is what they cost when they were first introduced.
The Wii uses more power than the Gamecube, the only reason it is pulling less power is simply because it has lower processing ability. The more information being processed the hotter things get and in order to provide cooling for it you have to use internal fans, and other methods to disperse that heat which draws power.
It's not like all the sudden they figured out how to make the Wii consume less power than their previous generations of consoles, it just consumes less by comparison which has nothing to do with pushing any new technology, it's the lack of technology that allows it to consume less power.
And games are not about realistic environments, they're about entertaining people.
Talking about MMORPG, I don't even think these kind of games are a good thing for the bottom line of a console, it would even be dangerous. Anyway, if you want to push the limits of realistic environments, physics, graphics, videogames are NOT what you should use to gauge that. For example, apart from the trees, a game like shiro kishi monogatari for PS3 which isn't even out yet, don't even come close to what I was doing in class in 1994 with a bigger definition ! So please, spare us this BS ! Go work in science, it will be far more rewarding.
Ok, once again. I was pulling everything together to define a gaming experience. These are all pieces of a puzzle. I'm not insisting that one thing alone makes the game.
MMORPGs aren't good huh. Yeah WoW just sold like 8 million copies and has members paying a monthly fee year round. Not good.
Yeah, you can push the limits of these things on super computers, but where does the average consumer have access to these things? And what were you doing in class if I might ask?
I work as a mechanical engineer if you must know. Which covers quite a broad range of technology, from C++ programming, the thermal and fluid sciences, to parametric 3d modeling, and application of physics and 3 dimensional motion.
How else would you gauge it? Yeah, when I'm workin on engines I can create realistic simulations involving all kinds of physics, but it's not going to be nearly as entertaining as the a console and it's also not going to incorporate all the other things, like Hi-def movie watching, browsing, using the PSN for all the various tools it provides. All things that add ENTERTAINMENT. Which is your argument right?
Games like WoW are not pushing the limits of anything either. Perhaps I'm wrong, what limits is it pushing again ? Games are not what pushed hard drives or online connection, if that's what you think, you're really misguided. You say XBL is number 1 online service, which is just false. Except if you talk about only XB360 consumers. You talk about these services like they're available to anyone having the other consoles, which is plain wrong.
You think Nintendo is pushing nothing new or creative, which just shows you have big blinders. You can't see sth new or creative when they put it before your eyes, something that even casuals can do, better.
Where did I ever say that "games push larger hard drives" point that out please. Once again, you are completely misquoting me and taking anything I said out of context.
WoW pushed to new limits in social gaming. Despite what you think science does extend beyond physics, it pushes new boundary in art, literature, social dynamics, etc. For instance e-books are now making publishing available to a wide range of people, art is being enhanced for instace by being able to share creative work with people all around the word, movies are being enhanced and we can enjoy completely CGI experiences that would other wise not have been possible. Really could the Lord of the Rings story been told effectively if we did not have the technology available to do so? I remember reading those books as a kid and imagining what it would be like, but no movie made at that time would have captured it.
For a social gaming experience WoW pushed boundaries in many directions, a living online simulated community. People becoming friends beyond just chatting over the net, but a physical representation of yourself over the web (of course via character representations).
What pushed larger hard drive was the desire to store digital data. God, where did I ever say "games pushed larger hard drives" what I said implied that gaming consoles can take advantage of that technology. Interestingly enough, console manufacturers working with hard drive manufacturers do create new innovations, especially given the space constraints of a console. A hard drive needs to be made that can fit in the foot print with everything else, take the heat load generated, still be able to have all it's mechinal parts moving at the same time as everything else inside the console.
I didn't say games pushed hard drives, but innovation does happen when these ventures are undertaken and the manufacturer attempts to get as much technology in there as possible at the lowest cost possible.
I said XBL was the #1 online service available of the 3 currently. If you talk to most rational people gaming that go online to play console games they will tell you that. I'm a Sony fan myself, but I'm not delusional enough to think that the PSN is better than XBL because it isn't.
XBL has implemented a lot of features that add to "Entertainment" A unified friends list, custom in game sound tracks, you can literally connect with individuals you know from all over the world and just jump into a game.
No, not everyone who has these consoles has access to broadband. But I'd make the case that since 360 and PS3 feature an ethernet connection there is the increased possibility they do have broadband and can take advantage of this feature.
And no, Rogue Squadron, RE and Eternal Darkness didn't push the boundaries of any technology, unless you limit technology to what was available on the consoles they were on (mostly GC).
Which would be a big mistake. Besides, I see lots of people spouting around words like AI and physics, which are words that don't mean anything alone. They don't even mean what people use them for. Pushing limits of AI, for me, is to succeed in putting out a perfect neural network. Even a simple neural network is far more advanced than anything needed in a game. As for physics, that's useful in a movie, not in a game. It adds nothing to the experience at least. Even CG in movies don't try to be realistic, as realistic is plain boring (see FF movie).
Those titles were exclusive to Gamecube first off. I'm talking about Resident Evil 1 and 0.
Those titles made great use of the graphics card that was in the gamecube, which showed us what developers could do with a little work. Resident Evil IMO has the best renderings of all the last generation games. Again, maybe graphics aren't important to you, but I like realistic looking renderings, effective shadowing and lighting, makes the game feel more real to me.
What we found out was although the Xbox used a Nvidia graphics card that had more horse power, Nintendos ATI card could be used more effectively when focused and directed even though technically less powerful.
When we talk about AI in any game this refers mainly to the decisions the computer makes. Sense we still play games by ourselves for the most part the PC player is important. It's important that they not make the same simple decisions over and over. In order to generate the AI we've also moved beyond simply say if this, execute this, if that, execute this. AI decision making has become very complex and also has to work hand in hand with a wider set of options and graphical displays. AI is now to the point where movement is being taken into account in how they control their characters.
This is why game developers have become even more specialized. You need a person with advanced mathematics and programming skills to create the AI within the game engine, you need someone who has art skills (yes art is actually required if you want to work on rendering and game art), programming. You need a guy who works on the physics calculations for player movements and that interaction with the environment, all of which now require 3-d spacing and positioning calculations for objects (which means physics) which is heavily involved in object movements within a game in three dimensions. FPS is a prime example that employs this now, explosions move objects based on calculated trajectories, bullets are tracked in 3-d space to targets.
It's even to the point now where thermal and fluid calculations are being applied within games to generate effects that would be seen in the real world. Those effects are then placed upon characters within the game. For instance in Formula 1 racing rain effects are generated and seen on your camera as you drive, the movement of the water is controlled by applying science from fluid mechanics to get the effect, also rain on the pavement is taken into account as to level of viscosity vs. the friction of your tires, speed of your car, and angle of turn to determine slippage.
Yeah, physics aren't at all useful in a game. I mean, when you play gold the trajectory of the ball has nothing to do with windspeed, position of contact between the club an the ball, lie conditions, or the type of swing produced. Or when you hit a baseball in a game it has nothing to do with the type of swing, position of the ball, type of pitch, attributes of both the pitcher and the batter.
Are you kidding me! You don't need physics??? Physics is one of the main drivers for games today. Racing games, Sports Games, First Person Shooters, RPGs. Even your precious Wii mote uses physics to calculate the arc of swings, and motion of the controller. It has to determine that in 3-d space in order to read it and then input it into the game. That's physics 101 tracking objects in 2d and 3d space.
