Very impressed with Wii online

[Bodhesatva]

Legend11 said:

Bodhesatva said:

Legend11 said:

Bodhesatva said:

For the moment, at least, I'm definitely with you. PC Gaming is so far ahead of console gaming in online connectivity that I don't really have much interest in buying a system and taking a step back. I view Wii online as distinct, and Xbox Live and PSN as mediocre PCs.

So let me get this straight, the Wii offers a distinct online experience compared to the PC while the 360 and PS3 online offerings are mediocre. So I'm to believe that news, weather, and voting can't be done on a PC connected to the internet while the 360's online features are inferior to the PC? Ok I'm curious, can you tell me what PC games I've played and how far I got in them? No? What about look and see what game a friend is playing right now or how far he is in it? No? What about a reputation system where other people vote on players? No? How about gaming zones where players are divided into recreation, pro, family, or underground so that they play people with a similar mindset? No? What about a gaming friends list? So yeah the Wii offers a unique online experience and isn't inferior to the PC but the 360 and PS3 are inferior/mediocre? Whatever.

On another subject I find it kinda funny that many Nintendo fans bash the 360 and PS3 for offering things like DVD movie playback or offering online movie/tv show downloads, because after all gaming consoles are supposed to be all about gaming, yet I don't see too many Nintendo fans in here bashing Nintendo for offering things like News channel and a Weather channel that have exactly what to do with gaming? I mean we have dvd players to play movies, and television channels, newspapers, magazines, internet, to give us the news so why praise Nintendo for doing something that has nothing to do with gaming and bash Microsoft and Sony for doing the same? Oh wait Nintendo is offering theirs for free right? I mean Microsoft and Sony aren't taking a hit on every console sold and in doing so one can argue that they're the ones footing the bill for offering the feature of dvd movie playback (it's costing them a whopping $3.50 per console, actually even less than that because Sony has Patents and Microsoft has a special agreement in place). I want to see the Nintendo fans that say "It's all about the games" come in here and bash Nintendo for their online non-game offerings, yeah I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Sorry but it borders on the idiotic to see people praising Nintendo's meager online offerings some of which has nothing to do with gaming and saying that they're very impressed. I have to ask where these people have been for say oh.. the last 15 years when this stuff became widely available on the Internet.

No, you've misunderstood me, Legend. As I've said (in a later post in this thread), I'm not praising the Wii's online experience, I'm praising its clear differentiation from PCs in general. Both Gabe Newel and John Romero have made similar comments, attacking the 360/PS3 strategies: they see the 360/PS3 as similar to PCs, just a bit worse, while the Wii is so distinct from a PC -- it isn't trying ot match its graphical power, its online capabilities are much less expansive, the Wii isn't trying to be a multimedia device, and so on -- that the Wii can carve out its own, "casual" space. I agree with them.

What does graphical power have to do with online? The reality is that Xbox Live does some things that no online PC gaming service can because unlike those services Xbox Live includes every online Xbox gamer while no PC online gaming service includes every PC online gamer. Xbox Live is inferior in some ways (it doesn't support user created content) but to simply label the 360's online as inferior is wrong.

Sure you and others may bash the 360 and say it's a mediocre PC (I don't see it myself since the 360 can't even use a keyboard or mouse and can't browse the internet), but from where I am as an owner I can vouch that it's definately a videogame console and a good one and at no time am I lead to believe that it's trying to pretend to be a PC (since when are PCs supposed to have a monopoly on being multimedia devices anyway?).

And I didn't misunderstand you, go back and read exactly what you said, you even mentioned Xbox Live by name when you were slamming it as mediocre. And please answer my question how is the Wii's online distinct? Tell me exactly what it does that PCs can't do online? Because if you say weather or news I have dozens of websites to show you that you can get the weather and news online. And just look at my previous reply to see the examples I gave that makes Xbox Live actually distinct.

You clearly didn't read most of this thread, Legend. Apparently you've read one of my posts -- not the other four on the same topic. You did misunderstand me, you didn't read this entire thread, and I'd appreciate it if you would read fully in the future. Let me repeat several of my points:

I discussed, in a direct response to Ck, the entire scope of the reasons why high end PCs are technologically superior for hardcore gaming. Here you go:

Crysis and online gaming, obviously. Steam alone is more than twice as large as the entirety of the much-lauded Xbox live, let alone adding in the unique users who play Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, World of Warcraft... I'd say the online market for PCs is (conservatively) 3 times as large as the console market, and this despite a smaller market.

How can you possibly suggest the PC is NOT superior? High end PCs have superior horsepower, and Crysis can only be run on the PC. The online network the PC offers is enormously more developed than that for any console. Almost every professional game is played on the PC, not on a console. I'm not for one minute arguing that 360/PS3 aren't worth getting for those who enjoy the games on the systems -- if you personally prefer the games on the 360/PS3, please, enjoy. That's absolutely fine. But don't try to argue that the platforms are technologically equivalent to high end PCs, because it's obviously false, and the gap between the two will continue to grow over time.

You're confusing "which console is more fun" with "which console is technologically superior." Again, for emphasis, for the umpteenth time -- I absolutely agree that you should get a PS3 or 360 if you think the games on those systems are more fun. I think a lot of people agree with you -- the majority, perhaps -- that consoles simply have more to offer for an enjoyable experience. But are these consoles technologically equivalent to high end PCs for gaming? No. There are already games in development that they can't handle on high settings. That doesn't make these consoles bad, by any means -- they're technologically inferior, but not necessarily inferior entertainment.

And I'd be happy to elaborate about the Wii. The Wii doesn't even attempt to do the same things as a PC: it doesn't have multimedia capabilities, its online capabilities are reduced and streamlined, its graphics aren't trying to compete, and so forth. Several notable developers, including Gabe Newell and John Romero (who is now more or less marginalized), both said that they believed that systems like the PS3 and 360 are poorly marketed, simply because they're so much like PCs, but slightly worse. By contrast, the Wii is doing something very different, and can find its own space.

I absolutely agree, Legend, that the console online experience will eventually outstrip the PC, if for no other reason than the larger install/user base. But right now, the fact that PC gamers are splintered only emphasizes the fact that even a single one of these splinters -- Steam -- is twice as popular as the entirety of Xbox Live. Clearly, we aren't there yet.

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much: the Xbox360 and PS3 are both technologically inferior machines to high end PCs for gaming, period. Obviously that will be true, even when leaving specific discussions behind -- since consoles are stable platforms and PCs are constantly evolving, PCs will always be more capable except for, say, the first 6 months of a console's lifespan (maybe). It doesn't make consoles bad, by any means, and I absolutely agree you should get a 360/PS3 if you prefer the games for those systems (umpteenth+1 time I've said that now!).

Anyone who doesn't have a high end PC that they are constantly upgrading has technologically inferior gaming hardware, by definition. This includes me, by the way, as I only spend 500-600 a year on my PC. Why would anyone attempt to deny this? I'm not saying that the 360, PS3, or any other system isn't worthwhile if you like the games on that specific machine; just accept that none of these stable platforms are top-of-the-line for many days past its release date.