Forums - Gaming Discussion - Was the Wii a fad?

Was the Wii a fad?

Yes 131 38.76%
 
No 152 44.97%
 
Irrevelant, next-gen is coming 28 8.28%
 
see results 26 7.69%
 
Total:337
Mazty said:
archbrix said:
Mazty said:
archbrix said:
Mazty said:

1.  You ignored my point.  If you want to win, you will use the most precise controls available.

2.  With what logic are you writing off the entire PC gaming community? You are simply saying "they don't count because I say so". Give a good reason as to why PC gamers should be seen as a seperate crowd from other gamers. The reason people don't use mice with a console is because it's impractical. What was your point by bringing that up??

1.  No, I addressed your point.  Several times, in fact, but apparently I have to again, so I'll keep it as simple as possible.  I, who am not a casual gamer, along with many others, find motion controls for games like golf, bowling, and tennis MORE accurate than using a control pad.  It's far more realistic and accurate when putting a spin on the ball or getting more swing with a stroke, similar to how it is in, you know, REALLY PERFORMING THESE MOVES.  Make sense now?  I realize it's hard for you to understand how other people's opinions can differ from yours, but alas, they do.

2. Your hypocrisy here is truly amazing, but your response is, again, easily refutable.  You are simply regarding PCs as the standard for games; saying that if trends (such as motion controls) are not prevalent in PC gaming, they're relegated to being fads.  I have pointed out how ridiculous that is by saying home gaming consoles, which are primarily about gaming unlike PCs, have embraced motion controls.  So again, I know it's hard to accept opposing viewpoints to your own.  Regarding the mouse example, how is it so hard for you to understand its relevance when you've already answered your own question?  Twice.  As accurate as a mouse is, it's not practical in the environment where gaming takes full precedence.  Yet, motion controls are.  Hmmmm...

1. I think you need to pick up a dictionary because intuitive doesn't mean what I think you think it means. I would still argue that with tennis a pad allows you to do more quicker then with motion controls. Though if you prefer it for bowling/golf fair enough, although it is an incredibly niche market.

2. How am I regarding PC's as "THE" standard for games? I'm regarding them as source of gaming whereas you are just flat out ignoring them. Every PC may not be about gaming, but the fact that motion controls have not been successful on the PC, while in conjunction with the plateud kinect sales and lack of core game sales on the wii, shows that obviously motion controls do not bring anything necessary to gaming. 

3. Why the hell are you going on about mice still? You brought it up asking why they aren't used on consoles, and the answer was because it would be too problematic. To use a motion control you just have to stand up, whereas to use a keyboard and mouse you need a solid surface to rest them on. Either keep up with the conversation or leave. 

1.  Lol, your posts are becoming desperate.  Although I am quite aware of what intuitive means, I didn't even use the word in my last response.  I did, however, use "accurate" and "realistic".  Do you know what those mean?  And the Wii sold quite well for "an incredibly niche market", no?

2.  No, I'm not flat out ignoring PC gaming at all.  And I never once said I expect motion controls to become commonplace on PCs.  You, however, did state that because they are not, they must be fads, or that they bring nothing necessary to gaming.  Again I would say that many disagree with you... and did you ever stop and think that perhaps the reason for the Wii's abrupt decline was because Nintendo pretty much abandoned it prematurely?  They made a choice to focus on its successor instead, which, in case you hadn't heard, will readily support motion controls too.

3.  Third time's the charm?  Maybe?  No?  Ok, one more time with feeling:  The reason I brought up mice was because you declared PC gaming as the be all, end all standard in what determines if something is relevant to gaming, when you exclaimed that motion controls are nothing more than a fad because they've never been successful on PCs.  I logically assumed that if the PC was indeed worthy of this status, then that would mean its control method, a mouse, should be prevalent everywhere that any "serious" gaming took place... such as consoles.  You yourself have now stated, THREE TIMES, the impracticality of this idea in the home console space.  With me so far?  Good.  

Therefore, we can assume that because mice don't suck just because they're not console standards, motion controls also don't suck just because they're not PC standards.  In other words, get over yourself in declaring motion controls can't be used to better some games for some people.

Strawman. 
I said bowling and golf games are a niche market.

If PCs are used for gaming, and if motion controls are beneficial to gaming, then why are they not prevalent on the PC?

Please show me where I said PCs are the be all and end all. I have never claimed that; you're making a strawman. Again. If motion controls are beneficial to gaming as a whole, then surely motion controls would be adopted by all platforms and not just some?  A mouse and  keyboard are not practical for consoles, however motion controls are viable for a PC, making your mouse/keyboard argument redundant. 

You actually replied again?  Lol, how amusing...

Strawman: Take your own advice and look it up in the dictionary.  And if golf and bowling (which I actually agree are a niche market) are the only things the Wii could do well or that appealed to people on the system, then why did it sell 95M+ this gen?  Your point fails.  Again.

The rest of your post has already been asked and answered, multiple times I might add, so your point fails... again.

Seriously, how many people have to tell you this and how many more bans must you receive before you learn?  Sticking to your opinion is one thing.  Going in circles, and derailing threads is quite another... which appears to be your modus operandi. 



Around the Network
archbrix said:
Mazty said:
archbrix said:
Mazty said:
archbrix said:
Mazty said:

1.  You ignored my point.  If you want to win, you will use the most precise controls available.

2.  With what logic are you writing off the entire PC gaming community? You are simply saying "they don't count because I say so". Give a good reason as to why PC gamers should be seen as a seperate crowd from other gamers. The reason people don't use mice with a console is because it's impractical. What was your point by bringing that up??

1.  No, I addressed your point.  Several times, in fact, but apparently I have to again, so I'll keep it as simple as possible.  I, who am not a casual gamer, along with many others, find motion controls for games like golf, bowling, and tennis MORE accurate than using a control pad.  It's far more realistic and accurate when putting a spin on the ball or getting more swing with a stroke, similar to how it is in, you know, REALLY PERFORMING THESE MOVES.  Make sense now?  I realize it's hard for you to understand how other people's opinions can differ from yours, but alas, they do.

2. Your hypocrisy here is truly amazing, but your response is, again, easily refutable.  You are simply regarding PCs as the standard for games; saying that if trends (such as motion controls) are not prevalent in PC gaming, they're relegated to being fads.  I have pointed out how ridiculous that is by saying home gaming consoles, which are primarily about gaming unlike PCs, have embraced motion controls.  So again, I know it's hard to accept opposing viewpoints to your own.  Regarding the mouse example, how is it so hard for you to understand its relevance when you've already answered your own question?  Twice.  As accurate as a mouse is, it's not practical in the environment where gaming takes full precedence.  Yet, motion controls are.  Hmmmm...

1. I think you need to pick up a dictionary because intuitive doesn't mean what I think you think it means. I would still argue that with tennis a pad allows you to do more quicker then with motion controls. Though if you prefer it for bowling/golf fair enough, although it is an incredibly niche market.

2. How am I regarding PC's as "THE" standard for games? I'm regarding them as source of gaming whereas you are just flat out ignoring them. Every PC may not be about gaming, but the fact that motion controls have not been successful on the PC, while in conjunction with the plateud kinect sales and lack of core game sales on the wii, shows that obviously motion controls do not bring anything necessary to gaming. 

3. Why the hell are you going on about mice still? You brought it up asking why they aren't used on consoles, and the answer was because it would be too problematic. To use a motion control you just have to stand up, whereas to use a keyboard and mouse you need a solid surface to rest them on. Either keep up with the conversation or leave. 

1.  Lol, your posts are becoming desperate.  Although I am quite aware of what intuitive means, I didn't even use the word in my last response.  I did, however, use "accurate" and "realistic".  Do you know what those mean?  And the Wii sold quite well for "an incredibly niche market", no?

2.  No, I'm not flat out ignoring PC gaming at all.  And I never once said I expect motion controls to become commonplace on PCs.  You, however, did state that because they are not, they must be fads, or that they bring nothing necessary to gaming.  Again I would say that many disagree with you... and did you ever stop and think that perhaps the reason for the Wii's abrupt decline was because Nintendo pretty much abandoned it prematurely?  They made a choice to focus on its successor instead, which, in case you hadn't heard, will readily support motion controls too.

3.  Third time's the charm?  Maybe?  No?  Ok, one more time with feeling:  The reason I brought up mice was because you declared PC gaming as the be all, end all standard in what determines if something is relevant to gaming, when you exclaimed that motion controls are nothing more than a fad because they've never been successful on PCs.  I logically assumed that if the PC was indeed worthy of this status, then that would mean its control method, a mouse, should be prevalent everywhere that any "serious" gaming took place... such as consoles.  You yourself have now stated, THREE TIMES, the impracticality of this idea in the home console space.  With me so far?  Good.  

Therefore, we can assume that because mice don't suck just because they're not console standards, motion controls also don't suck just because they're not PC standards.  In other words, get over yourself in declaring motion controls can't be used to better some games for some people.

Strawman. 
I said bowling and golf games are a niche market.

If PCs are used for gaming, and if motion controls are beneficial to gaming, then why are they not prevalent on the PC?

Please show me where I said PCs are the be all and end all. I have never claimed that; you're making a strawman. Again. If motion controls are beneficial to gaming as a whole, then surely motion controls would be adopted by all platforms and not just some?  A mouse and  keyboard are not practical for consoles, however motion controls are viable for a PC, making your mouse/keyboard argument redundant. 

You actually replied again?  Lol, how amusing...

Strawman: Take your own advice and look it up in the dictionary.  And if golf and bowling (which I actually agree are a niche market) are the only things the Wii could do well or that appealed to people on the system, then why did it sell 95M+ this gen?  Your point fails.  Again.

The rest of your post has already been asked and answered, multiple times I might add, so your point fails... again.

Seriously, how many people have to tell you this and how many more bans must you receive before you learn?  Sticking to your opinion is one thing.  Going in circles, and derailing threads is quite another... which appears to be your modus operandi. 

We agreed that motion controls are good for bowling and golf games. 
They are a niche market.

You can't say "The wii sold well because it's controls are good". All we can say is "The wii sold well". There are too many factors to determine such as advertising and simply the reason why people bought the wii. My point has not failed. You merely have simplified an incredibly complex process. 

Because motion controls have not done become dominant on the PS3 or Xbox, and have not done well at all on the PC, we can determine from this that current controllers, whether they are a pad or a mouse, are good enough for gaming with motion controls not being competitive enough in terms of pricing and/or what they bring to gaming. 

What do I have to learn? That the best thing to do is to simplify incredibly complex processes? Sorry, I have had a decent education and don't work in the fast-food industry so I know that's the wrong thing to do. Being 36 and unable to see the complexity within the process of buying an item is just alarming. 



Mazty said:

1.  We agreed that motion controls are good for bowling and golf games. 
They are a niche market.

2.  You can't say "The wii sold well because it's controls are good". All we can say is "The wii sold well". There are too many factors to determine such as advertising and simply the reason why people bought the wii. My point has not failed. You merely have simplified an incredibly complex process. 

3.  Because motion controls have not done become dominant on the PS3 or Xbox, and have not done well at all on the PC, we can determine from this that current controllers, whether they are a pad or a mouse, are good enough for gaming with motion controls not being competitive enough in terms of pricing and/or what they bring to gaming. 

4.  What do I have to learn? That the best thing to do is to simplify incredibly complex processes? Sorry, I have had a decent education and don't work in the fast-food industry so I know that's the wrong thing to do. Being 36 and unable to see the complexity within the process of buying an item is just alarming. 

1.  We agree that motion controls are good for bowling and golf games.  Check.  They are a niche market, which we also agree with.  Check.  Are you seriously going to make these established statements again?

2.  I wholeheartedly agree that the Wii's sales are attributed to many factors, but saying that the controls had nothing at all to do with its sales is where your point fails.  If you don't think the Wii's controls are good or bring anything new to gaming, that's your opinion, but don't state that as fact.

3.  The point you're not seeing is that motion doesn't have to become dominant to be relevant or beneficial to gaming.

4.  Your profound insecurity shows quite clearly here.  It's not a matter of simplifying a complex process.  It's about reading comprehension, something that doesn't appear to be one of your strong points, which was demonstrated by continually bringing up the "PCs and motion controls" subject when it had already been addressed several times.  However, the fact that you refrain from bringing it up again in your last post suggests that you finally realized this, so perhaps your "decent" education is paying off.



archbrix said:
Mazty said:

1.  We agreed that motion controls are good for bowling and golf games. 
They are a niche market.

2.  You can't say "The wii sold well because it's controls are good". All we can say is "The wii sold well". There are too many factors to determine such as advertising and simply the reason why people bought the wii. My point has not failed. You merely have simplified an incredibly complex process. 

3.  Because motion controls have not done become dominant on the PS3 or Xbox, and have not done well at all on the PC, we can determine from this that current controllers, whether they are a pad or a mouse, are good enough for gaming with motion controls not being competitive enough in terms of pricing and/or what they bring to gaming. 

4.  What do I have to learn? That the best thing to do is to simplify incredibly complex processes? Sorry, I have had a decent education and don't work in the fast-food industry so I know that's the wrong thing to do. Being 36 and unable to see the complexity within the process of buying an item is just alarming. 

1.  We agree that motion controls are good for bowling and golf games.  Check.  They are a niche market, which we also agree with.  Check.  Are you seriously going to make these established statements again?

2.  I wholeheartedly agree that the Wii's sales are attributed to many factors, but saying that the controls had nothing at all to do with its sales is where your point fails.  If you don't think the Wii's controls are good or bring anything new to gaming, that's your opinion, but don't state that as fact.

3.  The point you're not seeing is that motion doesn't have to become dominant to be relevant or beneficial to gaming.

4.  Your profound insecurity shows quite clearly here.  It's not a matter of simplifying a complex process.  It's about reading comprehension, something that doesn't appear to be one of your strong points, which was demonstrated by continually bringing up the "PCs and motion controls" subject when it had already been addressed several times.  However, the fact that you refrain from bringing it up again in your last post suggests that you finally realized this, so perhaps your "decent" education is paying off.

Can you prove that the wii sold because people felt the controls were good? Are the customers all gaming connoisseurs who spent hours testing the controls and came to the conlusion that they are fantastic? I'm not saying I dislike the controls and that is related to sales, don't make more strawmen, I'm saying that we cannot speculate as to why the wii sold so well and if the sales reflects anything definitive about the controls. 

If motion controls were beneficial/better then exisiting input methods then surely they would be dominant? That's what logic would suggest...You on the other hand...

You're American. It's okay. I know you are not taught how to debate in school but simply given multiple choice questions so I'm having to teach an old dog new tricks. Look at the above paragraph. To summarise, I said "surely motion controls would be dominant if they were the best input method?" and you simply said "no". You didn't give a logical retort, but just rejected the notion without saying why. Ironic you speak of comprehension when that is your idea of how to debate. 

The PC control issue was you not understanding my point. You for some reason seemed to think that a mouse is viable when playing a game slumped in a sofa. A mouse is far more precise then a controller for most games making it a better input. The reason it is not adopted on the consoles is because it is not practical. Motion controls however are pratical for the consoles and the PC, something you failed to address. As motion controls are practical for the largest sources of gaming (consoles and the PC) surely they would be adopted by all 4? Yet that is not the case. 



The Wii found a new audience and/or  the PS2 audience mostly went to Wii

The Wii got dated for gamers because compelling games for it became too infrequent as Nintendo clearly started focusing on 3DS and Wii U. We still don't know what the heck most of the Nintendo 1st party studios are working on for the last 2+ years so it must be Wii U games right since most of 3DS launch surge software got revealed or released right?

HD is definitely one of the big weakness of the Wii, but even more is the Wii remote and Nunchuk controller since they don't properly support most of the popular game designs used by 3rd party developers.