By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - NYTimes: "Wii Radiates Fun (and makes mothers laugh), Sony Machine Eclipsing"

FishyJoe on 12 April 2007

Well, maybe that's your truth *shrug*

I was just having some fun at that fanboys expense. 



Around the Network
Quickdraw McGraw on 12 April 2007

Listening to NY Times regarding pretty much anything is the equivalent of retardation. Even if what they say regarding all three consoles is true, it's blatantly obvious they fully support Nintendo.

Sure, the Wii is having massive success right now (As evident with their sales and supply/demand issues), but how long do you think a machine like the Wii, as innovative as its control-scheme is, can last? This is a 5-10 year "marathon", if you will, and it'll be interesting to see if the Wii can keep its legs. 



z64dan on 12 April 2007
"As sony/microsoft are able to make improvements in its games, its online content, manufacturing and other price reductions"
Thats the depressing thing about consoles for the past 10 years. Always waiting for the next improvement. PS2 games are selling better than PS3 games, currently. But PS2 games don't look as good as PS3 games, so how could that be? How can anyone enjoy graphics that we were supposed to enjoy last year?
Doesn't anyone remember how "cool" the original XBOX was? How "awesome" HALO's graphics were? Well now the Wii is more powerful than the XBOX and PS2, with additional controller functionality, and only $250, yet somehow the games can't possibly be fun. Because the graphics are from last year. That didn't make any sense to Nintendo.
And now, they're basically hiring guys with tractors and dumptrucks to help them organize their huge piles of cash. And every time sony sells a PS3, they are still in debt from the manufacturing and marketing of it.


Narfer on 12 April 2007
z64dan said:
"As sony/microsoft are able to make improvements in its games, its online content, manufacturing and other price reductions"
Thats the depressing thing about consoles for the past 10 years. Always waiting for the next improvement. PS2 games are selling better than PS3 games, currently. But PS2 games don't look as good as PS3 games, so how could that be? How can anyone enjoy graphics that we were supposed to enjoy last year?
Doesn't anyone remember how "cool" the original XBOX was? How "awesome" HALO's graphics were? Well now the Wii is more powerful than the XBOX and PS2, with additional controller functionality, and only $250, yet somehow the games can't possibly be fun. Because the graphics are from last year. That didn't make any sense to Nintendo.
And now, they're basically hiring guys with tractors and dumptrucks to help them organize their huge piles of cash. And every time sony sells a PS3, they are still in debt from the manufacturing and marketing of it.

That post said what I've been saying many times, only you did it better than I. Consoles are always talking about how they can build on them without making a new one, but nothing ever happens. N64s expansion pac was probably the biggest and only sinificant one (and actually a decent improvement too).  But I love your point about how can graphics that arent the best be fun? If games were about graphics, there would not be video games today. If games were mainly about graphics, the NES and SNES and atari and Sega and all of those would have flopped so serverly video games would have been the biggest joke of the 80's. But people loved the NES and SNES. They both did great, why? Because people like having fun more than being awed by "amazing" graphics. Nintendo is moving to the futre WHILE NOT leaving its roots behind. thats why the wii is dominating and so is the DS.



A delayed game is good someday, a bad game is bad forever.

windbane on 12 April 2007

Stop making it seem like graphics hinder fun, though.  Graphics add to the experience.  More processing power and hard drive space adds to the experience.  Those things allow developers to do more.  Nintendo could have had the best of both worlds and released a slightly less powerful than Xbox360, DVD-based machine (you know, that actually plays movies...I mean...it's not a needed feature but it never hurts...still waiting for the Wii drivers for that) with Hard Drive for $300-$400.  Sure, Nintendo is doing very well right now but if they just added a little more and took a slight (less than the other 2) loss for each console initially, there would be NO REASON to buy the other 2 consoles.  Faster load times (with hard drive), better graphics, more things happening at a time, same innovation.

Now, maybe that doesn't make as much financial sense.  Afterall, they are making money on each console sold.  But I thought Nintendo didn't care about money.  Isn't that what I keep reading?  Doesn't Nintendo just want everone to have fun?  Seems to me that offering a console that is still cheaper than the others (I do not include the 360 Core because I view it as a waste of money unless you add stuff on) and offers the same innovative experience they are now would pretty much leave gamers no choice.  Afterall, the Wii would probably have GTA IV then.

I'd say then that the graphics were "good enough," maybe.  I think I like it better this way anyway since I'll just get 2 consoles.  1 for my girlfriend and innovative controls (that I hope are actually better for some things), and 1 for cutting-edge graphics and speed.  60fps Ninja Gaiden Sigma will be fun.