I guess the Wii does a good job with motion sensing. Look all those yellows and reds.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/

I mentioned PS2 also.

Those games get boring very fast. Just ask my grandma. No more heroes would be better playing it on a 360 controller.

Liar, it does a better job than the Ps3 ever could at motion sensing. Judging by your crap, Lair's motion sensing is the best of the current gen!

Liar, like hell!

Did you brainwash yourself? It's almost embarassing that you'd use a review site to tell your opinion. If that's the case, then Metal Gear Solid 4 is WORSE than Halo 3. (i'm sure you would disagree.)

RolStoppable said: horriblebastard said: I personally believe that Nintendo had lots of reasons to not go forward with HD on the Wii I think they didn't add HD because last generation they didn't do so well, so they needed to make a console that could be sold at a reasonable price and still make a profit, and because they were taking a risk with a new approach to controllers which may well have failed. Nintendo didn't add HD and more processing power because they believed that customers aren't interested in cutting edge technology. The sales of the Wii prove them right.

 

I think there is a unstated qualifier that is missing from that statement though ... "Consumers aren't interested in cutting edge technology at the price"

Realistically, if you gave a consumer the option to play two identical games one that is on the Wii and the other that takes full advantage of bleeding edge PC and (odds are) that they would favour the PC game; at the same time, you offer them the option to pay $10 more for a game, $200 more for a system, and tell them that the games will be shorter and released less often and they would probably think twice about the high-end graphics.

4 games that are all first party rehashes are the best examples you have? Then again the majority of your post is basically rehashing things you've said already. I don't want to get into a circular discussion.


No, it is not the same at all. That would be a ridiculous thing to say because when last gen's games were released, this gen's hardware did not exist. As games get deeper and more involving, your expectations change. If they didn't hardware would never get more powerful because it wouldn't need to, so the fact the next Wii will be HD defeats your own argument entirely.

I don't like PS3. Thats the whole point of my avatar and name.

No, Im not brainwashed by Nintendo like you are. MGS4 and Halo 3 have the same scores.

Liar said: I guess the Wii does a good job with motion sensing. Look all those yellows and reds. http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/ I mentioned PS2 also.

 

45 games with 75% score or above  already? nice that's way more games then I can play.

 

And don't forget that developers didn't taken the Wii seriously until it been out for 1 year and thats only 9 month ago.

Unlike the 360 or PS3 wich developers have been taken seriously for atleast 3 years.

Menago KF said: It's hard to debate on such things. If you think about it, the games that are coming out now, they're ok or even good graphic-wise. But we are hardcore gamers. We strive and dream of the moment when we'll finally get photo-realistic gfx on our pc's and consoles. Casuals don't really see a difference between NMH gfx and GTA4. My brother very much disliked the latter while praising NMH at the same time. When asked why he said: " GTA4 takes itself too seriously. The former games GTA3-2-1 have never been made for graphics and the game was cheerfully fun. Now GTA4 is trying to be a serious game. And it loses a lot in my eyes because of that". My brother plays game once every 1-2 years :P. Anyway, this kind of shows the way of thinking. Casuals see games as that: games, from definition a utility that is supposed to entertain. And for some, real-life gfx as seen on HD consoles are a setback rather than upgrade.

Games are entertaiment; ultitly for when there is nothig better to do, which for me is most of the time. I like the Wii, but got a 360 for its games. How do you see gaming, if not as a vechile for entertainment?

 

The Ghost of RubangB said: Back then it was NES vs. the world. Even TV, books, and "real life" were competitors. The NES still owned everything. I know the graphical gap between consoles is bigger than ever now, but I really don't care anymore. I think the big graphical hump we needed to get over was just past the PS2. I can go back and play XBox or GameCube games, but PS2 games look like shit now. (I'll still play the PS2 games I enjoyed. Looking like shit doesn't get in the way of my fun.) Now that we're past the ugly 3-D hump, the next hump is the uncanny valley. We're gonna be stuck in there for a loooong time, so I really won't care about graphics until then. And even then, I think that last visual hump isn't necessary. I don't need to relate to human-looking characters. This isn't film. It's games. The graphics are good enough for all games except "realistic cinematic games." And I'd rather watch films than play those anyway. So I've opted out of all graphical battles from here on out. Forever. How are graphics going to make Halo, Tetris, GTA, Boom Blox, or Zelda better? Those games ALL LOOK GREAT. They need to work on gameplay only until we're out of the uncanny valley, and then we can start the argument all over again about the ways we identify with characters and hoq it helps immersion but costs way too much and puts indie devs out of business or into EA's clutches.

I feel the same. One of the first things I thought when I got my GC and played SMS was: I want handhelds to look this good, and they do, I won't need them to look any better. This is good enough. Though I would like consoles to be more powerful, I think that GC you can tell everything that is going on and it is fine.

What games could only be possible this gen due to graphical advances? Oblvion? GTA4? GTA3 and Morrowind worked fine. The only game I can think of is dead rising, and that works on the Wii, so...