| Khuutra said:
The first problem here is that you are operating off of the assumption that there is a quantifiable measure of quality when it comes to the quality of games. There isn't. What you have is a very narrow band of opinions from a sizable but still limited demographic. Limited in what way, you ask? I'll get into it at the bottom of this post, which I preduct to be a terrifying wall of text. Forgive me ahead of time, if you will.
I'm very well aware that there isn't a completely quantifiable measure of quality when it comes to the quality of games. Although given that this argument (And therefore your argument and my argument could be wittled down to nothing more than opinions that will never agree) there should be something to this discussion. That's fine that you like your Wii and the games for it. I see quite a few people informally and within the industry all talk about how the Wii doesn't get enough support. Doesn't have enough games, etc, etc. This was NEVER a complaint for the PS2. While you would never admit it, most common observers and a majority of people would probably give the nod to the PS2 in terms of software at this juncture in their respective lifecycles. So you can tell me how metacritic has no relevance, but I certainly say it does in some regards. Not in the precise scoring (91,95,96 who cares all three are good games), but certainly with overall trends of games. The PS2 had about 3x as many 'highly rated' games as the Wii in just about every category that DOES mean something and it means something with respect to their libraries.
In equating the quality of software (which is subjective) with the power of hardware (which is objective) you are creating the false dichotomy that since one can be measured, the other must be able to similarly be measured, meaning that "opinion" is a defense for both. It isn't. I will repeat the short of it, because the long of it will come up again later: there is a difference between that which can be quantified (that which exists in mathematically quantifiable amounts) and that which cannot (matters which are purely up to perception). Hardware power is of the former, software quality is of the latter. Fair enough.
Well since we are on the internet, there really is no other means and ways to explain yourself. Either via proof (of some sort) or a very clarified reasoning for your response (Which you had yet to provide).
Here is one: Since you referred to the fact that you can only afford to buy 'cream of the crop' games and sometimes not even those you are more concerned with the quality of the best games on the system. Yet you leave nothing in regards to how you determine quality of the best games on the system.
This is where I am curious (What method to determine 'quality' do you employ most regularly?) Do you rent or borrow games to determine their quality? Or would you say that generally you critically review (reviewers) and then decide after engaging in that process to purchase the game?
This logic is oddly circular. "Wii owners buy crap, because there are no good games but they buy lots of games". Well, no circular isn't the word: ridiculous might be better. It's really not that ridiculous. This is why the 'fad' label still sticks with the Wii, because despite what many people would consider a poor lineup overall of games (After 27 months), the Wii still flies off the shelves left and right. We've seen things of this nature before. Furby? Tickle Me Elmo? It happens from time to time. I don't consider Nintendo totally a fad (Obviously, it has to have positive qualities about it that appeal to people beyond that to have the staying power that it does), but the lack of software with crazy console sales does directly point to fad like purchasing. Is it? It's in my opinion that most average buyers especially (Parent for Child buyers) are absolutely clueless on what to purchase. It's also in my opinion that the younger/more casual your userbase is, the more bad games get gobbled up. (For example, I can think of plenty of terribe games that I purchased as a young child. Now I don't waste my money on such products because I make smarter purchasing decisions).
Almost everyone who buys a game or who makes the primary decision behind buying a game (including the little kids who pester their parents) are typically completely aware of what it is they want and exactly what it is that they're buying into. It stands to reason, then, that these people are buying games that they find desirable, which is to say good games. Very few games as a young child was I 'completely aware' of what they want. Other than EVERY videogame I could possibly get. You obviously don't have children if you don't understand this simple child-dynamic. They want everything and anything you can possibly get them.
People buy games that they find interesting by looking at the back of the box. This is why video game stores display games. If people KNEW what they want, video game stores could save a shitload of space and just sell games by Name only.
Graphics matter, of course they matter, they've always mattered, but only up to the point that they are "good enough" for the consumer. The clear and far away winner in every single console generation so far has been the hardware with the smallest amount of horsepower (depending on where you place the Dreamcast) and the reason for this is that graphics only matter up to a point. I agree with this mostly. Although usually, that 'graphics mattering' to a point is like PS2/XBOX or 360/PS3 or SNES/Genesis. Sure they only matter to a point but only when you are clearly inferior it usually doesn't bode well (Unless other factors come into play). HD Graphics this generation have attributed to more console sales and more software sales than anything the Wii has done. Just because it's distributed across two companies means very little.
There is, in fact, an event horizon where, if you move past it within a certain timeframe (the horizon recedes over time thanks to Hawking radiation or something I guess), people simply cease to care. Graphics matter! But not that much. Certainly. Although we aren't there yet. There still is a large faction of people interested in seeing games become essentially similar to that (Final Fantasy movie) released a few years back.
Innovation of anything is driven by a need. A need to move forward. A need for a sense of purpose. Joysticks weren't primarily 'needed' until the rise of playing within a 3-d environment. Playstation 1 proved that. So while you can say what you want, innovation has been driven primarily by graphics. Nintendo succeeded by having a competetively priced console with "good enough" graphics that placed the emphasis on accessibility of play. The Wii remote did not succeed because it is gimmicky, it succeeded because it was very approachable in comparison to the controllers of consoles past (yes, even the Gamecube controller). Sure. Then again, the Wii came into a situation where the previous generations far and away winner. Jumped the shark and released a 600 dollar console (A historically bad way to begin) trying to force consumers into something. The console that was 'already out' was more of an unknown quantity. Sure it had good graphics and potential for power but Microsoft from the previous generation was nothing more than a minor player. Oh and the 360 had that 400$ albatross hanging over it's head. The Wii was a downright bargain with the uncertainty hanging over Xbox 360 (Unfamiliar brand name) and the 600$ albatross over the PS3's head. Additionally, the HD generation hadn't arrived yet. Which made gaming on these machines (PS3/360) inferior in someways because playing on an SD setup was more difficult.
The point that I originally commented on was the fact that with the money that Sony and Microsoft lost this generation they simply will not make the same mistakes next generation. They will already have suffered their greatest losses in terms of the 'transition' to HD and will already have a wide array of (Now at this point) 'cheap' resources available to them. Assuming certain companies keep in a similar thought process, the architectures will be cheap and relatively hassle-free and the development tools shouldn't even have too much upheavel. Plop in an upper echelon GPU and at the most you have a nice HD console with the best graphics on the market (With a robust online network) for under 400$. Nintendo is in the exact opposite position. Their delay will result in more money being spent (Next generation) than they had spent this generation and a great emphasis on hardware (To move to HD). It's good the Wii succeeded because this should give Nintendo the revenue needed to make that move but will it be enough? Time will tell.
Did they? Last time I checked, Sony was on the verge of profitting per every console sold and Microsoft is already making money on every console. (Setting aside the whole RROD issue). Microsoft and Sony will still be pushing out a profit when this is all said and done. Which quite honestly is all that matters.
Only in some facets: art asset creation is going to continue to climb in terms of expense, almost geometrically. Maybe so, yet the most expensive parts of development will drop in expense.
What does "almost primarily" mean? "Less than half"? I mean, even if I let that slide, "HD ready" just means that they're able to interpret an HD signal and display it on their televisions, not that they can display it in HD. Logical error in my flurry of responses, my apologies. What it means is that by the next generation almost everybody will be HD ready. (As in owning an HD television set, watching HD television and will be capable of enjoying the benefits of HD games not just the select few).
You couldn't be moe wrong if you tried. People think of the movement into 3-D as being a shift in the graphical stylings of the time, away from sprite based art and toward polygonal graphical modes, but it was nothing of the sort! The shift to polygonal graphics actually came independent of the shift to the 3-D age, and the two have nothing to do with each other! The shift to 3-D games is referring to the ability to move in three dimensions, the ability to move on more than two axes! This fundamentally changed the way games were designed, not because they looked prettier (Mario Kart 64 showed that 3-D games with sprite based graphics are completely possible in 1997) but because one's interaction with the environment was radically changed by this new freedom!
I figured you would rebutt with something of this nature. Yet I ask you this? Do you think that most people realize what's going on in the switch from 2d to 3d? Do you think most people treat the transition from 2d to 3d as an interaction change? Certainly not. Most people go 'WOW Look AT THOSE GRAPHICs!!". You are arguing in the view point of someone who is educated on the subject. Which is a logical fallacy when we are talking in the way that we are. Consumers believed that they are getting better graphics with Mario 64 / SNES. The change to 3d was radical enough that textures didn't need to improve. The move to 3d made it feel more realistic and therefore people felt that the graphics were better.
It's all about perception to most consumers. Which is why you could ask that question on the streets or to a majority of console users and they would fall right into the trap. By moving to 3d graphics the average gamer felt like the graphics were improved (Even if they werent).
Back during the early twentieth century, the singl largest and most expensive telephone survey in the history of of the telephone was conducted in order to predict the outcome of a presidential election (you can look this particular incident up, as it really happened - I just forget the name of the polling company and the two candidates). Their polling showed that a decisive majority of the population (with a difference of at least 10%) would vote for one candidate whose fiscal policies were of a certain beent, so the polling company published conclusively that this candidate would win the election. But when the election actually came around, that candidate lost, by an even larger margin than by which he was predicted to win. What happened? Their method was sound, and certainly their sample size was large enough: it was easily in the tens of thousands. In theory, it should have been an accurate prediction based on the polling of the voting age population.
The flaw in this little sample is the fact that peoples opinions change on political candidates as much as the wind blows. It doesn't relate to games in anyway. Games don't have the same pitfalls as politics let alone deciding presidential candidates. Games are more of a black and white thing. (Either you like it or you don't).
Similarly, you are makign the mistaken assumption that "general consensus" says the Wii library is inferior to - well, anything's, be it the PS2, the 360's, the Gamecube's, whatever. The only problem is that even if you get every single person on every gaming forum on the internet, up to and including the hellpits of the #chans, you will still be missing the entire band of people who do not congregat in those places. And the scary part? Those people, the ones who have essentially elected the Wii as the greatest system ever made, with a library that blows every single other one out of the water? It's not the same assumption. It's just a pretty ignorant take in general to claim that the software is better on the Wii in it's first 27 months than the software on the PS2 was. (While at the same time making a HUGE argument that basically is stating that the innovation of the Wii mote is driving success). You're equating innovation of the Wii Mote's success to software success. Which is just as incorrect and wrong.
The Wii certainly isn't the greatest system ever made. It's only sold 40 some million consoles at this juncture. Quite a lot can happen and until it becomes the best selling console of all-time. Only then can it take that claim to greatness.
They are legion. There's so many more of them that it would be difficult to put to you in limited words. And yes, through their buying habits, they have proclaimed in a single voice: The Wii is the system to own, and its games are just the bestest, I am not even kidding. That is the general consensus. The PS2 cannot match the Wii in that sense. Yes, actually the PS2 can. For as 'Large' as the Wii legion is. The PS2 legion is significantly larger and it's not even close. Maybe someday...But not yet.
Now, the matter of what is good and what isn't is obviously subjective, but if we take "majority rules" as the ultimate qualifier, then we come to a horrifying realization: the Wii has the bestl ineup in the entire universe. Oh no! The Wii doesn't have the best lineup if we're talking about "majority" rules. Considering HD consoles are the majority.
That's right! There is no higher authority to which one can appeal for quality! Fair enough, but I certainly can hold the belief that the Wii sells nothing but shovelware without being bombarded for it then.
|
