Wii has been a smash success and I am happy.

[homerwannabee]

To tell you the truth I am not a Nintendo fanboy by any stretch of the imagination in fact until just recently I have totally hated Nintendo. Mainly because they took the top spot from Atari. What has changed my mind about them is the Wii. For years now the main focus has been how powerful and strong the system is. Until the Wii each company has focused on raising the bar just a little bit each time grapically. In the process of the lust for graphics gameplay has taken a huge backseat. That is until the Wii. For the first time in maybe ever Nintendo decided to take a step back and focus more on Innovation and creativity in regards to coming up with their console. Sony on the other hand decided to go the same old stronger and faster routine that has been done since consoles were first created. So in a sense I stand up and applaud Nintendo for making this system. I truly believe that when people look back twenty years from now they will regard the Wii as the turning point in video gaming.

[Atari Master]

I agree.

 

I hope they are successful through the entire generation. The PS3 and 360 seem to be sending the message, "we can price rape u olol!1"

 

I hope they days of the $199 and $299 consoles aren't over.

[Atari-Jess]

I think they are from everyone except nintendo.

[AtariJr]

I think they are from everyone except nintendo.

yea really.. if the wii cost as much as the 360 or ps3, id be getting.... well... nothing, maybe ds games lol. i remember when 299 for a system seemed insane, which is why up till this year, ive never gotten a console the first year it came out ((or second now that i think about it...)). Its sad to know that you have to work for 2 weeks straight to afford a video game console with no game bundled with it. Thanks Wii.

[Atari Master]

I think they are from everyone except nintendo.

yea really.. if the wii cost as much as the 360 or ps3, id be getting.... well... nothing, maybe ds games lol. i remember when 299 for a system seemed insane, which is why up till this year, ive never gotten a console the first year it came out ((or second now that i think about it...)). Its sad to know that you have to work for 2 weeks straight to afford a video game console with no game bundled with it. Thanks Wii.

 

QFT

 

I hope the Wii outsells both. It may not be an HD game system, but it's afforable and has quite a few fun games. If the Wii wins, it'll send a message to the market saying, "we don't want $600 game systems."

[jpfalcon2003]

I'm happy with my wii and games.

[Paranoid]

You know what? I dislike Nintendo simply because their games so blatantly pander to the happy family values market, and I'm into edgy games, and I think one console should be easily able to satisfy both markets. So, I'm cleary an XBox fan... which is the king of the Rated M title.

 

Still, the Wii impresses me, because it directly addresses the kind of market demographic that I keep saying retrogaming is ready to exploit. I think Nintendo *basically* gets this... even if they're trying to do it with latest-gen technology. Their commercials make it clear, they want gaming to be a family activity.

 

And it should be. 35+ year olds... single *or* married, hidden in a basement playing games is just... perverse.

[+swlovinist]

Nintendo has many things going for it, one of the major things is price. In a market that seems to be about the next gen thing, Nintendo has not forgotten about all the people that dont have a 1000+ dollar TV set or expensive budget. I think that the price of the 360 and PS3 will make the Wii a choice for many gamers. Add to the fact that the Wii has basic internet capabilities and a virtual console, I think that it will do very well. I truly think that the industry needs to take a glance at why people play games instead of making a video game look like a movie. Add to this fact the expensive development costs that have surfaced in the last 5 years, and you have the Wii looking like a good choice for both consumers and developers(Dev costs on the Wii are about half of what the PS3 and 360 offer)

[Paranoid]

hear-hear.

 

Although at the same time, the Wii itself isn'e exactly chump change. Nintendo just is in a place where they can enjoy the RELATIVE price difference between their consoles and the insane prices of the competition.

 

I think the problem for me, with this fact is, at the $250 that I would pay for a Wii... I'll make the stretch to a XBox 360 Core system, at which point, I might as well make the further stretch to a loaded Xbox 360... at which point, I remember that I'm sick of playing the next wave of super realistic FPS games and paying an arm and a leg to do so.

 

Which is usually when I go turn on my 800XL and play some Donkey Kong.

[Atari Master]

Lol, I expect the price will drop to $200 in a few months. That, or some better games will pop out. Wario Ware Twisted comes out next month!

 

I'll get a 360 when the Premium drops to around $300. I got the Wii as a Christmas present, though.

[kisrael]

The whole HD thing is kind of interesting. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm still sticking with my theory that consumers really don't care all that much about resolution, that it helps rationalize a decision that's already made...

 

Case in point:

* MP3s convenience wins out over CDs, despite the potential quality drop

* it seems like lots of demonstration HDTVs aren't even showing a proper highdef signal

* I can't think of a signal "next gen" product that took off ONLY because of fidelity/resolution: CDs offered random access, DVDs had flicker free pause, random access, extra content, better shelf-ability, HDTVs offer a big picture in a 16:9 format while being physically smaller

 

So, I'm still a skeptic about HD in general, especially with a format war in the works. 10 years for DVD over VHS? How long for this stuff??

[Starscream]

I am proof that consumers do. I am, afterall, a consumer.

[AtariJr]

the ps3 forum must be lonley...

[jbanes]

I see it like this: Graphics was such a major issue during the 2D console wars because better graphics enabled more innovative and complex gameplay. For example, the NES could have done Street Fighter II, but the characters would have been so small it would have been embarassing. The Super NES was thus "better" because it allowed for larger characters that were more easily recognizable, which helped maintain the gameplay elements of the arcade game. Had it been done on the NES, the gameplay would have been more like the two player travesty that was Karate Kid and Double Dragon "versus" modes.

 

Somewhere along the way, this enabling factor was lost as the reason for upgrading the graphics. 2D graphics pretty much peaked in the Genesis/SNES generation, but that didn't stop tons of new consoles from appearing with promises of "amazing graphics". Most of the early CD-ROM consoles had a very hard time competing as consumers just didn't "get" the difference. The only systems that hung on at all were the ones with the proto-3D graphics capabilities; something not seen on the less expensive Genesis and SNES consoles. Still, the market didn't "get" it and huge swaths of CD-ROM systems were delivered stillborn. (e.g. Who remembers the Amiga CD32 from back in the day?)

 

The last generation of consoles ended up being important more by accident than anything else. The true first-gen 3D consoles like the PS1 and N64 were capable 3D machines, but were highly limited by their pixelated or blurred renderings of 3D worlds. The last upgrade brought much crisper 3D capabilities, enabling far more interactive 3D objects and environments. (Not to mention a more immersive experience.)

 

Now we're on the third round of the 3D generation. Sony and Microsoft think it's all about the eye-candy without understanding that there MUST be gameplay advances to provide value to that candy. Microsoft saved a bit of face by pioneering online play, and perfecting it with the 360. Nintendo "gets it" in understanding that 3D technology is sufficient for nearly any type of game you might want to play. So they focused on other enabling factors (in this case the control scheme) in order to improve the gameplay experience. Sony... doesn't really offer anything other than a Bluray player. Which is kind of sad, if you remember the CD-i attempts to push a new "standard" format for digital entertainment.

 

And that's my 2 cents on the issue.

[Starscream]

the ps3 forum must be lonley...

 

I don't know, didn't get there yet. I just come to the wii forum for comedy relief.

[AtariJr]

bottom line im doing something completely new and its hella fun, even more so than the ds. i play games on my roommate's 360....and while they look slightly better than my old xbox, i still cant warrent the price as its not really new feeling to me. the framerate or gameplay on many of these games havent changed...just everythings more shiney,or i can see a pimple on the ass of a linebacker. i really dont care.us when i play zelda or excite truck on wii, i dont think about "oh thats a low polygon object" i think man its really cool that when i shake the wiimote, the wolf rips that guy's neck off...something no other console has given me. that was the longest freakin wii post..my arm is sore`..break time

[moycon]

The Wii is great fun, but to be honest the game I have the most fun with is Wii Sports, the other games feel just like a expected them too. Gamecube games with awkward controls.

 

No offense but games like Call of Duty 3 on the Wii don't hold a candle to the same game on the 360 or PS3. To those who say otherwise are either in denial or FOS. In the end the Wii is gonna be an awesome system to break out at parties, and it'll be great fun as long as you are playing the simple to pick up games, that folks get into right away, but if you are a hardcore gamer and only have a Wii...you're cheating yourself.

 

Don't try and justify your only buying a Wii by saying the PS3 and 360 aren't fun because they look awesome LOL

Think about that for a minute and you'll see why Starscream gets such a giggle out of the Wii forums.

 

2 more cents

[AtariJr]

im not saying that because they look better they suck, thats stupid, i said that that level of graphical upgrade for me doesnt warrant 4 or 6 hundred bucks on a console. and that for much less than that i can get a totally new experience is all. dont misinterpret what i meant...istill want a 360...just not for that price as i dont think im getting as much for my money

 

my $5...cause my opinion is worth more

[kisrael]

I am proof that consumers do. I am, afterall, a consumer.

Ooh, touche.

 

Of course I was thinking of "consumers in general" and not "people interested enough in games and technology to post pedantic and annoying followups on web forums largely dedicated to very old game consoles", but whatever.

[AtariJr]

burrrrrn lol

[moycon]

post pedantic and annoying followups on web forums.

 

Ummmm

 

This reminds me of something...has to do with a pot and a kettle. LOL

[NE146]

I am proof that consumers do. I am, afterall, a consumer.

 

I am proof that they don't.. and I own a couple of HD tv's at this point

 

Well.. ok that's incorrect. I guess I "care" obviously, since I prefer to watch stuff if it's in HD not to mention I forked out the cash for the damn tvs, hdmi & component runs, etc. But in the end, it really just looks like a nice computer monitor. Definitely not "amazing". Very nice. But overrated at this point. We still have yet to reach the point of amazing, and when it does in my opinion.. I will say it.

 

But bottom line to this conversation, I really dont care that I'm playing my Wii via composite cables, and my 360 via component, and my cable box via HDMI (sorely not really utilized ). But yeah, it's kind of all is a wash. Wii is fine with composite.

[moycon]

But bottom line to this conversation, I really dont care

 

How can you say you don't care when you spent so much of your hard earned consumer dollars on the equipment? Seems to me you could have bought a $200 TV and sent the rest of the $$$ to me.

[Paranoid]

Ok...

 

So, I agree with JBanes, Ne146, and AtariJr on this one.

 

I've got a 42" Gas Plasma HDTV. I think HDTV is *incredible*. But, there are a bunch of caveats.

 

It has to be a topic that lends itself well to HDTV. Vivid colors, lots of contrasting shapes, sizes and textures. It has to be filmed with the right kind of camera. Basically, those two things alone really place some serious limitations on how often you're going to see anything that really amazes you. Now... I dig nature shows, so, I'm often blown away by HDTV programming. But I can understand how the current crop of HDTV programming leaves a lot of the more common-minded people feeling like they've been hoodwinked. CSI can only look so good.

 

Yeah, it really is comparable to a really big computer monitor. It really isn't even actually *that* good, resolution wise. For me, it is worth the extra dough. But I can see why so many people aren't sure if they want to take that extra step. There isn't a lot out there that does or can take advantage of it.

 

And I see the same thing with the 360 and PS3. The Wii is the only one that is remotely interesting. They've taken 3D gaming pretty far. It is just going to get MORE realstic... which is cool... it has an awe factor for sure. But I'm *not* interested in paying the premium they want for that awe factor. I need a game that gets me hooked. From everything I hear, the Wii sounds like the console MOST likely to come out with a title with a killer hook (and yeah, by virtue of the controller, more likely than not). But I'm not interested in ANY of them at this point. The only one that has my attention is the Wii, though.

 

And I really *dislike* Nintendo products... and even more-so, Nintendo fans. On a "fanboy" level, I'm rooting for the XBox... for a number of reasons (I'd like to see Microsoft kick Sony's ass, and Nintendo's too, for that matter. Send that stupid big-eyed anime FRP crap *packing*). But from a practical, realist perspective, I think Wii could be the dark horse contender for this round.

[NE146]

But bottom line to this conversation, I really dont care

 

How can you say you don't care when you spent so much of your hard earned consumer dollars on the equipment? Seems to me you could have bought a $200 TV and sent the rest of the $$$ to me.

 

Well I DID admit I obviously "sort of" cared

 

Well.. ok that's incorrect. I guess I "care" obviously, since I prefer to watch stuff if it's in HD not to mention I forked out the cash for the damn tvs

 

I mean I'm nearing 40.. the wife and I are both working professionals. No kids.. so I might as well just snag the latest and greatest. It doesn't mean I'm necessarily impressed with whatever it is though

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, unlike some "techy" suckers our there with their finger up the ass over using only cutting edge equipment, it really doesn't bother me using composite inputs on a hdtv for something (the Wii), vs using component (the 360), or HDMI (cable/sat), or whatever the heck else is there coming up. I mean give me a break.. the truth is they all look fine! Some just are "sharper" and clearer than others.

 

And so yeah when I say I don't really care, just look at where I'm posting at and it becomes clear. Come on, I am one of the guys like most here who still play Atari 2600 via an RF switchbox!!!

 

..Until it gets crazy crystal clear to the point it looks like a virtual window, I'm still of the opinion HD still has a long way to go to be amazing. I have no doubt it'll get there though. It's just not there now. And yes, I'll be there the whole way watching it But I don't think it's a must have just yet for the general consumer.

Edited December 28, 2006 by NE146