Wii has been a smash success and I am happy.

[bretthorror]

It's simple. The Wii is $250. The PS3 is $600.

 

Does the $350 price difference not make any sense to anyone but me? That's why the PS3 is stronger. It's stupid to compare graphical qualities between a $250 console to a $600 one. Not to mention with the $600 one, you have to buy the special HD cables and have an HDTV set to get full enjoyment out of what the system is supposed to be. What's it supposed to be? Uh... it's supposed to look real. Because, we all know how realistic video games are. When I got shot waiting in line for my PS3, I hid behind a rock and I was miraculously cured, just like in the video games! I got stabbed waiting for my 360, luckily, there was a power up around the corner, so I was all good. Then, I shot a hooker and ran off in my car, luckily I found a police bribe in an alleyway.

 

Video games will never be real (well, unless they make them extremely difficult beyond belief), so I don't have time to worry about them being incredibly real looking or this advanced AI that could never be true or the games would be unplayable. The difference between Wii fans and PS3 fans... the Wii people honestly don't care about the graphics.

[Paranoid]

Ok, Starscream, your point is noted.

 

And I'll admit, that all things considered, almost all of your points are well taken.

 

But, I want to argue just one of your points.

 

I went out the day after Christmas and bought myself the iPod Video 80gb. I decided not to screw around with any more "generic" media players and just go with the top dog. I'm *hopeful* that I won't come to regret this decision because of the non-user replacable battery (although I was over at my pal's house tonight, and his daughter's 20gb iPod has a battery that won't hold a charge anymore. Not liking that at all). But basically, this was an example of me deciding, "I'm going with the top of the line and not messing around with half asses solutions".

 

So, I see that point... that if money is no object, you'll get the best of what you can afford. Now, from that perspective, if money really is not an object, I'll probably have all three, the PS3, the 360, and the Wii. I suppose I *could* do that, if gaming was where I wanted to put that big of a chunk of my disposable income. (Who am I kidding, I have no income. That big of a chunk of my WIFE'S disposable income).

 

But, I don't want to put my disposable income there, at that level. I will *probably*, at some point, get one of the next gen consoles. It almost certainly will *not* be a PS3 (unless they come out with some platform dependent killer app that I get introduced to and get hooked on, which is unlikely, IMO). Right at *this* moment, I'm leaning toward a Wii as the most likely candidate whenever I get around to it.

 

There are a number of reasons. The Wii seems the most *innovative* and likely to breed something *new* and *refreshing*. The Wiitards, if you want to call them that, are right about that much. And though they may just be regurgitating a line, it is a pitch that goes beyond Nintendo propaganda. You've got some serious industry minds saying that Nintendo may be onto something with their approach to the Wii. I agree. It could turn out just to be a gimmick, but at least it is something new.

 

Secondly, it just seems like a bad investment to get in on this generation at the onset. There isn't enough innovation all around, and the prices are astronomical. If I'm going to drop $600 on a console, I'll just double or quadruple that investment and build myself an AWESOME gaming PC. More likely, I'll wait a few years, until prices have really dropped, and get on the wave then. Which isn't about having or not having money, it is about where you want to spend it. For the disposable income I *do* have... a next gen console is just way down on my list of priorities right now. But again, the advantage goes to the Wii. It is the MOST likely to ever see a pricepoint near $150... which would probably be the magic number for me.

 

Finally, the idea of a "party box" appeals to me, for a game console. This is something in the front room, hooked up to the TV... it should be a group and family oriented device, IMO. The PS3 and 360 still seem to me to be consoles that are most likely hidden in the teenaged boy's room hooked up to his TV set. Or in a bachelor's apartment hooked up to his "I coulda put a down payment on a house" entertainment system. I'm neither of these. And that my interest is in the Wii and I *am* neither of these things, speaks about the Wii's potential. And that is the thing, here. I *am* the demographic that *can* afford the HD TV and the Ps3 or loaded XBox... but the manufacturer who seems to get my needs the MOST is Nintendo. They seem to understand my desires, my motivation, and my price point. And that could make a HELLUVA difference.

 

So... this isn't Fanboyism. In general, like I said, I'm an Xbox guy and not a fan of the Japanese approach to gaming.

[kisrael]

You gotta choose the software that lends itself to the consoles strengths, and with the DS it's obvious those games have indeed come out where the lack of DS horsepower mattered naught (Need for Speed notwithstanding ). I expect it'll be the same for the Wii.

Because you know, the N64 and GC generations just weren't able to make any fun 3D games. Thank god we finally have the Ps3 and 360.

[moycon]

You gotta choose the software that lends itself to the consoles strengths, and with the DS it's obvious those games have indeed come out where the lack of DS horsepower mattered naught (Need for Speed notwithstanding ). I expect it'll be the same for the Wii.

Because you know, the N64 and GC generations just weren't able to make any fun 3D games. Thank god we finally have the Ps3 and 360.

 

LOL Why'd the 2600 ever die? It was fun enough. By kisrael's logic, we should all be playing the original Atari and nothing else!! These arguments are silly. All 3 of the new consoles will have fun games...and they all 3 have strengths and weaknesses. Post 500 pages of opinion, praise or bullshit.... it aint gonna change this fact.

[jbanes]

Listen to Paranoid, he is expressing himself quite well.

 

To add to his point about the price vs. performance, it simply comes down to a value perspective. The Wii provides a great deal of value to its users for a low cost. There's value in its innovative controllers, virtual console, web surfing capabilties, Gamecube compatibility, multiplayer library, low profile, wireless capability, and low power usage. That value to its users is at least equal to its retail price.

 

Now the PS3 has value in its PS2 compatibility, wireless controllers, HDTV support, and online play*. Unfortunately, that value does not reach its price point for many users**. This makes it a difficult sell, despite its HD capabilities. If the PS3 was priced similar to the 360, it would probably have as high of a demand as the Wii. (Putting aside for a moment that a lot of people strongly dislike Sony for their mistreatment of customers.)

 

 

* I didn't mention the Bluray player because it's of questionable value at the moment. It seems to be better to view it as an enabler of HD gaming content. The value equation may change if Bluray movies become more popular and more available.

 

** I said "many", not all. Some customers - noteably the "early adopter" crowd - find the PS3 to offer sufficient value for its price.

[thomasholzer]

Wii is a success because Nintendo got it right for once:

Worldwide release of the Wii. For once we European gamers don't have to wait 6 months to 1 year for a hardware release (PS3 comes in March 2007 to Europe for example, and that's still an 'if' (Who's gonna buy a console in March?))

That is why in UK the Wii is doing well, just right for Christmas too.

Someone at Nintendo was actually thinking?

Edited December 29, 2006 by thomasholzer

[kisrael]

You gotta choose the software that lends itself to the consoles strengths, and with the DS it's obvious those games have indeed come out where the lack of DS horsepower mattered naught (Need for Speed notwithstanding ). I expect it'll be the same for the Wii.

Because you know, the N64 and GC generations just weren't able to make any fun 3D games. Thank god we finally have the Ps3 and 360.

 

LOL Why'd the 2600 ever die? It was fun enough. By kisrael's logic, we should all be playing the original Atari and nothing else!! These arguments are silly. All 3 of the new consoles will have fun games...and they all 3 have strengths and weaknesses. Post 500 pages of opinion, praise or bullshit.... it aint gonna change this fact.

Hey, did you read in my post where I wrote "fun *3D* games"? You don't represent my logic, just a strawman illogical extension of it.

 

SNES didn't do much beyond what the NES could more or less do, i.e. 2D games w/ sprites and scrollign and maps more complex than what the 2600 et al could do. GC didn't do much beyond what the N64 could do, ie. 3D w/o special hardware, and beyond "Mode 7".

 

The thing is, what comes after 3D? The answer for PS3 and X360 is "prettier 3D!"

 

The answer for Wii, though, is "something new" - namely, new methods of input.

 

The power of PS3 and X360 interest me in doing something else new, like *really* good living breathing worlds, or truly epic battles. But prettier graphics? Not so much.

 

I might get a 360 when I see my must have game. Probably not Halo 3, as much as I like the series. A really good GTA game might do it.

[Mendon]

By the way I'm reading the various comments here.. very pigeonholing. I guess what I'm wondering is, do I count as a Wiitard?

 

Nope... you are one of them gol dang perverts! Anyone who would do disgusting things with a Christmas tree couldn't be trusted with a Wii !!

 

Mendon

[Starscream]

I went out the day after Christmas and bought myself the iPod Video 80gb. I decided not to screw around with any more "generic" media players and just go with the top dog. I'm *hopeful* that I won't come to regret this decision because of the non-user replacable battery (although I was over at my pal's house tonight, and his daughter's 20gb iPod has a battery that won't hold a charge anymore. Not liking that at all). But basically, this was an example of me deciding, "I'm going with the top of the line and not messing around with half asses solutions".

 

The battery expected life on ipods is a crock of poo. I have 3 altogether and never once did I get the full claimed maximum. In fact, my Nano is down to one hour on a full charge in 11 months. It has around 100 hours total on it. The good news is, you don't have to rely on Apple, even under their you pay even if it's under warranty policy, to replace it. You can do it your self. I also checked out an 80 gig video ipod the other day. Next day, I went and bought a Zune instead I like my ipods I suppose, but the Zune seemed to be a better deal for me.

 

There are a number of reasons. The Wii seems the most *innovative* and likely to breed something *new* and *refreshing*. The Wiitards, if you want to call them that, are right about that much. And though they may just be regurgitating a line, it is a pitch that goes beyond Nintendo propaganda. You've got some serious industry minds saying that Nintendo may be onto something with their approach to the Wii. I agree. It could turn out just to be a gimmick, but at least it is something new.

 

No doubt it is innovative and I have not discounted that at all. In fact, I had a long rant a year or so back about Nintendo that pissed alotta people off on here. But, most of my bitches Nintendo has addressed. Almost like they listened to me But many seem to think Nintendo is the only innovation out there, and it's not. All 3 are doing many great things, all three can give an experience you can't get anywhere else. That isn't exclusive to Nintendo.

And my bitching was never about which is better, my bitching is about blind followers that keep saying stupid crap and the one's buying into propaganda and speaking of it as gospel.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Starscream

[Paranoid]

LOL Why'd the 2600 ever die? It was fun enough. By kisrael's logic, we should all be playing the original Atari and nothing else!! These arguments are silly. All 3 of the new consoles will have fun games...and they all 3 have strengths and weaknesses. Post 500 pages of opinion, praise or bullshit.... it aint gonna change this fact.

 

I pretty much play only original Atari games and nothing else these days... even on my Xbox.

 

But many seem to think Nintendo is the only innovation out there, and it's not. All 3 are doing many great things, all three can give an experience you can't get anywhere else.

 

I don't see or hear anything about exciting innovation on the 360 or the PS3, though. It could just be that I'm not interested enough to pay much attention, but nothing has caused as much buzz, from where I sit, as the Wii controller.

 

I will suggest this. Any of the three probably give you an experience that absolutely could be reproduced on a nice, high end PC. I've got two... a fairly dated PCI-E P4 3.4Ghz desktop and a Core Duo 1.7ghz Geforce AGP notebook. I'm almost positive that anything that the 360 or the PS3 can do graphically, a PC can match. It would be disingenous for me to suggest that there won't be Wiimote knockoff controllers for the PC eventually, so, theoretically, the PC should be able to replicate *that* experience as well. Granted, PC gaming introduces some obstacles that consoles will never face, but, I think it is a stretch to say that any of the current generation is creating anything that can't be replicated somewhere else. Again, though... I see the PS3 and 360 as offering an "innovation" that is merely an evolutionary step in 3D graphics, and PC graphics and processing power will obviously continue the trend of meeting and exceeding anything in the life cycle of a console. The Wii controller again, has an edge, simply because it combines the convienence of a console with the dedicated controller that can be leveraged for that console. A PC controller that tries to capture the same thing is bound to be less satisfying, if simply because the games will have to be designed to accomodate this and *other* controller schemes.

 

Maybe I'm not giving the PS3 or 360 enough credit for where they are today. Honestly, I did see the same thing with the Xbox. The graphics were impressive, but my PC systems far exceeded the capabilities of the XBox in short order. The advantage of the XBox, at that time, was that you just put a game in, and it loaded, rather than installing to hard drive, working with conflicts, mapping controllers, dealing with calibration of controllers, and all that PC boolsheet. Again, though, I don't see the 360, for example, as being INNOVATIVE in that sense. It just builds on what came before it, using what seems to be the same formula and approach to engineering. For what it costs, it doesn't seem to offer a tremendous bump in performance... especially when games have now crawled from $40 up to $50 per pop. When I look at the difference in graphics and performance between an Xbox title and a 360 title, for the difference in price (including the hardware *and* the title), it just doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather drop a couple hundred into a brand new, high end PCI or AGP video card and get my kicks that way.

 

*shrug*

 

Although, truth be told, I'm getting off THAT merry-go-round of upgrading to a $200-$400 video card every 12-18 months or so just to be on the bleeding edge of being able to play whatever game in maximum resolution with every feature turned on. I'll live with my games in 800x600 with some environmental effects disabled, for all the difference I notice in-game.

 

Which is really my same basic argument for staying with an Xbox or PS2 rather than moving up to a 360 or PS3.

 

Is there some innovation on those platforms I've missed? I gave up on Xbox live when it became populated by 14 year old white suburban kids who were pretending they were black urban ganstas... and I certainly don't see any incentive to pay $5 per title for Live Arcade retro downloads when my Xbox runs every XPort emulator known to man. I'm not trying to be a bulldog about this... I'm just trying to paint my perspective.

 

In all of this, it still comes back to: a $150 Wii, with the innovative approach to family/group gaming and the unique and *novel* controller experience (which makes it something like Kareoke or some other thing that people in the room go, "Hey, let *me* give that a try...") is the right amount of gamble, to me. The $250 Wii as it currently exists, probably isn't, though.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Paranoid

[Starscream]

Is there some innovation on those platforms I've missed? I gave up on Xbox live when it became populated by 14 year old white suburban kids who were pretending they were black urban ganstas... and I certainly don't see any incentive to pay $5 per title for Live Arcade retro downloads when my Xbox runs every XPort emulator known to man. I'm not trying to be a bulldog about this... I'm just trying to paint my perspective.

 

Yea, I think. At least on the 360. I really have 0 time to mess with a PS3 so I can't say. I would say using the Cell is though. Or the Cell itself. but then again, we are using the word innovation and I don't think that word fits the things we talk about. Creative would be much better. Innovation is usually defined as being the first or groundbreaking. The wiimote is neither, Xbox Live is neither, and probably the cell is neither. How all are implimented is really just using what exists in creative ways.

 

Anyways, I think the way Live is being used is what games needed. You mentioned old arcade games and bratty teenagers. It goes beyond that. Right now, you can make a game with dev tools. Anything you want. Submit it to be released on Live upon approval. I know that this is always done on the internet. But this, it's different. Gamers making games. No URL to find out about, no links, just go to the community marketplace and get it. Gabriel in another thread talked about a game he thought would be cool. He can do it now. MS is taking homebrewers in with open arms. I summed this all up neat tidy and short. It's more involving but that's the jist of it. There are some really creative people out there who's stuff would get lost on the net and don't have the cash to market their stuff. Now it's easy and in a smaller community.

 

I don't think the hardware is where innovation matters too much. The software is why the hardware exists. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 20 really creative games from last gen til now. I can say that maybe 5 or 6 left long term impressions and the others I'll remember but not as well. Which leads me to my point. Many people seem to assume innovation = great and different=better. Jet Grind Radio is really creative and very original. A great game IMO, that was like nothing I ever played. Games like that are few and far between. Halo is a great game. Not very original, but provided me with so much fun and still does. Cooking Mama is very original and creative, but boring and not fun. Call Of Duty is not so original and not so fun.

These of course are my opinions. You could easily find the some games you find memorable and see that you feel the same as me. I don't think there's any gamers out there that just buy games that are 100% original. If so, he has about 40 by now.

 

Think about it. Just here on AA, a majority of us act like snobby elitists. Bitching about corporations, Sports games, FPS games, stupid gamestore employees, and who will win in sales. We sit around and bitch about games always wanting the next big hit, the most innovative, creative thing we can get. Until it becomes popular. Then we bitch. Somehow, we manage to step off our soapboxes long enough to play many non-original games and non-innovative games that we've become a community of people who like video games that found other people who like video games. So does innovation really matter? You're gonna play games anyways and enjoy it. Or come here to bitch about it. But you're still going to play.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Starscream

[kisrael]

Yea, I think. At least on the 360. I really have 0 time to mess with a PS3 so I can't say. I would say using the Cell is though. Or the Cell itself. but then again, we are using the word innovation and I don't think that word fits the things we talk about. Creative would be much better. Innovation is usually defined as being the first or groundbreaking. The wiimote is neither, Xbox Live is neither, and probably the cell is neither. How all are implimented is really just using what exists in creative ways.

Getting back to this old debate, I think both the proper definition, and useful definition, of "innovative" doesn't insist on it being "absolutely original". (In that sense, nearly nothing is innovative, because everything is somewhat like something that came before in some way, or everything is, because no new product is exactly the same as what came before. So Xbox Live is, I think, as a unified account online gaming experience. (Hell, I think it even matches the crazy "strict" definition of innovative, as long as someone doesn't say "the first online gaing service")

I don't think the hardware is where innovation matters too much. The software is why the hardware exists.

Right, which is why the Cell might be innovative from a developer's point of view, but not until we're seeing games that just can't be done on Xbox will that really matter.

Think about it. Just here on AA, a majority of us act like snobby elitists. Bitching about corporations, Sports games, FPS games, stupid gamestore employees, and who will win in sales. We sit around and bitch about games always wanting the next big hit, the most innovative, creative thing we can get. Until it becomes popular. Then we bitch. Somehow, we manage to step off our soapboxes long enough to play many non-original games and non-innovative games that we've become a community of people who like video games that found other people who like video games. So does innovation really matter? You're gonna play games anyways and enjoy it. Or come here to bitch about it. But you're still going to play.

"Nothing is cool once it's popular".

Actually, I think a lot of us *don't* have that attitude, and can recognize a game that's well-executed even if it's not doing anything particularly new.

 

Hell, that's certainly the case for the Nintendo Fanboy (species Miyamoto Socoolius) whose favorite company seems to make a living refining and improving previous titles. Though to be fair, they seem to do a better job if it than a number of sports series I could think of, where (at least to the outside observer) each year mostly brings a whole set of stat changes and that's about it...

[moycon]

Is there some innovation on those platforms I've missed? I gave up on Xbox live when it became populated by 14 year old white suburban kids who were pretending they were black urban ganstas... and I certainly don't see any incentive to pay $5 per title for Live Arcade retro downloads when my Xbox runs every XPort emulator known to man. I'm not trying to be a bulldog about this... I'm just trying to paint my perspective.

 

I haven't heard any white kids pretending to be black kids on Live.

 

I have a modded Xbox also...but how many of your Xbox emulated games can you play online head to head or co-op with your fellow gamer? Any? How many Xbox emulated games unlock achievements that are forever logged to your online profile? Any? How many Xbox emulated games keep your high score logged to a leaderboard that can be viewed by millions at the touch of a button? Any? LOL

 

In any case, I've noticed some of the folks making the biggest stink and the biggest bitch against the new systems...DON'T OWN EVEN ONE!! LOL I think it's safe to say that anyone posting to these threads whose experience with any of the new systems is kiosks or going over to a friends house for an hour or two and playing his system can pretty much be ignored. Regardless how intelligent they are attempting to appear, the fact is they don't know what they are talking about and are just blowing hot air.

[kisrael]

I have a Wii, but I don't devalue people's opinion just because they don't have a "nextgen" system. Maybe the 360 didn't seem that great, or the other two are too hard to find. Even if they purposefully don't want to buy in yet, an "interested observer" who is reading reviews and news pieces, trying out systems when they get the chance, and just thinking should have reasonable things to say about the current state of affairs.

 

To say you can't comment on something you don't own and might not have played "in depth" is just rude, and dumb. "Look, you know that system you're trashing? Go sink half a thousand into the system, some controllers, and some games, play it in depth for a week or two, THEN you can come back here and maybe we'll listen to your criticism of it."

Edited December 30, 2006 by kisrael

[Paranoid]

Starscream:

Anyways, I think the way Live is being used is what games needed. You mentioned old arcade games and bratty teenagers. It goes beyond that. Right now, you can make a game with dev tools. Anything you want. Submit it to be released on Live upon approval. I know that this is always done on the internet. But this, it's different. Gamers making games. No URL to find out about, no links, just go to the community marketplace and get it. Gabriel in another thread talked about a game he thought would be cool. He can do it now. MS is taking homebrewers in with open arms. I summed this all up neat tidy and short. It's more involving but that's the jist of it. There are some really creative people out there who's stuff would get lost on the net and don't have the cash to market their stuff. Now it's easy and in a smaller community.

 

Wow. I've got mixed emotions on this. It sounds like a way for Microsoft to squeeze more profits by exploiting the talents of the "amateurs"... which is always a good gig for a company.

 

"Send us in your homemade "whatever", and we'll send you a shirt, or at least recognize your submission... disclaimer - all submissions become the property of The Souless Corporation to use however we see fit, for all eternity, with no further compensation to the author *besides* the T-shirt".

 

On the other hand, I can see the benefit for the community and that more likely than not, the author is going to benefit from bigger exposure and support than he would have otherwise. Like I said, a mixed bag. It makes me think of Sony doing "independent music artist" promotions. "Edgy, hip, underground..." or, at least the carefully polished and orchestrated apperance of being those things.

 

Moycon:

 

I haven't heard any white kids pretending to be black kids on Live.

 

Do you have a working headset? (It has been my experience that a broken headset improves the quality of Xbox live 100%). Maybe you're just being *fooled* into believing that they are actually black gangstas that happen to have XBox and XBox live and are playing out of their fortified crackhouse in LA.

 

I have a modded Xbox also...but how many of your Xbox emulated games can you play online head to head or co-op with your fellow gamer? Any? How many Xbox emulated games unlock achievements that are forever logged to your online profile? Any? How many Xbox emulated games keep your high score logged to a leaderboard that can be viewed by millions at the touch of a button? Any? LOL

 

Who CARES? What a complete non-sequitur. I'm talking about your claim (on an Atari retro board, no less) that,

"we should all be playing original atari and nothing else".

And my response was, "yeah, that is *exactly* how many of us feel", and you come back with, "But can you play your original Atari online and unlock features and be on a world ranking list"... Who GIVES a flyin' frig? You're completely missing the point. All of the features you think are the hottest thing since gimp-balls fail to give me even a hint of wood. And I get the feeling a lot of people around here feel the same way. I'm not interested in playing online to make new virtual friends, or to gain geek-bragging rights because I'm on some leaderboard.

 

I'm not even sure if the XPort emulators offer any kind of "net play" functions on the old retro games, but honestly, I haven't even looked into it. I've played around with the Xbox live alternatives for online gaming with a softmodded Xbox, and quickly discovered that the calibre of gamer you run into online only improves modestly above the punkass kids you run into on Xbox live. I can't imagine that it would be much different with the emulated games if there were online play communities for that, as well.

 

So, even though your response completely missed my point and had nothing to do with the original direction, there is my rebuttal, and I believe it is pretty effective while also giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating your response as if it *were* a credible and logical response, when really, it was neither.

 

In any case, I've noticed some of the folks making the biggest stink and the biggest bitch against the new systems...DON'T OWN EVEN ONE!! LOL I think it's safe to say that anyone posting to these threads whose experience with any of the new systems is kiosks or going over to a friends house for an hour or two and playing his system can pretty much be ignored. Regardless how intelligent they are attempting to appear, the fact is they don't know what they are talking about and are just blowing hot air.

 

As for this gem of wisdom... *of course* those who are "bitching the loudest" are NOT going to own the system in question. The idea that I've got to OWN the system in order to have a valid opinion on it is just ridiculious. When you are interested in buying something, do you just run out and BUY it, and *then* decide if you really like it or not? Wait... maybe I don't want to hear your answer on this. Seriously, by your own "logic", how does one form an opinion of something that is valid without owning it?

 

Someone better on fallicies help me with this one... is it an Appeal to Ignorance? That doesn't quite seem to fit, but that is the right direction. Is this a form of begging the question?

 

In either case, owning the system in question is certainly not a prerequisite of having a valid and informed opinion on that system.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Paranoid

[moycon]

In either case, owning the system in question is certainly not a prerequisite of having a valid and informed opinion on that system.

 

You guys can voice your opinion about systems you don't own...even post volumes of words about them, (I read until I got to the first insult and then stopped so some of your post was wasted key strokes).... but nope, if you're experience with a system is 10 minutes at a kiosk and what you've read.... it's all hot air and not valid to a discussion any more than someone that watches a couple episodes of E.R. and reads a book about doctors can contribute to a discussion about medical procedures. Sorry.

 

By all means though feel free to voice your hate even if it's ignored.

 

Tis the season.

 

Oh and I have 3 perfectly fine head sets Paranoid... if you have a 360 and you are on Live and all you can find to play with are white kids pretending to be black...then your either very unluckly or lying.

 

BTW this thread is about Wii, if you guys wanna argue why I think all your post regarding systems you don't own are BS, why not PM me to keep the thread on track?

Edited December 31, 2006 by moycon

[hex65000]

I keep seeing this argument, so by definition, I should be dumb as drool excited and my life is incomplete until I own a PS3, Wii, and Xbox360 -- THEN I can say that I'm not motivated to own them. Because I can't think of a reason to shell out the cash -- even though I shelled out the cash to be allowed to talk about them?

 

Uhhh... It's time for a rethink here.

 

I also think past history is also part of a valid opinion don't you? I occasionally beat up on Sony because they are a consumer electronics company. MS is beat up on because they want to own every peice of software you load and participate in predatory tactics. Nintendo is regularly arrogant and predatory at worst and in their own little world at best.

 

However, by your definition I shouldn't be able to say anything about the matter because I don't own any of the latest high priced toys.

 

Hex.

[ Just can't think of anything that won't come off poorly ]

[Atarifever]

 

 

You guys can voice your opinion about systems you don't own...even post volumes of words about them, (I read until I got to the first insult and then stopped so some of your post was wasted key strokes).... but nope, if you're experience with a system is 10 minutes at a kiosk and what you've read.... it's all hot air and not valid to a discussion any more than someone that watches a couple episodes of E.R. and reads a book about doctors can contribute to a discussion about medical procedures. Sorry.

 

 

Come on Moycon, you're smarter than that. According to your logic no one should be able to vote. I mean, have you ever run the country? Then I certainly hope you aren't out there voicing your opinion over who should.

[jbanes]

Let me put it this way...

 

* I do not own a PS3

* I do not own a 360

* I do not own a Wii

 

(I do not like them Sam I Am, I do not like green eggs and... um, wait. What was the topic again? )

 

* I have repeatedly tried a PS3 in the store.

* I have repeatedly tried a 360 in the store.

* I have repeatedly tried a Wii in the store.

 

(I have tried them here and there, I have tried them everywhere!)

 

* I was not impressed by the PS3, and feel no need to spend $600 on it.

* I was not impressed by the 360, and feel no need to spend $400 on it.

* Everytime I play the Wii, its charmingly simple gameplay puts a smile on my face.

 

(I do so like green eggs and ham, thank you thank you, Sam I Am!)

 

I can tell you right now that my opinion would not be modified by owning these systems. I already know what to expect from each them, and force feeding myself with 20 hours of Resistence isn't going to change that. That's why I stopped buying FPSes on the PC. Unless a particular FPS provides an environment I'm excited about immersing myself in (e.g. Elite Force), there not much else that differentiates them to me. It's the same with modern game consoles. The few games that look interesting are not enough to pry open my wallet.

 

Each of these consoles are fun for what they are, and each console will manage to appeal to a specific crowd. (Particularly the teenage crowd to whom this stuff is new and exciting.) But for me personally, only the Wii is appealing. Period. End of Story.

[Paranoid]

Moycon,

 

Did you *really* think that your logic was going to fly with anyone around here? It is indefensible. LOL.

[Lord Helmet]

I own a Wii, and its great

I own a 360, and its great too.

 

I play them both on my 65, HDTV...and the 360 does look better...because its supposed to. The lesser graphics of the Wii take nothing away from the fun gameplay.

 

Bottom line...they are both worth every penny. Anyone that bashes either platform isn't a true video game player. If you like good games, and you like modern platforms, you will own both the wii and the 360. You will probably own a PS3 at some point as well. They are all going to be worth it in the long run for someone that enjoys a wide variety of games. Dont bash, just PLAY!

[kisrael]

You guys can voice your opinion about systems you don't own...even post volumes of words about them, (I read until I got to the first insult and then stopped so some of your post was wasted key strokes).... but nope, if you're experience with a system is 10 minutes at a kiosk and what you've read.... it's all hot air and not valid to a discussion any more than someone that watches a couple episodes of E.R. and reads a book about doctors can contribute to a discussion about medical procedures. Sorry.

 

By all means though feel free to voice your hate even if it's ignored.

Err, you're kind of outvoted 4 or 5 to 1, but feel free to ignore anyone you feel like.

 

(Hint: opinions about video games < discussion on medical procedures)

[NE146]

Anyone who knows me from my posts know I am a complete sucker for owning everything The 5200 vs. Colecovision days scarred me for life and it's just my imprinted mindset.

 

Now if I could only stop balking at forking out the cash for the PS3do It's just way pricey...

[rockman_x_2002]

Well, guess I might just as well chime in too. I own a Wii, have a friend who has a Xbox 360, and have yet to see anyone fortunate enough to own a PS3 (although I've played the demo units in a number of stores and have seen their games nearly everywhere else).

 

I think what remains true is that each system has strengths and weaknesses. Xbox 360 plays down the middle, with a good balance of gameplay, great game library, and excellent graphics, but it's not without its drawbacks. The PS3 excels in graphics, but I haven't played enough of their games to really get a good feel on the gameplay (this, due to the fact that I can't spend much more than 10 to 15 minutes at a time playing), and there aren't very many games for the PS3 (except maybe one or two) that I'm looking forward to. And I own the Wii, which isn't a graphics powerhouse, certainly, but the controller is very nice, although it can be misread from time to time.

 

Bottom line: They're all video game systems. Some excel in areas where the others fall. They all do the same thing (play video games), but in different ways. For certain games, one system may be better than the others. For some other games, two of the three, or all three of them, excel.

 

Personally, I like all three. I don't think there is a "bad" system in the bunch, and I didn't think so last generation. The Wii is simply the one I could afford right now, and so it's the one I now have. But if given an extra $1,000 or so to blow, I'd probably wind up picking the other two systems at some point (and I may yet, as this is only the beginning of this console generation). It's all a matter of taste and what you, as the consumer, want from you game system. Therefore, we can all chew the fat here about "my dog's better than your dog," but none of that truly matters when you consider that the only real opinion that truly matters about what you prefer personally is your own. No amount of discussion, arguing, etc., can change that. It's just simply what you like, and how you want your gaming fix.

 

They're all game systems, and we're all gamers. So why not just play and enjoy them for what they are?

[moycon]

Whatever kisrael...Paranoid. Just play with your Wii's.

 

My whole point was you guys are as supposed hardcore gamers, (30+ years old and members of a video game internet forum) missing out by being close minded towards the next gen. I was trying to appeal to your sense of common sense, that you couldn't form an opinion without first hand experience. (Which neither of you is admitting you've had)

 

I remember back in the day when it didn't matter...Atari 2600, Colecovison, Intellivision, You wanted all that goodness.

 

It's all part of getting old I suppose.

 

Now you get more enjoyment out of slamming folks you've never met.

 

Enjoy.