Terminal

B ) Not telling developers that EVERY game doesn't need motion controls.

This is single handily the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. It's a developers choice to add motion control to any game. It's not like Nintendo has an iron fist over them telling them that they must make a game utilize waggle. Hell, Sakurai didn't add motion controls to Brawl because they wouldn't fit. Developers see that games that feature motion controls do well, they'll add motion controls, even if they are just tacked on. How is this Nintendo's fault? Jesus.

I'm just saying that Nintendo could say have something somewhere that says "Hey, don't fuck this shit up. You're giving our new controller a bad name."

Does anyone else get the impression that we could pull a "duck season/rabbit season" here and we'd all keep arguing anyway just on principle?

Inkmonkey
Does anyone else get the impression that we could pull a "duck season/rabbit season" here and we'd all keep arguing anyway just on principle?

Oh good, it's not just me then.

Hell, Sakurai didn't add motion controls to Brawl because they wouldn't fit.

Actually, he did. With the nunchuck and wii-mote control scheme, you shake the controller to perform smash attacks. You CAN turn it off, but it is the default control scheme for the game. Even though Sakurai didn't want to use motion controls in the game that particular setup probably isn't robust enough to work as he intended without it. That has actually become a fairly typical design flaw I've seen in Nintendo systems ever since the N64.

Isukun argues out of irrational bias

Because not worshiping Nintendo as being the pinnacle of gaming evolution is irrationally hating them. What I really dislike is the irrational love that people show towards them. This belief that they are somehow driving the industry, creating the most innovative games, and that they somehow care about their customers more than the "cold unfeeling corporations". People need to wake up and see that Nintendo is just as cold and unfeeling as any other corporation out there. Most of their "innovations" are taken from other markets and they usually wait until prices go down enough that they can include cheap second-rate parts to accomplish their goals. They pull some pretty slick marketing schemes to pull the wool over their customers eyes and hide the flaws in their hardware.

If they cared so much about the consumer, why are they the only company that made money off of every system sold out the gate this generation? Why is it so hard to find their systems even AFTER sales of the system have declined? Why is it that when customers dislike certain features of services they offer (like friend codes) they continue to use them, anyway? Why is it they attempt to protect their own profit margin at the cost of the consumer and to the inconvenience of their developers? Why, when they know what features people want out of a handheld, do they release three different versions of the handheld, each with some, but not all of those features?

I also find it kind of ironic that Hawk seems to think I'm living in the past here, when I'm not the one blinded by a fanboyish obsession with a game company I loved as a kid. I find most people's love of Nintendo is 90% nostalgia for games and franchises they loved from the past.

Every style of gameplay has been created.

I don't believe that's true. There is always room for innovation in the market and we still get new genres popping up every now and then.

Inkmonkey
Does anyone else get the impression that we could pull a "duck season/rabbit season" here and we'd all keep arguing anyway just on principle?

Not really.

I think that if we DID reach an agreement about what we're arguing now, we'd think of something else, though.

Isukun
I don't believe that's true. There is always room for innovation in the market and we still get new genres popping up every now and then.

I'm agreeing with Isukun here. LittleBigPlanet looks pretty innovative, though it looks like it's going to be a bit shallow...

And then there's Patapon...

Wow. I've been looking up things about that, and most people aren't even sure what genre to put it in. I'm not either. It's like a rythm RPG/RTS... Something... Game Informer just put it in "Action" because they didn't know what to do with it. And it's actually a fairly deep game from what people say.

Still, I don't really want nor need Nintendo to come up with a new genre or anything. I just want them to stop with the shovelware and use that time to make more GOOD games. Make another series, and make it excellent. Hell, I even want them to continue making Mario, since I DO love Mario, but I want that to not be ALL that they make.

isukun
Because not worshiping Nintendo as being the pinnacle of gaming evolution is irrationally hating them. What I really dislike is the irrational love that people show towards them. This belief that they are somehow driving the industry, creating the most innovative games, and that they somehow care about their customers more than the "cold unfeeling corporations". People need to wake up and see that Nintendo is just as cold and unfeeling as any other corporation out there. Most of their "innovations" are taken from other markets and they usually wait until prices go down enough that they can include cheap second-rate parts to accomplish their goals. They pull some pretty slick marketing schemes to pull the wool over their customers eyes and hide the flaws in their hardware.

If they cared so much about the consumer, why are they the only company that made money off of every system sold out the gate this generation? Why is it so hard to find their systems even AFTER sales of the system have declined? Why is it that when customers dislike certain features of services they offer (like friend codes) they continue to use them, anyway? Why is it they attempt to protect their own profit margin at the cost of the consumer and to the inconvenience of their developers? Why, when they know what features people want out of a handheld, do they release three different versions of the handheld, each with some, but not all of those features?

But... I agree with all that. I just don't think any of that is important. The only thing in that list that really bothers me because it directly affects gameplay outside of bad decisions on programmers parts (which happens on every system) is the Friend Code thing. That's just annoying, and I'd never argue against someone who said that Nintendo has a crap online strategy. It's also been a part of my argument that Nintendo is just another corporation, just one that puts on a sunnier face. It's also been part of my argument that this fact doesn't actually affect anything of any signifigance.

Here's the thing, Isukun: I find it very hard to consider your side of arguments like this because I can't recall a single moment where you've actively discussed whether or not a game is fun. It's all about the complexity of the controls, or how deep the AI is, etc. And I know from the fact that some of the greatest games ever made have AI of the complexity of "walk from the right side of the screen to the left" that such things are largely unimportant. Are there shitty games on the Wii? Yes. Are there good games that get bogged down by unnecessary motion controls? Yes. Does that completely void the value of the system? No. Are there excellent games that are excellent because of the motion controls or other features common to the Wii (I don't want to say exclusive, because all it takes is a $10-$50 peripheral for the other systems to do the exact same things)? Yes. Is there a potential for new and exciting gameplay in the future exclusive to the Wii because of the way its technology is presented. Yes, especially if you consider some of the things that have been done with the DS. Are there new and exciting things the other systems will do that the Wii simply can't because of hardware differences? Definitely. Does that make the games that are on the Wii bad just because there's some things they can't do? No.

And I know from the fact that some of the greatest games ever made have AI of the complexity of "walk from the right side of the screen to the left" that such things are largely unimportant.

Maybe if we want to keep living in the 80's. The problem, though, is that many consumers DO expect the gaming industry to evolve over time. The motion controls currently in the wii are more a distraction and less a true evolution.

Here's the thing, Isukun: I find it very hard to consider your side of arguments like this because I can't recall a single moment where you've actively discussed whether or not a game is fun.

They were my childhood, too. The problem is they trample on my childhood with their cash in titles and sequels which are shorter, easier, stripped down, and less fun than their previous games. And that goes especially for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

With the tremendous cash cow that was Pokemon came a shift in business strategy and Nintendo gave up on innovation and solid gameplay and instead alienated their audiences with poor design decisions in their hardware and repetitive games that all started to blend together. And lets not forget the horrible spin-off titles that were meant only to sell on name recognition alone.

Unfortunately, what passes for innovation at the big N these days is gimmicky controls which don't actually change gameplay and frequently make it more frustrating.

There are two things that make games fun for me. One is the enjoyment I derive from experiencing something new. This doesn't necessarily mean a huge leap in game mechanics, but if I feel like I'm playing a downloadable episode for a game I've already beaten, it is far less fun than if I feel like I am playing an entirely new game. Unfortunately, this is the feeling I get playing many of Nintendo's recent blockbuster titles. The other thing is the gameplay. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find most of Nintendo's more recent titles to be stripped down versions of previous games, removing features that actually were somewhat different and interesting in favor of remaking a past classic. In addition, things like poor control directly relate to the gameplay and the enjoyment I derive from it. If the controls are unresponsive and frustrating, the game is likewise less fun. Same goes for the difficulty. If it is less difficult than the precious game, it poses little challenge for the gamer. These are all elements that contribute to the fun factor in games these days and they are all areas where Nintendo has been lacking lately.

So is anyone here looking foward to smash bros. brawl?

Trying to change the subject here.

I have it:D

I love living in osaka :3

I'm sure the game must've been awesome, right?

It's more awesome than you can imagine.

Is it better than The Legend of Zelda Orcarina of Time :?

Lord Shplane
WAGGLE? You're saying that WAGGLE improved a game? Please, DO NOT say that Miyamoto might hear you and start putting it in more games.

It's an extra button. It's an extra button that you don't have to dedicate extra fingers or tumbs to. I thought it was a good idea. I also like how the controller is in two parts; you don't have to squeeze your arms together and hunch forward to play it, now you can lean back and let your arms rest at your side.

Nintendo's GOOD games match my style of games, but I'm not going to buy garbage just because it has a plumber's face on it.

I don't, either. I've tried a few of these games. Mario Kart and Mario Party are great in multi-player in my experience. Maybe you don't like some of these games BECAUSE they are so obviously catered to multiplayer? There are many Nintendo-loving skeptics who wouldn't fall for Pokemon Channel. Besides, Nintendo isn't the only one guilty of these tactics. Sony and Microsoft have done the same thing. I remember trying a Jak and Daxter racing game which sucked harder than mario kart ever will.

I note that no one has ever responded to this argument when we make it. I wonder why that is, Isukun?

Because it's an opinion. Just because you saw them as unnecessary doesn't mean they're the bane of Nintendo's innovative days. There are lots of games that have wonky controls in one way or another, especially when a system is starting up. The PS3 and 360 might have good designs right now, but that's because they're just clones of the previous system sticking to the original format.(See what I did there?)Never mind the limited or no reverse-compatibility of those systems, or the chip-popping problems or the ridiculous price-tag. So Nintendo put out some wonky controls, at least it's better than putting out an unfinished system to beat the other companies' release dates, even if it has heat problems and almost no reverse compatibility.

They were my childhood, too. The problem is they trample on my childhood with their cash in titles and sequels which are shorter, easier, stripped down, and less fun than their previous games. And that goes especially for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

Virtual Console, anyone?

I'm not all about the Wii just because of it's "innovation". I like how it paid homage to the old stuff, too. ALL of your Cube games work on it, it accepts the old controllers, and you can play the older games you loved so much with the Virtual Console. Those were some of its strong points to me. So what if it has wonky controls sometimes? Show me a game where they are perfectly smooth and problem-free.

you don't have to squeeze your arms together and hunch forward to play it, now you can lean back and let your arms rest at your side.

I find the opposite to be true. Since the pointer function is needed for most games, I usually end up having to hunch forward and hold the controller up so I have enough room to make use of the motion controls whereas with classic controllers I can lean back and let the controller rest in my lap. Why would you need to hunch over with a normal controller? It's not like you need to look at it.

So Nintendo put out some wonky controls, at least it's better than putting out an unfinished system to beat the other companies' release dates, even if it has heat problems and almost no reverse compatibility.

Besides for the fact that that sounds more like a shot aimed exclusively at the 360, you seem to be under the misconception that the wii is somehow 100% backwards compatible. Last time I checked, none of my old cartridges fit into the wii. GC games work, but not all of the GC accessories do, particularly when you start getting into 3rd party stuff (games like Phantasy Star Online suffer the most since there is no way to get online with the GC titles on the wii). Also, as far as consoles being incomplete, none of the three systems had their online infrastructure or system firmware complete at launch (hell, they still don't). People also get too distracted by things like motion control to notice how short Nintendo's actual R&D times are. Ever notice how they are always the last to announce anything, they go through more last second changes than any other company, and they never let developers (even their own) work with new hardware that far in advance? Call me crazy, but that sounds a lot like they're rushing their development just to make sure they aren't the last console to hit the market.

Virtual Console, anyone?

No, it's too expensive for what you get. Most of the games I don't own already I can get cheaper elsewhere (and no, I'm not talking about emulation). Of course, it also doesn't make much sense to me to buy a system based on nostalgia value. I've beaten these games before. I derived about as much fun as I could out of them the first time. Besides, the Virtual Console really isn't a major selling point when all of the systems are offering downloadable classic games.

So what if it has wonky controls sometimes? Show me a game where they are perfectly smooth and problem-free.

You seem to be talking about a totally different thing here. There is a difference between poor game design and poor controller design. Besides maybe one game on the PS3, I can't say I've played too many games on the other consoles that I can say were held back by the design of the controller.

isukun
I find the opposite to be true. Since the pointer function is needed for most games, I usually end up having to hunch forward and hold the controller up so I have enough room to make use of the motion controls whereas with classic controllers I can lean back and let the controller rest in my lap. Why would you need to hunch over with a normal controller? It's not like you need to look at it.

I have my TV set pretty low(It's sitting on a mini-fridge), so that could be the reason I have to hunch over.

Besides for the fact that that sounds more like a shot aimed exclusively at the 360, you seem to be under the misconception that the wii is somehow 100% backwards compatible. Last time I checked, none of my old cartridges fit into the wii. GC games work, but not all of the GC accessories do, particularly when you start getting into 3rd party stuff (games like Phantasy Star Online suffer the most since there is no way to get online with the GC titles on the wii).

Last time I checked, my NES cartridges didn't fit into my SNES or N64, either. Not every system is reverse compatible, and the Wii isn't the only one with those issues. The PS3 won't take PS games and Microsoft had to do a remake of Halo to get it to work on the 360. (Yeah, you'd have to buy it again)

Also, as far as consoles being incomplete, none of the three systems had their online infrastructure or system firmware complete at launch (hell, they still don't).

Those are both considrably easier to fix that a hardware breakdown and are easy to fix with as simple a move as a patch on a game disk. They're just using the same concept as Windows XP: Rather than constantly come out with new versions, just constantly update the old one.

No, it's too expensive for what you get. Most of the games I don't own already I can get cheaper elsewhere (and no, I'm not talking about emulation). Of course, it also doesn't make much sense to me to buy a system based on nostalgia value. I've beaten these games before. I derived about as much fun as I could out of them the first time. Besides, the Virtual Console really isn't a major selling point when all of the systems are offering downloadable classic games.

Where is this cheap store where you can get Breath of Fire for less than $10? Then how about a working system to go with it? Not all of us have the old systems and we'd have to hunt them down to play the old games, then we get to hunt down the old games themselves. The other consoles are also offering games...for a fee. The idea of the virtual console and what other makers are putting out there is so that we don't have to hunt the stuff down ourselves. Besides, you won't find classic nintendo titles on other consoles.

You seem to be talking about a totally different thing here. There is a difference between poor game design and poor controller design. Besides maybe one game on the PS3, I can't say I've played too many games on the other consoles that I can say were held back by the design of the controller.

That's another opinion. I don't mind the Wii's controls too much because it is quite versitile. I think I recall you giving your opinion on the Gamecube controller, too, and I actually liked its design because all the buttons didn't look the same. I like that it's pretty clear which button is which on the Wiimote, so I don't feel the controller is such a terrible idea.

Hawk
Isukun's got sour grapes because the gaming industry changed and he's still stuck in 1991.

I'd just like to go off topic for a second and point out that this is not what sour grapes means at all. I'd also call you a prat, but you're a mod and that seems like a good way to get banned.

The term sour grapes refers to one of Aesop's fables. It is used to describe a situation where a person cannot have something (in the fable, the fox who wanted grapes), and so tries to convince themselves that the thing is not worth having (the fox said the grapes were probably sour, hence the term 'sour grapes' is anyone else annoyed at how random bits of sentence turns into an emote and you have to stick a sentence in).

Pedantic Man away.

Last time I checked, my NES cartridges didn't fit into my SNES or N64, either. Not every system is reverse compatible, and the Wii isn't the only one with those issues. The PS3 won't take PS games and Microsoft had to do a remake of Halo to get it to work on the 360. (Yeah, you'd have to buy it again)

I never said the past Nintendo system needed to be backwards compatible, but it doesn't make much sense to use a lack of full backwards compatibility as an argument against the OTHER SYSTEMS when the wii doesn't have it, either. Also, PS games DO play on the PS3. While Sony did make a decision to drop the hardware needed to run PS2 games on the newer models of the PS3, all models can still play games from the original playstation. As for Halo on the 360, last time I checked, it ran fine without having to buy it again.

Those are both considrably easier to fix that a hardware breakdown and are easy to fix with as simple a move as a patch on a game disk. They're just using the same concept as Windows XP: Rather than constantly come out with new versions, just constantly update the old one.

One of the advantages of console gaming over PC gaming up until this generation was that software had to be complete out of the box. Developers had to do extensive play testing to make sure everything worked and you knew which features the system would have when you bought it. Becoming more like Windows is definitely not a good thing. It also excuses developers for not making deadlines and allows manufacturers some time so they can rush a product to market that isn't complete.

I think I recall you giving your opinion on the Gamecube controller, too, and I actually liked its design because all the buttons didn't look the same.

Considering I'm not staring at the controller when I play, the look of it is secondary to the feel. The gamecube controller is probably the best one they've released since the SNES controller, but is still weaker than the competition because of the odd placement of the buttons. It doesn't matter to me that the buttons on the Xbox or PS controller look the same, I never have any problems telling them apart.

With the wii controller, we take a step back to the N64's "three-handed" approach and in the modern age, that is totally unacceptable. Overall, the nunchuck/wii-mote combo has two fewer buttons than competing controllers. In addition, in that configuration, you are limited to four button access most of the time. Developers wanting more robust controls HAVE to utilize the motion controls to substitute for button presses, which also unfortunately kills the second analog stick (pointer device) during use since you can't wave the controller around and point at the screen at the same time. What you end up with is actually a controller that in practice is LESS versatile than even the gamecube controller. It is unfortunate because the controller COULD have been much more versatile had Nintendo just spent a little more time on R&D. It's not like they don't have the resources, but with their PR practices, I really get the impression that someone over there sees some article in Popular Science, says "hey that looks neat, and it's cheap, put it in a system, you have six months" and then a year later the wii hits the shelves. It doesn't help that Nintendo themselves don't seem to even consider what applications the technology might have or how it would impact gaming. Hell, in their initial hype of the system, they were even suggesting applications that developers have routinely found simply don't work with the final design of the system.

Custard Trout
I'd just like to go off topic for a second and point out that this is not what sour grapes means at all. I'd also call you a prat, but you're a mod and that seems like a good way to get banned.

The term sour grapes refers to one of Aesop's fables. It is used to describe a situation where a person cannot have something (in the fable, the fox who wanted grapes), and so tries to convince themselves that the thing is not worth having (the fox said the grapes were probably sour, hence the term 'sour grapes' is anyone else annoyed at how random bits of sentence turns into an emote and you have to stick a sentence in).

Pedantic Man away.

I almost decided not to explain "sour grapes" comment because I've stepped out of the ridiculous conversation. I just come back now and then laugh at some of the things a few people say.

I'm pretty aware of the Aesop's fable. Isukun had "sour grapes" because gaming has advanced and changed in a way he can't understand and he's trying to convince himself that the games he can't understand aren't worth playing.

Also, if I were petty enough to ban somebody over calling me a name, you'd be banned already. Saying "I'd call you a prat but..." is the same thing as calling me a prat. Next time you want to call somebody a name, just grow a pair and do it.

Isukun had "sour grapes" because gaming has advanced and changed in a way he can't understand and he's trying to convince himself that the games he can't understand aren't worth playing.

And once again we come back to this. Try reading some of my posts. Just because I preferred Nintendo back in the 8 and 16-bit days doesn't mean I expect all games to play like the archaic NES and SNES games of my youth. I've stated repeatedly that what I look for is evolution in gaming and that Nintendo isn't providing that. I've played all of the major Wii follow-ups to Nintendo's big franchises and I can honestly say, every one of them left me feeling like I had played those games before in the previous generations. If you're trying to tell me that stagnating is an advancement, then sure, I don't understand how gaming is "changing".

Well it's pretty obvious now that we're deep into opinion, and there's no sense arguing opinion. Isukun, I'm going to respect your taste in games and your opinion that Nintendo isn't cranking out the kind of entertainment you've been hoping for. Science may never explain why one guy likes Adventure Game A and the other guy likes Adventure Game B, but it's pointless for them to argue with each other, over matters of opinion.

It honestly doesn't bother me that you or Lord Shplane hate Nintendo, and you can think whatever you want about them. What bothers me is that you insist on spreading that hate like your own personal gospel every chance that arises. It shouldn't bother you that much that other people like something you hate. I don't grab my pitchfork every time sports games are brought up or sprite comics are mentioned just because I know other people like them and they don't need to be bothered.

However, I do defend the things I like.

Kohdok
It's an extra button. It's an extra button that you don't have to dedicate extra fingers or tumbs to. I thought it was a good idea. I also like how the controller is in two parts; you don't have to squeeze your arms together and hunch forward to play it, now you can lean back and let your arms rest at your side.

An "Extra button" would be as convenient or almost as convenient to use as the rest of the buttons. Waving your arm back and forth is NOT what I call convenient.

Kohdok
Besides, Nintendo isn't the only one guilty of these tactics. Sony and Microsoft have done the same thing. I remember trying a Jak and Daxter racing game which sucked harder than mario kart ever will.

Yes, other companies do it, but NOT on the same level as Nintendo.

Kohdok
Because it's an opinion. Just because you saw them as unnecessary doesn't mean they're the bane of Nintendo's innovative days. There are lots of games that have wonky controls in one way or another, especially when a system is starting up. The PS3 and 360 might have good designs right now, but that's because they're just clones of the previous system sticking to the original format.(See what I did there?)

So what you're saying is that ALL games can work with ALL forms of control? So Guitar Hero would be fun without the guitar? So if we took God of War and made you have to swing the nunchuk for one Blade of Chaos and the Wiimote for the other, that would be great?

Not all games work with all kinds of controls. It's that simple. Needlessly tacking on new gimmicks just for the hell of it is pointless and often harms the overall amount of "fun" that one can derive from a game.

Isukun responded to the rest for me, though.

Lord Shplane
So if we took God of War and made you have to swing the nunchuk for one Blade of Chaos and the Wiimote for the other, that would be great?

Actually, yeah. That would be awesome. We need some well-programmed games like that on the Wii.

Hawk
I'm pretty aware of the Aesop's fable. Isukun had "sour grapes" because gaming has advanced and changed in a way he can't understand and he's trying to convince himself that the games he can't understand aren't worth playing.

If he can't understand something then it is probably not worth his time to play it. I don't understand how to manufacture plastics, and trying to do so would be a waste of my time. Except that those are completely different things serving completely different purposes, and I still enjoy the benefits of plastic despite not knowing how to create it, also I actually do know how to manufacture some types of plastic.

Wow, that was the worst analogy ever.

Also the banned thing was a very droll joke. I never intended to call you a prat, you silly plonker.

I'll just stop typing now.

Well, this topic became a big steaming pile of opinion, didn't it? I daresay it was doomed from the beginning...

For the record, if Nintendo ain't a good company like some of you naysayers would have us believe, at least they're smart. They cashed in on the casual gaming market like it was nobody's business. They've already outsold the ENTIRE lifespan of the Gamecube, and they're miles ahead of Microsoft and Sony right now. We could argue all year about whether each individual game is good or bad, but the point is the formula works, and money speaks louder than words. The Wii appeals to the masses, not only because it's reasonably priced and has a well-rounded library (Most minigame collections aside, mind you), but also because Nintendo seems to be the only company that remembers that old-fashioned thing called local multiplayer. Sure, online might be a thing of the future, but I still don't think anything beats just sitting with your friends and playing a game. Just count how many 360 games have that feature, I dare you. Don't get me wrong, I love my 360, but that must be a console for lonely, lonely people.

Inkmonkey

Lord Shplane
So if we took God of War and made you have to swing the nunchuk for one Blade of Chaos and the Wiimote for the other, that would be great?

Actually, yeah. That would be awesome. We need some well-programmed games like that on the Wii.

No, no it wouldn't. Kratos does some INSANE things with those, and they're things that could NEVER be replicated with a Wiimote no matter HOW well it was programmed.You would end up having to do insanely complicated and pointless actions in order to get him to do more than one or two different attacks.

God of War's formula and what has made the games so epically awesome before is COMPLETELY non-conducive to motion controls (Think I might have made up a word, but whatever). How could you POSSIBLY expect swinging your arms around like an idiot to be better than pushing a button? I don't see it. Pushing square several times in a row to get Kratos to do a giant spinning windmill of death attack that sends hordes of monsters flying into the distance followed by pressing circle to grab a giant griffin and rip it's head off being turned into swing both arms exactly 360 degrees then holding Z and swinging the Wiimote and Nunchuck inward to grab would be a travesty. Human beings can NOT emulate what Kratos does, and the closest thing developers could possibly do with motion controls is shove in waggle.

The situation I gave is almost a physical impossibility, and would likely make the game unplayable.

CoyoteLongshot
The Wii appeals to the masses, not only because it's reasonably priced and has a well-rounded library (Most minigame collections aside, mind you), but also because Nintendo seems to be the only company that remembers that old-fashioned thing called local multiplayer. Sure, online might be a thing of the future, but I still don't think anything beats just sitting with your friends and playing a game. Just count how many 360 games have that feature, I dare you. Don't get me wrong, I love my 360, but that must be a console for lonely, lonely people.

Actually, pretty much any game with online multiplayer has local multiplayer. Just because a game has ONLINE features doesn't mean it doesn't have offline ones.

And if you look at the Wii, most of its best games are single player, or at least don't have multiplayer that anyone would actually play (Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess). Honestly, the only game I can think of for the Wii that has as high quality multiplayer as the games on other systems is Super Smash Bros.

Lord Shplane
An "Extra button" would be as convenient or almost as convenient to use as the rest of the buttons. Waving your arm back and forth is NOT what I call convenient.

Actually, it only takes a little flick of the wrist, not huge movements. Like Isukun said, it registers the actual act of waggling better than where and what direction you waggle it. The mere act of wagglingis used as an extra button in several games to good effect.

So what you're saying is that ALL games can work with ALL forms of control? So Guitar Hero would be fun without the guitar? So if we took God of War and made you have to swing the nunchuk for one Blade of Chaos and the Wiimote for the other, that would be great?

No. No I'm not. You didn't understand what I was saying, quit painting the herring red. I said that with time the control scheme will be utilized and appreciated better.

Not all games work with all kinds of controls. It's that simple. Needlessly tacking on new gimmicks just for the hell of it is pointless and often harms the overall amount of "fun" that one can derive from a game.

Last I recall, the DS was still out-selling the PSP.

Kohdok
Actually, it only takes a little flick of the wrist, not huge movements. Like Isukun said, it registers the actual act of waggling better than where and what direction you waggle it. The mere act of wagglingis used as an extra button in several games to good effect.

I'm really sick of hearing that. Sure, you don't have to move your WHOLE arm, but that "little flick of the wrist" will STILL have your wrist hurting by the time you've gotten the giant monster beaten down.

Kohdok
No. No I'm not. You didn't understand what I was saying, quit painting the herring red. I said that with time the control scheme will be utilized and appreciated better.

Ok then, that means that you're not disagreeing with me. My point was simply that there are games that can't use motion controls, not that motion controls can't be good.

Also, herring?

Kohdok
Last I recall, the DS was still out-selling the PSP.

Three reasons for that:

1) PSP had shitty advertising. (WTF were those squirrels, Sony? WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY?!?!"
2) Most DS games don't add in pointless crap with the touchscreen. It's mostly used for poking at menus or drawing stuff. It's NOT commonly used for things that could more easily be done with a button.
3) DS is made by Nintendo. People saw it as the next Gameboy. Nintendo has never had a serious competitor for their handhelds, so people don't expect the PSP to be one either.

Lord Shplane

Inkmonkey

Lord Shplane
So if we took God of War and made you have to swing the nunchuk for one Blade of Chaos and the Wiimote for the other, that would be great?

Actually, yeah. That would be awesome. We need some well-programmed games like that on the Wii.

No, no it wouldn't. Kratos does some INSANE things with those, and they're things that could NEVER be replicated with a Wiimote no matter HOW well it was programmed.You would end up having to do insanely complicated and pointless actions in order to get him to do more than one or two different attacks.

God of War's formula and what has made the games so epically awesome before is COMPLETELY non-conducive to motion controls (Think I might have made up a word, but whatever). How could you POSSIBLY expect swinging your arms around like an idiot to be better than pushing a button? I don't see it. Pushing square several times in a row to get Kratos to do a giant spinning windmill of death attack that sends hordes of monsters flying into the distance followed by pressing circle to grab a giant griffin and rip it's head off being turned into swing both arms exactly 360 degrees then holding Z and swinging the Wiimote and Nunchuck inward to grab would be a travesty. Human beings can NOT emulate what Kratos does, and the closest thing developers could possibly do with motion controls is shove in waggle.

The situation I gave is almost a physical impossibility, and would likely make the game unplayable.

You keep arguing, but just make the concept sound more awesome. I have never seen that happen before in my life, and I'm impressed that you've managed to do it.

Lord Shplane
Also, herring?

A "Red herring" is a distraction from the actual arguement. What you were saying had pretty much nothing to do with what I was saying but was inflammatory none-the-less.

And I have to agree with Inkmonkey on how awesome that control scheme would be.

Quite honestly, I don't object to motion controls when done well. I wouldn't mind playing a game that realistically estimated the player's motion and translated it on screen as per Shplane's example, but the Wii simply CAN'T do that. Nintendo's half-assed approach to their technology more often than not turns me off to their "innovations". With a little extra dev time they could have made something truly innovative, intuitive, and more fun than simply flicking your wrist in a direction instead of hitting "B".