That sounds nice until you start comparing it to other consoles. The 360 has 138 games with an 80+ score, and a total of 233 (95 more) with a green (75+) score. That’s over 3 times as many games with a green score on metacritic. Even the PS3, which seems to be the least successful of the 3 consoles of this generation, has 143 green score games.
The Wii has its strengths including some amazing exclusives and some novel controls that the other consoles can’t match, but there aren’t nearly as many good games to wade through as with the other consoles.
I disagree. I’ve found many reviewers seem to expound the same “hardcore” arguments many of the “fanboys” do. As one who works in the industry, I’ve worked directly alongside many of the reviewers. I’m not saying their opinions are invalid, because they’re not, but their slant is predisposed to that of the 360 and PS3 market, and one of which I strongly disagree with.
Besides, who the hell’s going to buy 45-138 games anyway? What it comes down to is which console offers more of the type of games you want to play. If you’re a shooter fan, 360’s your best bet. If you want original content or desire non “hardcore” games, the Wii’s the way to go.
I’m trying to think of a game that I would define as a “shooter” that I also wouldn’t consider to be “hardcore” (as judged by others, as I’ve said previously). Certainly there are games with shooter elements that I wouldn’t consider to be “shooters” per se, such as Metroid Prime (which also lacks explicit violence). And consequently, popular opinion on the message boards (which, granted, is a gray area for information) is that Metroid Prime itself isn’t really a “hardcore” game. Again, I don’t agree with the definition, but that’s how I truly believe most gamers (or, the vocal ones, that is) define it to be.
That doesn’t really mean anything. As Red Barchetta points out, reviewers are in the exact same position as gamers. Even moreso, since “game journalism” is entirely composed of a bunch of game nerds. They’re naturally going to be predisposed toward the types of offerings you get on the PS3 and 360.
Gods, I hope so. This is my huge complaint about the current gen of consoles. In fact, I was going to come in here and say “Yeah, the Wii has a really shallow library, but so do the PS3 and 360 - they’re just shallow in different ways. If you need a really deep library, you need a PS2.”
I am totally looking forward to playing House of the Dead on a friend’s Wii. of course, I’m a weirdcore gamer. I only enjoy games that no one has ever heard of in genres that are soon to be extinct.
How is the Virtual Console meaningfully different from PSN or XBLA? Other than the titles that are on it?
Bah, my Saturn library is all Saturn originals, thanks.
Some people are of the belief that anyone who buys games off the VC is a sucker because they can all be had “for free” by downloading emulated games on a PC.
VC supporters look at the service as superior (or at least on par with) the XBLA and the PSN because the VC features a ton of “full” games. Not just arcade-style titles but games that back in the day were considered “hardcore” games.
There is also an XBLA and PSN fan contigent that mocks the VC because it doesn’t update the graphics for the games or add online play or make any changes at all. It’s just the same game you played in 1998/1992/1989/1986/etc.
It’s a different feel that hard’s to explain, but I think that’s the gist of it.
That’s the VC in a nutshell. It’s worth noting that Nintendo handles their downloadable games two ways - previously released games are on the Virtual Console, new stuff is on WiiWare.
As I mentioned, the VC was a huge selling point of the Wii for me. Thanks to the VC, I can play Sin & Punishment, Super Castlevania 4, Vectorman, River City Ransom, and Magician Lord all on one box (with Save State) without mucking around with cartridges or wires.
PSN and XBLA are both fantastic services with many great games available on them. Neither will ever offer me Super Mario RPG or Star Fox 64.
The one thing I’ll admit is nice about XBLA is that they (generally) change the dialogue to update the keys you need to press instead of having to look into the manual for a remap. Other than that it’s pretty superfluous “nice touch” stuff. I mean, Genesis games didn’t look that bad, neither did a good portion of N64 games. I mean, I thought it was nice Rare updated Banjo-Kazooie’s graphics for the XBLA release, but I plugged in my N64 for comparison and it wasn’t really necessary.
In the context of this thread, it actually means everything. Let’s not forget how Justin kicked it off:
So the whole point is whether or not the Wii has a bunch of gamer games for real hardcore gamer gamers. As such, the ratings from game nerds in game journalism is exactly what this whole issue is about.
Don’t get me wrong: I love my Wii, and it gets more usage than my PS3. But the hardcore gamer stuff is more heavily distributed on the 360 and PS3 fronts.
And the point of my OP was that game nerds are ignoring the deep games on the Wii or flat out saying they’re crap just because they’re prettier on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Just look at LOUNE and his crapping all over COD3 in this thread.
I think the point was that “hardcore” gamers aren’t just those who play games like Halo and Fallout and that the Wii’s library is unfairly maligned because it’s being judged along an extremely narrow set of criteria.
In other words, the problem is with the idea of self-proclaimed “hardcore gamers.”
Nobody’s arguing that the Wii is a better console than the 360 for gaming nerds who love FPSes and sandbox games.
Dunno. if I had to pick the thing that sells me games on XBLA (often, like you, games I already own) it’s the addition of Netplay. When your favorite Samurai Shodown partner is 7 states away, and your favorite Virtual On opponent has moved to the opposite coast, netplay means a whole heck of a lot more than “nice touch”. It’s a critical feature. I didn’t realize that VC games weren’t updated at all. That’s kinda weak, honestly. =/
Why would you want to play Call of Duty 3 when you could play 4 or 5? It’s dated and, according to the community of people that like Call of Duty games, is widely regarded as the worst game in the entire series, regardless of platform.
Personally, I think it got a bad rap. It wasn’t bad and its multiplayer handles host changes better than any other game ever has on a console.
What’s wrong with pointing out a game that happens to be on all consoles as being a “Deep” game, and then being upset when that same observation about its depth is then applied to the game and the console it’s played on? You’re the one that opened the can of worms about depth. Besides, my argument has always been that the replayability of a game is based upon its multiplayer play (save for a few games that are replayable in their own, single-player right). I’d say that the Wii is not as “deep” because you don’t get the same replayability because the online capabilities are so gimped and the pool of players to play with are much smaller.
It’s even been pointed out in other criticism that the 360 is the console to have if you are trying to find an online community or trying to find people to play with and the PlayStation 3 is right behind that. The Wii is (not my words, but I’m paraphrasing) for people that don’t have friends. It’s very clear that I’m a strong proponent of multiplayer play, and based on that alone, the Wii isn’t my choice for playing video games. For me to play the Wii, there has to be an A+ title, such as Super Mario Galaxy, because if the single player offering isn’t amazing, it’s got very little else.
Really, though, I think my Wii suffers more from being the second child. If I had got the Wii first and had played it for almost two years before I got a 360, I may play the Wii more.
Please. COD3 got dinged for more than just the Xbox1-level graphics. It also had:
1)fundamental controls problems with throwing grenades, melee attacks & driving.
2)framerate issues.
3)bugs.
4) NO MULTIPLAYER.
