Are you for real? The Wii is for people who have real-life friends. That’s the go-to system in my house, as well as many others I know, when we want to play games with our friends in the same room (which is an experience online still can’t rival). Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Boom Blox, Wii Sports, Dr. Mario, ExciteTrucks, Mario Strikers–are all games that are amazingly fun with local co-op and is something few titles on the 360 or PS3 can offer with their emphasis on online play.
I’m not a big online gamer anymore–I’ll be up front about that. I used to be, when original online titles were still coming to the Xbox (such as Crimson Skies, Pandora Tomorrow, Burnout 3, Halo 2). But there are so few online games on 360 that actually interest me these days, that I’m considering cancelling my Live subscription (I’ve kept it thus far mostly for Netflix).
However, when I do find myself hankering a quick online bout, it’s usually with the Wii. Although its selection of online games is far less than the other consoles, they’re the games I most want to play–Mario Kart, Strikers, and Smash Bros.
No, I don’t think that, but that’s the criticism. We differ on online play versus having 4 people over to play a game. The pool of competition is much greater outside of the living room and you’ll find a better matchup out there as well.
Also, I’m not sure why you even brought that up, considering you don’t believe it (apparently?), but this is an argument I can’t recall hearing from anyone, let alone en masse.
I’ve heard it from a few sources. Usually, they’re of the fanboy variety. Also, your opinion on playing with people in your living room and playing with people online differ. To me, it’s more fun if you have better games and better competition.
Perhaps we’re getting to a place where “hardcore” and “casual” can be defined.
This thread, as you point out in your later post, was started to debate the assertion that Wii “doesn’t have any deep games” or that its games “aren’t for real gamers”.
Clearly, both of those statements are incorrect. The Wii does have deep games - probably more than any of us will ever buy - and it does have games that hardcore gamers - people serious about their entertainment - might enjoy.
See, now I’m really a PC gamer and I’d say the 360 is gimped because it doesn’t allow user created mods in games like Fallout or Oblivion and that the real hardcore gamers are all playing Dwarf Fortress. All you console kiddies are such a bunch of lightweights.
But honestly - it’s possible to not enjoy the Wii while acknowledging that there’s worthwhile fun to be found there.
It’s possible to prefer gaming with strangers online to gaming with friends in the same room without insisting that the later are lame newbs who can’t face real competition.
It’s possible to like one thing without needing to define the other as a worthless refuge for losers.
I should clarify: I often play games locally with people who are very competent at them (after all, I work in the industry) and we are all very competitive. However, when we want to play, and the choice is online or locally, we will go locally every time it’s feasible.
Of course, if you don’t have any friends who like games, then I can see why online would be a draw, but as one who has plenty of local gaming buds, online holds very little appeal.
Fanboy sources are not real sources when it comes to video game debate. Period.
And you (and others who claim the Wii doesn’t have a deep lineup) keep moving the goalposts on what does and does not qualify as a “hardcore game” and how many games are required to say a platform has a “deep lineup.”
BUT I just got a new computer and started on Bioshock. WooHoo. I am a little intimidated though… I heard Bioshock was a good game to start with if you’re not accustom to those brand of games.
Anyway, Wii fulfills most of my need. I’m torn between which version, (if any), of the new Ghostbusters game I will get. They both look great imho, I think the clincher will be how well the Wii controls are implemented. They certainty went out of their way to work in quality and stylized visuals for the Wii. But the PC version looks amazing. We’ll see.
Meh. Mods aren’t worth it for me. It’s not very often that I’d find a mod for a game that’d make things better. Then again, I’d get Oblivion/Fallout for the 360, so I’m not the target audience.
I’m not moving the goalposts. I think the Wii has a decent lineup, and I hope the lineup gets better. The lineup is very bottom-heavy for me, though. The 360 just has more titles that I like playing.
Yup, so? Obviously online has its merits–no one’s arguing that–but on a match-by-match basis, I find local multiplayer to be more fun, and as such, treat that with more importance than I do online play.
As an aside, or rather further proof of most reviewers catering toward the 360/PS3 crowd, they’ll often ding a game for lacking online multiplayer, but rarely will they do the same if it lacks local.
Keep in mind though, that you might very well be moving the goalposts forward as to what qualifies as a “hardcore game” (your listing of COD3 is laughable considering its critical reception). Blaming it on games journalists that “don’t understand” is ridiculous considering all the awesome reviews for titles like Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, World of Goo, and SSB.
Look, I’m pretty picky about what games I want to fork over $50 for. That means that out of a console’s lineup of “great” games (85% score or higher), I’ll maybe end up buying 20% of them. And, what-do-you-know, out of the 360’s 56 (>85%) games, I have about 12 of them. On the Wii, (18 >85% score) I have 4 games. I figure that’s more than fair, relatively speaking. But still, when we’re looking at my individual games library the Wii portion is hardly “deep.” And that’s where most of us are coming from.
I hate that Metacritic has become the be-all and end-all of game discussion online. For example, I love Excite Truck, it is one of my favorite Wii games. It has a Metacritic rating of 72.
But I love it, and think it’s amazing, so why should it’s Metacritic score disqualify it from a discussion of whether or not the Wii’s lineup is deep and has hardcore games?
Metacritic is slowly edging out the B-Games from the great video game discussion. But you can take Excite Truck or Earth Defense Force 2017 or Culdcept Saga when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Yeah, see, my actual point in all that is - what you, Least Original User Name Ever, likes or doesn’t like is completely irrelevant to anyone who’s not named “Least Original User Name Ever.” What you, LOUNE, like is not a standard for what is or is not good, or fun, or interesting.
So you don’t think mods add anything to your enjoyment - who cares? This is not a thread about what you, LOUNE, enjoy. Mods, like those made for Oblivion & Fallaout, are a feature which consoles lack. Crazy-ass garage-dev projects like Dwarf Fortress are a feature that consoles, which require corporate dev kits and authorization, lack.
The point is that there are many features to gaming. Some aspects and types of games will naturally appeal to different people. That’s not a basis for declaring that the other portions all suck.
For example, here:
Here, you’re not talking about what you like - you’re insisting that what you, LOUNE, like - is just better.
It’s not better - it’s just different. Yes, even if you, LOUNE, like it better - it’s not actually better. It’s just a difference in taste. The 360’s online matchups suit you better than the Wii’s real life games. Fine. It doesn’t mean the people you play with on the 360 are better than all the people Red knows in real life. It doesn’t mean the games are better, objectively. It just means that it has the different features that appeal to you.
Similarly, YamatoTwinkie - no one gives a hoot what your personal game library looks like. Seriously - we’re supposed to use your personal buying habits as the standard for judging the depth of console’s lineup? And we’re supposed to just know that’s what you mean when you talk about the library?
Well, sometimes they have the intern try to localize a previously Japan-only game (denoted by a Japanese flag next to the game name), but it’s not really that exciting.
And I’m 98% a single player gamer on consoles (as far as online goes, I play local multi a bit), so I don’t really notice if they add online play, nor do I really care. I do admit if I did it would be nice.
To a large extent, I agree with you. I have played a lot unique games (Mount & Blade, Sword of the Stars to give some examples) that lacked the polish of an AAA title and suffered mediocre reviews as a consequence, but still ended up being more fun than a big-budget title. But we can’t quite use the “Justin_Bailey’s personal standard of hardcore games”, can we? Mediacritic might overlook a lot of flawed gems out there, but that should effect all consoles equally. When your argument is that the Wii lineup is somehow filled with nothing but flawed gems, you start sounding a little fanboyish.
Of course not. I’m just one anecdotal piece of evidence. But my buying habits are hardly unique, are they? When buying videogames, a lot of people look to see what games are already considered “good”, then pick amongst those for the titles that sound appealing. It’s certainly a better system than drawing names out of a hat.
