The Nintendo Wii is the Celine Dion of this generation of consoles.

The Game Room
21

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
For a console that brings nothing new to the table aside from their intellectual property and a controller, they better emphasize those two. Adding a new character/game to the Mario/Zelda/Donkey Kong pantheon would go a long way to showing that Nintendo is serious.
[/QUOTE]

As opposed to…

*Further, I’ll argue that one of my best experiences with the Wii has been Endless Ocean, which is pretty much an un-game. I’d love to see more games like this - an emphasis on free play and exploration, more an experience than a competitive game.

22

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
the Wii is fun, and broadly accessible.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. Mrs D_Odds won’t touch the PS2 we have. Even the simple games are more complicated than she likes. But the Wii is fun, even for the simple games. Limited flashing and distracting graphics that give her a headache, no motion-sickness inducing games (yet - I may get one for me). Two buttons…that’s fine by her. No complicated A+B, up, down, L1, L2 to hit a move. Makes me happy too. I’ll leave remembering those codes to people half my age. I just want to pick up a controller and start smashing Pikachu with Donkey Kong (although Pikachu, played by Li’l D_Odds, usually wins).

23

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
That’s the thing. A waving of the wiimote won’t make the criticisms go away. They’re all valid. For what it’s worth, all three of the consoles really are just toys.
[/QUOTE]

But the criticisms are a joke.

Nintendo creating new games in their core franchises (that have scored off the charts in reviews) is a strength, not a weakness.

Nintendo (like Sony and Microsoft) exerts very little control over the quality of the third-party games that appear on their system. If you take a look at the budget catalog of the PS1 and PS2 you’d find equally offensive games. This is not Nintendo’s fault, this is something that befalls every console that has the largest userbase.

Online play. Yeah, it could be better. But Nintendo doesn’t really give a shit about online play. The Wii is designed for people to play together in their living rooms. You can say it’s not as good as Xbox Live or the PSN, but it is functional, and that’s really all that matters.

DS connectivity is a bonus that I don’t particularly care about (and I don’t know many gamers who do either). Would it be nice if Nintendo gave the Wii something extra? Sure. But to say it’s a flaw is ridiculous.

As for the Virtual Console, I’ve already talked about how the OP is completely wrong about that. Most of the classics are there. It’s a simple fact.

Finally, it looks like there’s nothing on the horizon for two reasons:

  1. Nintendo always keeps their cards close to their chest. Big announcements will come at E3, it’s their way. Faulting a company for business practices they’ve employed since before most of us were born is stupid.

  2. Nintendo’s slate looks empty compared to Sony (who has been very open about ALL of their upcoming releases). Sony has been talking about PS3 games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Getaway 3, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII since the PS3 was first announced in 2005. MGS4 is coming in June, but those other three are still a minimum of a year away.

For comparison’s sake, Mario Kart Wii went from announcement to release date in 10 months.

The OP is wrong, plain and simple.

24

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
As opposed to…*Further, I’ll argue that one of my best experiences with the Wii has been Endless Ocean, which is pretty much an un-game. I’d love to see more games like this - an emphasis on free play and exploration, more an experience than a competitive game.
[/QUOTE]

Hie thee to the store and pick up Grand Theft Auto. You’ve got a Wii, so give Bully a try. I hear that No More Heroes is fun as well on the Wii.

25

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
But the criticisms are a joke.

Nintendo creating new games in their core franchises (that have scored off the charts in reviews) is a strength, not a weakness.

Nintendo (like Sony and Microsoft) exerts very little control over the quality of the third-party games that appear on their system. If you take a look at the budget catalog of the PS1 and PS2 you’d find equally offensive games. This is not Nintendo’s fault, this is something that befalls every console that has the largest userbase.

Online play. Yeah, it could be better. But Nintendo doesn’t really give a shit about online play. The Wii is designed for people to play together in their living rooms. You can say it’s not as good as Xbox Live or the PSN, but it is functional, and that’s really all that matters.

DS connectivity is a bonus that I don’t particularly care about (and I don’t know many gamers who do either). Would it be nice if Nintendo gave the Wii something extra? Sure. But to say it’s a flaw is ridiculous.

As for the Virtual Console, I’ve already talked about how the OP is completely wrong about that. Most of the classics are there. It’s a simple fact.

Finally, it looks like there’s nothing on the horizon for two reasons:

  1. Nintendo always keeps their cards close to their chest. Big announcements will come at E3, it’s their way. Faulting a company for business practices they’ve employed since before most of us were born is stupid.

  2. Nintendo’s slate looks empty compared to Sony (who has been very open about ALL of their upcoming releases). Sony has been talking about PS3 games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Getaway 3, Gran Turismo 5 and Final Fantasy XIII since the PS3 was first announced in 2005. MGS4 is coming in June, but those other three are still a minimum of a year away.

For comparison’s sake, Mario Kart Wii went from announcement to release date in 10 months.

The OP is wrong, plain and simple.
[/QUOTE]

No, the criticisms aren’t a joke. Saying they are doesn’t make it so. That’s fine if Nintendo keeps things close to its chest and has a plan for it. In the mean time, it looks like nothing is coming down the pipeline. Sony has had those games announced since…well, as far back as I can remember because they want to show that theres a reason to buy a console outside of the BluRay player.

I certainly can fault Nintendo for the practices of keeping things bottled up. I’m doing it right now. It’s probably one of the smallest criticisms, but it’s there. Besides, when there’s something big that gets announced, it comes out anyways. They could bottle things up completely before the Internet. Not any more.

That’s great for Nintendo. They’ve extended their franchises to another console, but we haven’t seen anything get created for this console. The NES spawned a lot of titles, the SNES extended a bunch and spawned a bunch more. The N64 spawned a few more (and had Goldeneye) and the Game Cube even spawned a few more. These new titles came relatively close to the launches of these consoles. Now, with a new console that has a controller scheme unlike anything else on the market, that new game is nowhere to be seen. Like you said, though, that could be by design, but I doubt something that big and important would stay bottled up.

26

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
No, the criticisms aren’t a joke. Saying they are doesn’t make it so. That’s fine if Nintendo keeps things close to its chest and has a plan for it. In the mean time, it looks like nothing is coming down the pipeline. Sony has had those games announced since…well, as far back as I can remember because they want to show that theres a reason to buy a console outside of the BluRay player.

I certainly can fault Nintendo for the practices of keeping things bottled up. I’m doing it right now. It’s probably one of the smallest criticisms, but it’s there. Besides, when there’s something big that gets announced, it comes out anyways. They could bottle things up completely before the Internet. Not any more.
[/QUOTE]

It’s just the difference in philosophies. Nintendo wants you to play what they have available right now while Sony talks about the “potential” of the PS3.

It’s just how things are. Sony’s philosophy is also in place to sell a (then) $600 console, you can’t do that with “right now” if right now is roughly the same that Microsoft has. At $250 (and with the Wiimote), you can.

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
That’s great for Nintendo. They’ve extended their franchises to another console, but we haven’t seen anything get created for this console. The NES spawned a lot of titles, the SNES extended a bunch and spawned a bunch more. The N64 spawned a few more (and had Goldeneye) and the Game Cube even spawned a few more. These new titles came relatively close to the launches of these consoles. Now, with a new console that has a controller scheme unlike anything else on the market, that new game is nowhere to be seen. Like you said, though, that could be by design, but I doubt something that big and important would stay bottled up.
[/QUOTE]

The answer to this question is always Wii Sports. You may not like it personally or think it’s groundbreaking, but a lot of people do and that’s what matters.

Beyond that, the Wii has a ton of great games in Metroid Prime 3, Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Zack & Wiki, WarioWare, Trauma Center, etc, etc, etc. Just because you don’t think they’re on par with what Nintendo (or the other console makers) have done in the past doesn’t mean that is the reaction of all gamers. Any review aggregator would show you that.

27

Just so you know, Twilight Princess was originally developed for the GameCube. The Wii functionality was a tacked-on “launch day” gambit on Nintendo’s part. It also delayed the release of the game by a year, which is fairly sad. We picked up the Wii version at launch. My husband loved it, I hated it.

This is telling because I’m a veritable Zelda junkie. I’ve bought every new Nintendo console (even the NES) simply to play the blasted games. First played it at a neighbor’s house and immediately wanted my own console and cartridge.

That being said, a few weeks ago, I basically demanded we exchange the Wii version for the GameCube version. Once I had the intended controller in hand, I fell in love with it and enjoyed every second of Hylian goodness.

The same applies with Brawl, though the circumstances are slightly different. When it was announced at E3 all those years ago, Sakai urged players to hold on to their GameCube controllers, as they were the intended mode of control. It’s the only way I can manage it.

I hear you can control Mario Kart Wii with the old controller as well. I wouldn’t complain about it, since the Wii controls seemed pretty good to me. I was very skeptical, since I utterly hated the Wii Zapper, which began as an awesome-looking peripheral and ended up being an unwieldy “scope” that turned me off instantly.

I have to agree that the Wii hasn’t shown its true colors for gaming enthusiasts fitted with jaded and critical eyes. Super Mario Galaxy is pretty, but I preferred The New Super Mario Bros. for the DS. I actually like that Nintendo builds on the foundations of its franchises. It’s comforting, though I don’t mind innovation either. It’s a delicate balancing act of appeasing old-schoolers and drawing in a new crowd.

But take the Metroid Prime series. I don’t like FPS, so I’ve not tried the newer games yet. I did however sink an unhealthy quantity of hours into* Metroid: Zero Mission.*

We’ve made more purchases on the Virtual Console than we have actual Wii games. I am looking forward to what people come up with for Wii Ware. Surely these indie developers will put together more than just “waggle and point” mini-games, of which I grew profoundly bored very easily. But as others have pointed out, for casual gamers and social gamers, the party-driven craziness is a plus, not a detraction.

I can take a bit, but will mostly leave it. Does this make the Wii a failure? Not at all. I think it’s a good little system that has yet to hit its stride for we (Wii?) “old” timers who’ve been playing since the days of Pac-man and Pong and demand a lot from our game devs. Okay, so the latter predates me by seven years. My point hopefully remains valid.

(And yes, we own every console and handheld too.)

28

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
It’s just the difference in philosophies. Nintendo wants you to play what they have available right now while Sony talks about the “potential” of the PS3.

It’s just how things are. Sony’s philosophy is also in place to sell a (then) $600 console, you can’t do that with “right now” if right now is roughly the same that Microsoft has. At $250 (and with the Wiimote), you can.

The answer to this question is always Wii Sports. You may not like it personally or think it’s groundbreaking, but a lot of people do and that’s what matters.

Beyond that, the Wii has a ton of great games in Metroid Prime 3, Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Zack & Wiki, WarioWare, Trauma Center, etc, etc, etc. Just because you don’t think they’re on par with what Nintendo (or the other console makers) have done in the past doesn’t mean that is the reaction of all gamers. Any review aggregator would show you that.
[/QUOTE]

Wii Sports = Duck Hunt.

Brawl wasn’t started in the Wii phase. Metroid Prime wasn’t either. Trauma Center wasn’t either.

No, the signature game for the Wii hasn’t been released yet. Historically, Nintendo releases milestone games around the launch of the console itself if not, with the console itself. You’ll argue that Wii Sports is that big, transcendent game that should be included into the canon of Nintendo games. I’ll say that you’re completely wrong. History will show that a 35 year old person (in roughly 10 years) will rembember Mario 1, 2, and 3, probably Brawl and Metroit, Goldeneye, and a couple others, but Wii Sports won’t be one of those games that people wax poetic about. Wii Sports is an appetizer. Maybe you’re just easily impressed?

29

[QUOTE=Just Some Guy]

You know what, real “hardcore gamers” don’t care about the platform; they’ll play an Intellivision, GURPS, fantasy sports leagues, chess, or anything else. Real “hardcore gamers” don’t see a distinction between types of games; they know a flash game can be just as engrossing as a $20 million hyped up megatitle. Real “hardcore gamers” just play games. Period.
[/QUOTE]

And “gamers” play Poker and Bridge and Monopoly and Bejeweled. Gamers play games. There is a lot of “no true Scotsmen” in these discussions - and frankly outright snobbery. Don’t like the Wii, don’t buy one. I don’t own any Celine Dion albums and I’ve never felt any need to claim that people who do are somehow lacking in taste.

30

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Wii Sports = Duck Hunt.

Brawl wasn’t started in the Wii phase. Metroid Prime wasn’t either. Trauma Center wasn’t either.
[/QUOTE]

So are you saying that only franchises created on the Wii count as “Wii phase” games? Because that means you’ve pretty much wiped the slate clean for the Xbox 360 and PS3 as well.

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
No, the signature game for the Wii hasn’t been released yet. Historically, Nintendo releases milestone games around the launch of the console itself if not, with the console itself. You’ll argue that Wii Sports is that big, transcendent game that should be included into the canon of Nintendo games. I’ll say that you’re completely wrong. History will show that a 35 year old person (in roughly 10 years) will rembember Mario 1, 2, and 3, probably Brawl and Metroit, Goldeneye, and a couple others, but Wii Sports won’t be one of those games that people wax poetic about. Wii Sports is an appetizer.
[/QUOTE]

I ask again, why are you throwing out Galaxy, Brawl, Wii Sports and a ton of other games in one fell swoop? What makes them inferior? Because they don’t waggle like you want them too?

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Maybe you’re just easily impressed?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe you’re just jaded?

31

Re: the OP

A theory is only as valid as how it reflects reality. I own both a 360 and a Wii, and the play time for each is about equal. I love it.

Phpthtph!

32

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
So are you saying that only franchises created on the Wii count as “Wii phase” games? Because that means you’ve pretty much wiped the slate clean for the Xbox 360 and PS3 as well.

I ask again, why are you throwing out Galaxy, Brawl, Wii Sports and a ton of other games in one fell swoop? What makes them inferior? Because they don’t waggle like you want them too?

Maybe you’re just jaded?
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m wiping those franchises out because they weren’t started on the Wii. I specifically brought up the point that the Nintendo consoles added something new to the list of great games that Nintendo had in its library. I don’t think the Wii has done that yet. Wii Sports is a nice little time waster. It’s good for showing your parents how to use the Wiimote or having for a party game, which isn’t a bad thing. That’s a good start. What’s next?
sticks tongue out at Gargoyle

33

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
No, I’m wiping those franchises out because they weren’t started on the Wii.
[/QUOTE]

But again, aside from Resistance and Gears of War (and a few other stragglers), that wipes out the collective output of all three next-generation consoles. And both of those games didn’t exactly break any new ground in the “one-man-army versus a bunch of aliens” genre.

It just seems like a weird place to draw the line.

34

Does anyone else feel that these conversations descend to the level of

Hater: “the Wii sucks”
Fanboy: “Nuh uh! The Wii rocks!”

really quickly?

35

[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus]
Does anyone else feel that these conversations descend to the level of

Hater: “the Wii sucks”
Fanboy: “Nuh uh! The Wii rocks!”

really quickly?
[/QUOTE]

I am using critical reaction, sales figures, awards and the general acclaim of the (normally video game hating) news media to show that the Wii rocks.

I have yet to read any claims that the Wii “sucks” that aren’t just opinions.

36

[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus]
Does anyone else feel that these conversations descend to the level of

Hater: “the Wii sucks”
Fanboy: “Nuh uh! The Wii rocks!”

really quickly?
[/QUOTE]

To an extent, yes.

I’m also not arguing that it sucks. It’s not bad and it’s been successful. I just find myself disapointed in it because it doesn’t seem to be what it can be. With this new audience, it can do much more. Wii Fit is actually a step in the right direction. It’s new, it’s made specifically for this console, and it starts to utilize the unique properties that the Wii has.

37

[QUOTE=Pollux Oil]

I think the biggest problem is that people expect every game on the Wii to utilize the motion controls to their fullest. Now, I like the motion controls. I like how it gives variety and opens up possibilities in games like Wii Sports and WarioWare: Smooth Moves. However, I also want to be able to play games that don’t require me to jump around all the time. Just because the waggle is there doesn’t mean that every game has to include it somehow. Yes, the Wii’s motion controls and IR are innovative.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with this line of thinking is that the Wii is built and conceptualized solely around its unique controller, intentionally choosing weaker processing and graphics in exchange for a new, alternative approach to play. It is then reneging on this promise by simply offering a non-new, non-alternative approach to play, and even going as far as to put forth flagship titles that allow the user to not even use the Wii’s own controller, which once again is the entire reason for its existence.

Then, to put it bluntly, you should not be playing a Wii. If you want to play a traditional RPG with a traditional controller interface, you should be playing another system, as the whole point of the Wii is its nontraditional interface. A Wii rpg is and should be like the Dragon Quest: Swords game.

And here’s the problem with this; pursuing a casual, mainstream, middle-of-the-road audience is and has always been the death knell of creative, critical, and artistic success, which once again is the whole point of this OP. Movie studios catering/pandering to a casual, middle-of-the-road audience instead of cinephiles and movie hounds gives us films like College Road Trip and White Girls. The music industry aiming for a casual, middle-of-the-road, mainstream audience instead of real music aficionados gives us Celine Dion (see the OP/metaphor) and Creed. This approach is always terrible for quality, art, critical achievement, etc. because it requires making the product as inoffensive, dumbed-down, unchallenging and nonthreatening as possible in order to achieve that mass m.o.r. appeal.

Perhaps this is for another thread and argument, but I really don’t buy that a new generation of “casual gamers” is here, in that we’re dealing with people that are “into” games as far as they’ll buy systems and buy games for them and play them but can’t really tell the difference between good and bad games and don’t really keep up with release dates and publishers and so on. Casual gamers have always been with us and always will be, but their numbers are no larger now than they have been. What we do have are a lot of people who have bought Wiis or DS’es based on the appealing gimmick of their interfaces (to these casuals) and then not continued to buy games for them and moved on.

38

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
I’ll say this much. On paper, I absolutely agree with you. But here’s what the problem is – the Wii is fun, and broadly accessible.

Too many game developers have forgotten that games are supposed to be fun. I have stopped caring if games are visually stunning, because amazing graphics has typically been done at the expense of good gameplay. I don’t want ultra-realistic blood and bile spurts. I don’t need perfect ragdoll physics for plummeting corpses. I want fun. The Wii is fun.
[/QUOTE]

First off, thank you for your thoughts and I’m glad to get some intelligent conversation here!

That aside, I wholeheartedly refute and reject this irritating, unthinking meme that seems to have really sprouted wings that “The Wii is Fun, while other systems aren’t.” Where on Earth did that mentality come from? I guess if we’re going by the opinions of a bunch of people that played Wii tennis while drunk at a sorority party, and who have never and will never play a game on another system, then yes, the Wii is fun. But all video games are fun, and that is why we play them, so let’s cut that line of bullshit right now. The idea that the other systems are somehow no-fun powerhouses is so much crap! There are a million factors that make a game “fun,” but the pure power - the physics, the textures, the ability to maintain a consistent and solid framerate, the lack of hang-ups and stutters and loading and graphical and gameplay glitches, the immersive and convincing visuals - all go MILES toward making a game involving and immersive for me, which is a major thing that I look for in games. I, an adult man with a family, stayed up all night long playing Grand Theft Auto IV last night because the combination of all of the aforementioned help make it one of the funnest things I’ve played in about a decade.

No, one gets a Playstation 2, which has had absolutely more quirky, weird, interesting, kooky, comic, and ultimately Japanese games than any other system in history - and at a ridiculously low price point at this point in its life cycle. This might seem like a snipey aside, but it illustrates a common problem with your previous paragraph - that this theoretical group of people (little kids to grandparents) is somehow underserved by what’s already out there on other platforms. If anything, there’s a historically unprecedented glut of accessible, nonthreatening titles out there for those people spread between the PS2, Xbox360, PSP, PS3, and DS. The problem is that those groups, like you, seem to have developed this mentality that those systems have nothing but “first-person shooters and sport games.” It’s quite simply completely and utterly untrue.

39

[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
The price differential is a real factor that I think a lot of people don’t give enough credit to. As much as I would love a PS3, even $400 for the most basic SKU is a lot to swallow compared to $250. Then you’re looking at $60 per game, when Wii games routinely run $30-$50. For a price-concious gamer like me, the PlayStation 3 is something I will enjoy at the end of its life, when the console is marked down to $200 and lots of games have entered the Greatest Hits library. The Wii is a console that I can afford to enjoy now, the first time around. That means something to me.

[/QUOTE]

The big problem with these “price points” is that most people are quoting prices that are no longer relevant. The Xbox 360 is $279.99, a mere $30 more than the Wii’s $249.99. And the 360 is inarguably the superior system to the PS3 at this time. The PS3 itself has come down drastically in price and can be had for much closer to $400.

40

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]

Although I will defend the Virtual Console, aside from a few big hits, most of the major NES and SNES titles are already on the VC. Complaining about price is valid I guess, but try finding a working cartridge of any of those games for less than the price on the VC. It won’t be easy.

[/QUOTE]

Completely untrue on all fronts. I could make a list of all of the “must-have” titles that are not yet available on VC (and may never be) and break it down by platform, but it would take up an entire firefox view page and send this thread into multiple pages with one post. You quite simply cannot merely put your head in the sand and pretend that the VC is anywhere even remotely close to representing the must-have games that everyone is waiting for. Dragon Warrior I-IV, Maniac Mansion, Phantasy Star, Ys, ad infinitum.