[icruise]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales 

I don't know, but I don't believe so. I'd much rather they not include an SD card. I'd rather not have to pay for a smallish SD card, when I'll still go out and buy a 512 MB-1 GB card instead.

I understand what you mean, but what I was getting at is that they should include some way to save your games with the system, just as a courtesy for people who may not realize that you need a card. (Imagine kids on Christmas finding out that they can't save their games.) But if the Wii has internal storage then this isn't an issue.

I would have appreciated included component cables instead. If they're not expensive, I won't be upset though. One site I read quoted Wii component cables at $10, which I'm relatively okay with, but another quoted them at $30, which I think is way too expensive and rather disappointing.

Well, component cables tend to be expensive. When I bought a DVD player for my office, I seem to recall them costing more than the player! (Yes, it was a cheap player, but still. And no, they weren't monster cables or anything. They were actually the cheapest ones I could find.)

[starman]

Sorry for not responding sooner.

My biggest, BIGGEST problem with the Wii is that it feels more like a GC 1.5 from the tech. specs. Also, Nintendo is asking everyone to just scrap the conventional control scheme for a new one. They're essentially betting the farm on this. If it fails (and it might), this could be a serious blow for Nintendo since they're packaging it up with a new console rather than a Wii-mote add-on for the GC.

Would it have killed them to make an optical port? Really. We've had optical out since the PS2 in 2000. It's 6 years later. How expensive could it have been? Like I said, my TiVo can do both optical and analog routing so there's really no excuse there.

720p. Again, would it have been THAT expensive?

Better online gaming.

I'm looking forward to the Wii, but I'm apprehensive at the same time. I'm very afraid that the new control scheme's going to work for a handful of games and feel like a gimmick on others. I already play my GC the least amount of my consoles, and I'm just not convinced that the Wii is going to win me over the 360.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Icruise 

Well, component cables tend to be expensive. When I bought a DVD player for my office, I seem to recall them costing more than the player! (Yes, it was a cheap player, but still. And no, they weren't monster cables or anything. They were actually the cheapest ones I could find.)

I think component cables for the Wii will be $20-$30 at least.

You can buy an HDMI cable (which is better) for the PS3 for $15.

[ort888]

They are $30 and only available online.

And again... (for the posters above) the Wii comes with 512megs of built in internal memory for saving games and such.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by starman 

Sorry for not responding sooner.

My biggest, BIGGEST problem with the Wii is that it feels more like a GC 1.5 from the tech. specs.

720p. Again, would it have been THAT expensive?

That is also what I find most puzzling so someone tell me what is going on here:

1) The GameCube is more powerful than the PS2. No doubt about it in terms of video processing it is better. GoMac says this, everyone know that. The PS2 has way less video RAM, way less CPU.
- PS2 can do 1080i and no sweat, the gamecube cannot. The slim PS2 is tiny, $100 and has a DVD player and puts out high def.

2) The gamecube is about the same horsepower visually as the Xbox 1 as everyone can agree.
- The Xbox does 1080i and 5.1.

3) The Wii is "twice as powerful" as the Cube or at the very least a bit better than the Xbox 1.
- WHY CAN IT NOT DO 720p/1080i? WHY NO 5.1 AUDIO? It makes no sense!

[starman]

They'll probably say it was a cost cutting measure which is total BS.

If an analog->optical adapter is $25 from Radio Shack, chances are the cost to put that into a Wii is about 25 cents (if that).

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by ort888 

They are $30 and only available online.

Oh god not that again! WHY WHY!! They did the same with the Cube and it honestly took a YEAR before anyone could easily get one online or otherwise. Even the Cube supported 480p and for the first year everyone was stuck with S-video at best.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by starman 

They'll probably say it was a cost cutting measure which is total BS. If an analog->optical adapter is $25, chances are the cost to put that into a Wii is about 25 cents (if that).

How? I don't get it? What do they take out to save money? The CPU is better than PS2, the video card is, the RAM is, the storage is. There is no magic HD-chip that costs $100 they they can take out to save big. What could it be?

[starman]

Actually, I got my component cable from N pretty soon after the GC was released.

It's still stupid that you have to order it online. Christ, if Nintendo produced cars they'd still make engines that took leaded gas.

[Dakar²]

I think Nintendo takes pride in their anti-cutting-edge-technological stance. As if it ruins the gaming.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by starman 

Actually, I got my component cable from N pretty soon after the GC was released.

You are a lucky bastard. I ask every game shop for a year and they all told me Nintendo isn't shipping them any. After a year I got a 3rd party one, didn't do me much good though as so few games supported 480p.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Oh god not that again! WHY WHY!! They did the same with the Cube and it honestly took a YEAR before anyone could easily get one online or otherwise. Even the Cube supported 480p and for the first year everyone was stuck with S-video at best.

Nintendo seems to be really sold on their proprietary video connector. They've had this thing ever since the days of the SNES, and it's worked quite well for them: it's still compatible backwards and forwards going all the way back. However, although it supports RGB output (used by some monitors), it's never supported YCrCb (component). On the GameCube, they had to add another "digital" port specifically for Component and DVI video, and nobody ever used it (so few, in fact, that they went so far as to remove the port from later GameCube models).

I'm not trying to say this is wrong or right (though the port compatibility is, admittedly, awfully convenient). I'm just trying to say why I think Nintendo's doing it. And I've got to say, if so few people use Component, then why should Nintendo force everyone to pay for something that only a small fraction of them will use?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I think Nintendo takes pride in their anti-cutting-edge-technological stance. As if it ruins the gaming.

Actually, in the portable market, "cutting-edge technology" can ruin the gaming. All it has to do is drain the batteries too quickly, turning the "cutting-edge" handheld into an expensive brick. This is a large part of how Nintendo has been able to hold its own against handhelds with "higher" specifications throughout their long tenure in the handheld space.

As for consoles, one can argue that "cutting-edge technology" does not inherently ruin gaming, but it's a lot harder to deny the negative effect it's had on the game makers. It's a lot harder than it once was to find games with good gameplay, good replay value (i.e. not inflated with "post-game" or "new game plus" crap), and decent challenge. Companies are far more likely to pander to the 3-G formula and dumb down the challenge in the name of "accessibility." They do it because it sells games, but in the process it strips the gaming market of the very things that make this medium unique. Is it any wonder that even many game directors, even among greats like Kojima and Nomura, don't respect their media as art? And when they don't, is it any wonder that critics like Roger Ebert don't either?

Forcing the industry to take a step back graphics-wise and reevaluate what really makes games what they are, and what really makes them good, is exactly what this industry needs. Whether or not the Wii succeeds, the fact that someone had the guts to make it is the best thing to happen to this industry in years, and I plan on supporting it for that reason.

[starman]

Mil, it's good that you have that attitude. I guess I've just become jaded over the years. In fact, I saw online gaming as a better revolution for consoles than the Wiimote. I always say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I didn't think controls in gaming needed fixing. GAMES needed fixing.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Actually, in the portable market, "cutting-edge technology" can ruin the gaming. All it has to do is drain the batteries too quickly, turning the "cutting-edge" handheld into an expensive brick. This is a large part of how Nintendo has been able to hold its own against handhelds with "higher" specifications throughout their long tenure in the handheld space.

Right, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Originally Posted by Millennium 

As for consoles, one can argue that "cutting-edge technology" does not inherently ruin gaming, but it's a lot harder to deny the negative effect it's had on the game makers. It's a lot harder than it once was to find games with good gameplay, good replay value (i.e. not inflated with "post-game" or "new game plus" crap), and decent challenge. Companies are far more likely to pander to the 3-G formula and dumb down the challenge in the name of "accessibility." They do it because it sells games, but in the process it strips the gaming market of the very things that make this medium unique. Is it any wonder that even many game directors, even among greats like Kojima and Nomura, don't respect their media as art? And when they don't, is it any wonder that critics like Roger Ebert don't either?

Forcing the industry to take a step back graphics-wise and reevaluate what really makes games what they are, and what really makes them good, is exactly what this industry needs. Whether or not the Wii succeeds, the fact that someone had the guts to make it is the best thing to happen to this industry in years, and I plan on supporting it for that reason.

This is the way I see it: Everyone buys Nintendo products for the Nintendo games; Nintendo is focused on gameplay. Therefore, if they know what's important, there's no need to cripple themselves needlessly in order to bring the focus where they already have it.

Further, it makes their system less attractive to mainstream developers which could/has hindered sales (lack of 3rd party support)*

*this remains to be seen for this generation. Whether the PS3 becomes a debacle or Nintendo's new innovations help propel it further I wait to see with much anticipation

[Dark Helmet]

I dunno when I got my PS2 and Xbox 1 and 360 i seem to buy it and enjoy it for the gameplay. I don't sit there and count pollygones.

Why is there the sudden attitude since the Wii that you can either have graphics OR gameplay but not both?

I had way more enjoyable titles overall on the Xbox 1 than the cube.

[icruise]

I think the difference between me and some of the critics here is that I'm willing to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt, at least for the moment. There's a lot of "why on earth would they leave feature X out?" kind of discussion here, but the fact of the matter is that we really have no idea what goes into making a console like this.

Yes, I really think they should have supported HD, but I also think that they must have some valid reasons for not doing so. They aren't complete fools, and neither is this a master plan to fool the public into buying an upgrade in a few months. It may have to do with cost, and remember that they have to consider more than just the physical cost of the hardware. Maybe supporting HD would make development more difficult than they wanted. Maybe supporting HD resolutions would make it hard for the Wiimote to work properly. Who knows? At worst, it might just be a misjudgment along the lines of the "nobody's interested in online gaming" stance they took with the GameCube.

If, when the Wii comes out, it's nothing more than a slightly improved GameCube with a dodgy control scheme, then we can start criticizing Nintendo, but it just seems a little premature.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

I dunno when I got my PS2 and Xbox 1 and 360 i seem to buy it and enjoy it for the gameplay. I don't sit there and count pollygones.

...yet you seem to have no problem counting polygons when comparing systems, and denouncing the ones with lower numbers as "inferior" or "rip-offs". Why?

Why is there the sudden attitude since the Wii that you can either have graphics OR gameplay but not both?

Because that is the way the industry has developed. Quite a few people, myself included, have been saying this for a lot longer than "since the Wii", but it seems that the Wii is what has really drawn people's attention to the issue. And maybe that will change, now that one console maker has had the guts to make a stand against it, but this is the present reality.

I had way more enjoyable titles overall on the Xbox 1 than the cube.

How many of them have you played since you got a 360? For that matter, how many of them have you bothered to play through more than once?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

How many of them have you played since you got a 360? For that matter, how many of them have you bothered to play through more than once?

I keep a videogame library. I have a TON of games that I replay.

[Dakar²]

You know, disregarding the game play vs. graphics aspect of this all, considering all the features the Wii doesn't have, I'd be interested to know whether or not Nintendo is making more margin on the Wii than the GameCube.

Your answer for why features are dropped might be there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Because that is the way the industry has developed. Quite a few people, myself included, have been saying this for a lot longer than "since the Wii"

I've been saying it since Square managed to delude people into thinking that Final Fantasy 7 was some radical step forward.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've been saying it since Square managed to delude people into thinking that Final Fantasy 7 was some radical step forward.

Uh, it was.

[Chuckit]

The storyline, characters and soundtrack were all less interesting than the previous game, the battle system wasn't much different, and the junction system was kind of a more confusing crossgrade from the espers in Final Fantasy 6. Aside from the less cartoony 3D shell, what made it a radical step forward?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

...yet you seem to have no problem counting polygons when comparing systems, and denouncing the ones with lower numbers as "inferior" or "rip-offs". Why?

Show me once where I have mentioned a polygon. Just one.

I do mention HD, 5.1 audio, AI and higher rez textures though because those things add to "immersive" games just like a Wiimote is supposed to.

Give me the first Doom with its bad graphics and stereo sound and I laugh my ass off.
Give me doom 3 with surround sound and it scares the hell out of you.

Does that still mean better graphics and sound don't add to gameplay any?

[starman]

Its size and scope (4 CDs)

3D graphics

Control scheme

Materia

The music was better because the previous hardware wasn't anything CLOSE to the PS1

PERSONALLY, I found the story and characters very interesting. Apparently I'm not the only one because I don't see a lot of FF VI crap.

3D cutscenes (yeah, you know, some of us like them and they do serve a purpose)

Not to mention the fact that it's been called the greatest game ever made. I still believe that it and Zelda: OoT are equal in that regard.

Also, it got a LOT of people interested in RPGs. No other game could claim that.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

How many of them have you played since you got a 360? For that matter, how many of them have you bothered to play through more than once?

1) Crimson Skies. I played it through about 5 times which is 2x more than any game I have ever owned. When I got the 360 I still played it a few times.

2) Halo 2. Played it through about 3x.

3) Beyond good and evil (for all platforms but xbox one was best) played through 3x.

4) Condemned (360) played through 3.5x

5) Kameo 2x

As for my cube.. Pickmin x2, metroid x2, Zelda 1.5, RE4 .5. All the other games got shelved after they were part or fully done.

On the PS2 there are quite a few also that I played over and over.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You know, disregarding the game play vs. graphics aspect of this all, considering all the features the Wii doesn't have, I'd be interested to know whether or not Nintendo is making more margin on the Wii than the GameCube.

Your answer for why features are dropped might be there.

Of course they are. They said it is gamecube hardware just more efficient and smaller with small bumps here and there. It is 6 year old technology just like the PS2 slim which sells for $110 new.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Does that still mean better graphics and sound don't add to gameplay any?

Graphics and sound by themselves don't add to gameplay, but they do add to the game experience. In terms of gameplay Doom 3 is basically the same game that all the other Dooms were. You're just running around in corridors, shooting things and having monsters appear behind you. That's why once people got over the graphics they realized that Doom 3 wasn't quite the radical step forward they thought it was going to be.

The main improvement that the graphics in Doom 3 made to the gameplay was that they enabled the use of shadows, which did make the game more interesting and added some new gameplay elements (even if they did have to force it by making you use a lame flashlight instead of your gun).

[ort888]

Doom 3 wasn't the same game. It was worse. I still prefer the original Doom over Doom 3.

The original Doom had you fighting dozens of bad guys at once, had giant sprawling levels with huge rooms, had great atmosphere and incredibly creative level design.

Doom 3 had good graphics, and that was it. The game had you walking down narrow corridor after narrow corridor while having monsters pop out of nowhere two at a time to fight you.

I had more fun playing the classic Doom that came on my Doom 3 disc then I did playing Doom.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Of course they are. They said it is gamecube hardware just more efficient and smaller with small bumps here and there. It is 6 year old technology just like the PS2 slim which sells for $110 new.

Well, look at this way. With the margin they're making, Nintendo should be around for another generation yet.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Icruise 

Graphics and sound by themselves don't add to gameplay, but they do add to the game experience. In terms of gameplay Doom 3 is basically the same game that all the other Dooms were. You're just running around in corridors, shooting things and having monsters appear behind you. That's why once people got over the graphics they realized that Doom 3 wasn't quite the radical step forward they thought it was going to be.

The main improvement that the graphics in Doom 3 made to the gameplay was that they enabled the use of shadows, which did make the game more interesting and added some new gameplay elements (even if they did have to force it by making you use a lame flashlight instead of your gun).

I'm confused. Graphics and sound DON'T add to the gameplay but to the game experience? Aren't those the same thing? Factor 5 added surround for Rogue Squadron on the N64, a wonderful way to know that there were ships behind you (although it was kinda clunky). All else being equal, I'd love to have surround sound in games. Why does Nintendo think that nothing happens behind you? Sony and MS do.

[icruise]

By gameplay, I'm talking about the fundamentals of how the game works, how it controls, etc. There are a lot of games that have great graphics and shitty gameplay. There are a lot of games that have shitty graphics and great gameplay. So no, just having surround sound or great graphics does not add to gameplay. Note that I said these by themselves don't improve gameplay. I'm not ruling out the possibility that they can be used to improve gameplay (as with the shadows in Doom 3 or your example).

[starman]

Fair enough.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Doom 3 wasn't the same game. It was worse. I still prefer the original Doom over Doom 3.

I agree and I hate both.

The point is in doom 1 you never got scared. Doom 3 even though the game isn't that great you can get quite a rush just because your eyes and ears make you think you are in danger.

Again people are implying that because doom had better graphics that is the reason it wasn't any fun. It wasn't fun because the people creating it are at fault not because there is a mathematical trade off and you have to chose graphics or fun.

[Dakar²]

Doom wasn't scary per se, but I sure scared the crap out of myself a few times while playing it. 2 am, no lights, music off, and the stereo up, yeah that did the trick in my teens.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

Its size and scope (4 CDs)

It was 4 CDs because it was 3D and had a boatload of cutscenes. It wasn't really that much longer than FFVI (at least it didn't seem like it).

Originally Posted by starman 

3D graphics

Well, yeah. I was saying this is the factor that made people think it was so much better than FFIV and FFVI.

Originally Posted by starman 

Control scheme

It was the same as the Super Nintendo games, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by starman 

Materia

It combined the function of FFVI's relics and magicite into one item type. Not really a giant step forward.

Originally Posted by starman 

The music was better because the previous hardware wasn't anything CLOSE to the PS1

OK, kind of true. The sound quality was better, but the songs weren't nearly as good. I know a lot more people who own the FFVI soundtrack than the FFVII one even though FFVII is way more popular.

Originally Posted by starman 

Also, it got a LOT of people interested in RPGs.

That's what I'm saying. What made the game successful was not that it was a good RPG, but that the flashy lights attracted people who didn't care about RPGs to begin with.

[Dark Helmet]

This is funny and well done.
A Wii Adventure - Google Video

[starman]

Funny how people are bitching about graphics vs. gameplay and you say the "flashy lights" got people to play FF VII.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Again people are implying that because doom had better graphics that is the reason it wasn't any fun.

Who said that?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

Funny how people are bitching about graphics vs. gameplay and you say the "flashy lights" got people to play FF VII.

Yeah, I'm lamenting the fact that because graphics won out there, we've been subjected to countless awful Final Fantasy sequels over the past several years.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, I'm lamenting the fact that because graphics won out there, we've been subjected to countless awful Final Fantasy sequels over the past several years.

"countless"?

VIII
IX
X

that's three. You can't count to 3? Personally, I loved X for two reasons: the sphere grid and Spira itself. The story was good, but I loved levelling around the grid moreso.

XII is said to be better than all of them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

"countless"?

VIII
IX
X

that's three. You can't count to 3? Personally, I loved X for two reasons: the sphere grid and Spira itself. The story was good, but I loved levelling around the grid moreso.

XII is said to be better than all of them.

X was the only good one since. VIII was bad. IX was bad. X-2 was bad. XI was an MMO that didn't have "Warcraft" in the title, so 'nuff said there. I agree that "countless" is an exaggeration, but almost all of them since 7 were lame.

I am still holding out hope for XII, though.

[starman]

Right, I fogot about X-2. Did you even play it? It wasn't THAT bad. It was a nice way to wrap up the story on Spira. I don't remember IX getting as bad reviews as you make it out to have. XI was OK. It came out years before WoW, but suffered from a terrible UI. EQ1 blew it away, and it was already 4 years old at the time. I tried playing it for a few months and just got terribly frustrated with it.

[olePigeon]

I absolutely hate Final Fantasy. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but when I think of RPG I think of D&D. Pen and paper, dice. Not computers. If you're including Final Fantasy as an "RPG," then pretty much any damn game you play on a computer is an RPG... except maybe flight simulators and Sim City. If anything, it's a computerized version of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.

Oh, and one more thing: F*ck all of you Anime people. You're screwing up D&D! STOP IT! Eberron is leaking into the more traditional settings and it's screwing everything up. I don't want robots, laser guns, and elves with 4' ears and 3" eyes that make them look like they have Down Syndrome.

It's D&D, not Anime. Leave it alone. Please.

[starman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I absolutely hate Final Fantasy. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but when I think of RPG I think of D&D. Pen and paper, dice. Not computers. If you're including Final Fantasy as an "RPG," then pretty much any damn game you play on a computer is an RPG... except maybe flight simulators and Sim City. If anything, it's a computerized version of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.

CYOA books didn't give the player stats like INT, STR and DEX.

[zerostar]

How many here have pre-orders? Hope to see a bunch of reviews before I go out and buy, although I am VERY anxious to get one now...

Any insight what the DS integration will be?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I absolutely hate Final Fantasy. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but when I think of RPG I think of D&D. Pen and paper, dice. Not computers. If you're including Final Fantasy as an "RPG," then pretty much any damn game you play on a computer is an RPG... except maybe flight simulators and Sim City.

How do you figure?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I absolutely hate Final Fantasy. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but when I think of RPG I think of D&D. Pen and paper, dice. Not computers. If you're including Final Fantasy as an "RPG," then pretty much any damn game you play on a computer is an RPG... except maybe flight simulators and Sim City. If anything, it's a computerized version of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.

Well, you're welcome to think that video games can't be RPGs, but I don't really see how that adds to the discussion here.

But since you mentioned it, there are basically two kinds of video game RPGs (well, three if you count MMORPGs, but those are sort of a different issue). You might call these two types "American style" and "Japanese style." In the American style RPG, you create your own characters and in general have more freedom about what you want to do and when you want to do it. Oblivion is a good example of this. It has an over-arching story, but you are free to decide what kind of character you want to play and you have some freedom to determine how the story unfolds. Japanese RPGs traditionally have you following a predetermined story with existing characters. This allows for much more developed characters and stories, but it can seem a little unfulfilling in some cases, since you're just walking down a preset path there is little room for actual "role playing." But they can both be a lot of fun.

Of course, these aren't black and white distinctions. Some Japanese RPGs incorporate character creation and so forth. But anyway, if you don't like Final Fantasy, try Oblivion or something like it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you figure?

You don't get to develop the character, you just play them. Sometimes they include XP or points that you get to spend later on, but you don't get to evolve the character the way you want to. Not like any traditional RPG. There also isn't any social interraction with other people. It's a first person story. As I stated, it's more like those old Choose Your Own Adventure books from 80s. You have a pre-set destiny and fixed story with different conclusions.

There are "MMORPGs" which try to blend the two. You can sort-of, kind-of "customize" a character and do a limited sort of quests. Then it just boils down to clicking and killing, looking for rares.

Then there's the failed heap of crap called Neverwinter Nights. It had such potential from all the ideas they posted on the forums. Something I might have ventured as to call the first real computer RPG. Then they just threw the 3rd Edition rules out the window, removed or made extremely complicated and difficult any modifcation to the game (such as new classes, spells, changing schools) and basically just turned it into a 3D version of Baldur's Gate. Now if you want to actually do anything with the game, you have to download or create a sh*t load of hacks that no one else will have. The concept of "adapting your gaming world to NWN" doesn't exist when you can't do something as simple as chaning schools for spells... much less create new spells.

From the looks of it, Neverwinter Nights 2 won't be any better.

[Dark Helmet]

I've never even seen a Final Fantasy. RPG's are not my thang.