next »

[mirosurabu]

for god's sake the damn thing isn't even out yet, how can you possibly 'hate' the control scheme and every game that will ever be released for it. im not saying we should see the wii u as the second coming of christ but at least wait until it exists before you pass your almighty hammer of judgement

that's ashfordpride, the most ignored person on the internet. you should ignore him too.

[shig]

the above post makes me very sad

[s0]

I agree with AshfordPride.

[capn.lee]

whether he's right or not, his methods are very suspect.
arguing with something by splitting it into many minor points is very easy to do, it allows you to pick apart each sentence without having to argue with the overall opinion.

I'm not too excited about the wii u, but after reading what john carmack had to say on it (here), I'm starting to come round to it. If the console is more in line with the competition in terms of power, it could be a push to getting treated as an equal by the multi platform titles.
At the same time, developing a wii game can maybe get a bit more funding if there are options to port it to the other consoles also. It could be the key to getting more good games developed on nintendo consoles.

[DavidCaruso]

... I'm sorry? I offended you hardcore I guess. But none of your arguments make sense, and you're so damn angry I'm not sure you'd listen to anything I have to say now.

"U mad? Uhhhh I didn't actually read your post but you can't possibly have any good points because you sound angry to me. Anger and good points are diametrically opposed, just look at all those completely calm and indifferent people out there who are making good points about things."

whether he's right or not, his methods are very suspect.
arguing with something by splitting it into many minor points is very easy to do, it allows you to pick apart each sentence without having to argue with the overall opinion.

If you split a post into many minor points and pick apart all of them then aren't you picking apart the "overall opinion" as well? If I take out every individual small brick in a wall won't it fall down? The "overall opinion" of the original post was "the Wii U should not be attacked so much and I have no idea why people are doing so; these new strange ideas are good and I like them, Nintendo is furthering innovation" which AshfordPride argued against.

Either way from what I've seen so far the part about the WiiU I like the most is the streaming game system between the TV and the controller. That has more potential to be developed in the long term into something actually useful and revolutionary for the industry than any other Nintendo gimmick so far. The controller design is giving me bad Game Gear flashbacks except I think this one is bigger than the Game Gear and has more buttons/joysticks. And I literally cannot imagine a decent use for the "hold controller up to screen" thing. At least there will be less "swing the controller to swing Link's sword" stuff since I can't imagine that working at all with how bulky it is.

Also the WiiU is more in line with the competition in terms of power (actually, as far as I can see it exceeds all of them) for now. Wait until the next PlayStation and Xbox. They'll probably also refine (people will say "rip off") the WiiU streaming controller thing too.

[AshfordPride]

If it wasn't for touch screen games, the Trauma Center series would never exist.

I'd be inclined to disagree.  Obviously, the game probably was created with the challenge of 'How do we make a good game for this system?'.  The same was probably true of the Ouendan and Elite Beat Agent games, Ouendan 2 being a strong contender for my favorite game of all time.  However, for every game that we find that can successfully build itself around the hardware, we find more that can't.  I'd like to point to The World Ends With You, a great game that was pretty much bent over a barrel by the fact that it was on the DS.  I shouldn't have to go into great detail about how managing two screens worth of battles, while using finicky touch controls, probably wasn't the best thing for TWEWY.

The same for Wii remote pointing. Metroid Prime 3 and Twilight Princess's use of the wii remote for aiming convinced me that the Wii was the ideal platform for all FPS titles.

Then why has nobody made a FPS for the Wii that received any real praise?  Why does every Wii FPS get the label of "Good...  For a Wii FPS game."  Controllers, and more specifically the mouse and keyboard, are pretty fantastic methods of player input that we've had a lot of time to work out.  Notice how Sony and Microsoft seem to have created nearly identical controllers for the PS3 and 360?  Or how the first generation Playstation controller was pretty much just an SNES controller with an additional set of shoulder buttons?  It seems like the industry was at an agreement for how the player would interact with their games on consoles, baring a few games that required new controllers, but then Nintendo had to screw everything up.

The fact that the C-stick was replaced with a C-button is probably the greatest unsung defeat in video game progress.  I weep for thee, Nintendo.

for god's sake the damn thing isn't even out yet, how can you possibly 'hate' the control scheme and every game that will ever be released for it. im not saying we should see the wii u as the second coming of christ but at least wait until it exists before you pass your almighty hammer of judgement

I've lived through the DS and the Wii.  I have a tshirt that says that.  Those are my credentials.  All I'm trying to say is that BEST CASE SCENARIO we will have games that will be able to ignore all this shit and be good, and maybe have one or two that are able to build themselves around this...   Thing.  I can't envision a way that every controller for my system having a camera on it would aid me at all, it seems stupidly redundant and would probably drive up the cost of the controller by an exorbitant amount.  If I ran the zoo, I'd just put a controller on the console.  The start and select buttons can not be pressed from the neutral position of holding the controller, which was something that we've been able to do since the invention of the start button.  That seems like a glaring design flaw.

Just sayin'.

I think why I hate it is that it takes every offensive peripheral that real games have been either ignoring or existing in a hateful tolerance with and SMASHES them all together in a big lump.

[unsilentwill]

Not quite. I read his post, twice, and it didn't make any sense and it sounded like he wasn't going to listen to my response. Honestly. How much do you enjoy debating with angry sarcastic people?

I'm confused about how you guys can agree with him, I just can't find a point to what he said. The points he did make didn't apply to what I said at all. He has the attitude that I was referring to of "you failed and we hate you for trying". Whether he likes it or not, "innovative" tech is not counter-productive and nonfunctional like a car with square wheels. It does not provide the experience he is used to and he seems mad about that.

And again, it's very true that if I can get one good game out of new tech I'm thrilled compared to a hundred okay games from controller-tv.

If someone makes an argument I'd be happy to talk about it, I just don't see anything to respond to in what he said. And stop quoting people and rewriting what you think they said, that's literally a strawman, and pretends that the words I have purposely chosen are some sort of mask.

[Christian Knudsen]

This is where I come from:

Innovation in general is good. Specific innovations aren't inherently good just because they're innovations.

[[RM8]]

You guys realize Wii U can use these, right?

[AshfordPride]

It does not provide the experience he is used to and he seems mad about that.

I've played a Wii and a DS.  This game system will have all the things I didn't like about them, perhaps magnified by what seems to be some very poor design decisions.  My disappointment stems from the fact that Nintendo claimed that their next console will be made with the goal of trying to get more third party support, but then they made this.  A massive cocktease going into E3, and it was not appreciated.  Instead, they produced more of the same.  We're calling this innovative, but it's literally just a buffet of gimmicks that Nintendo used last generation.  

You guys realize Wii U can use these, right?

What about Gamecube controllers?  I never bought one of those, I've always liked to be able to use a Gamecube controller whenever possible.  I sure hope I don't have to buy four of those to play the new Super Smash Brothers.

As an aside, I also hope the new Super Smash Brothers is called "New Super Smash Brothers".

[mirosurabu]

You guys realize Wii U can use these, right?

Damn. I thought that classic controller has no analog sticks! And it's not like I don't own one.

Anyways, the point is that the new system will encourage specific design which would almost certainly require implementation of at least one of the hardware novelties. And that can suck really bad, as we have seen from Wii games.

[shig]

And again, it's very true that if I can get one good game out of new tech I'm thrilled compared to a hundred okay games from controller-tv.

yes, because all games that dont have the most recent gimmick can only hope to be ok at best

[unsilentwill]

That's not what I meant at all.

[shig]

the problem is that sentence implies that you are somehow choosing between either having one good game with the gimmick or a hundred merely ok games without the gimmick.

[AshfordPride]

the problem is that sentence implies that you are somehow choosing between either having one good game with the gimmick or a hundred merely ok games without the gimmick.

Hey nerd, just shut up and keep playing your Call of Dutys. 

[Richard Kain]

Innovation in general is good. Specific innovations aren't inherently good just because they're innovations.

This is an issue of perspective that I would like to address.

Game companies started using the term "innovation" to describe what they were attempting, and now it has become a label that gets applied to absolutely anything that is out of the ordinary. But this doesn't work, largely due to the positive nature of the word "innovation." Companies use that particular word because it is a safe term, that inspires positive feelings. "Innovation" makes for good PR.

But the truth of the matter is that most game designers aren't "innovating." They are "experimenting." They are making an attempt at developing or designing something different. The positive term "innovate" should be reserved for after the fact. It is an affirmation to be applied to an experiment that has already proven successful.

At the same time, I don't understand some of the resistance in the core gaming demographics toward the kind of experiments that hardware developers have been engaging in. Experimentation is necessary for progress and growth. It doesn't always lead to positive results, but it is essential for change.

When I see people being openly resistant towards experimental hardware design, I can't help but think that they are simply afraid of change.

[Christian Knudsen]

Not to get all semantically on you, but:

Definition of INNOVATION

1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

Applies perfectly to a new piece of gaming hardware that a developer has been experimenting on in private and is now going to sell as a finished product.

[Zecks]

this is the nth time someone has gotten semantical about the word. we get it, does it really matter?

every goddamn argument on this site follows the same pattern

[Theophilus]

It is a HUGE mistake on Nintendo's part if they don't allow multi-tablet support. I can give many scenarios where it would enrich gaming.

-Card games, obviously

-Turn-based strategies, players select their movements/actions while others are taking their turn

-Action games, having your own screen would be awesome.

-Mario Kart Double Dash - like game, imagine you being the driver and your friend being the item-thrower, full 360-degree aiming would be cool.

-Suppose two of you are playing on a team in a fighting game like SSB. One can control the fighter, the other can control elements of the stage, adding or removing things.


You get the idea- there is a lot of stuff. If Nintendo doesn't add this, they may have another Virtual Boy on their hands.


I think the Wii U will attract casual gamers who are not yet hardcore gamers, turning them into hardcore gamers and creating a hipster tribe of the current hardcore gamers. "I was a hardcore gamer before the Wii U; I play cool games and you play dumb ones".

[s0]

If someone makes an argument I'd be happy to talk about it, I just don't see anything to respond to in what he said. And stop quoting people and rewriting what you think they said, that's literally a strawman, and pretends that the words I have purposely chosen are some sort of mask.

Yeah, we all know AshfordPride's debating methods are questionable to say the least, but your original post was a strawman as well. You brushed aside (IMO very valid) criticisms of Nintendo and the Wii with "Welp I guess you just hate innovation."

The way I see it, the current standard format of buttons + monitor exists for a reason: It works and is extremely versatile, allowing for a great number of different types of games (which we aren't even close to having fully explored yet btw). Most "alternative" control methods, like motion, touch or mouse controls, are more specialized and only really work for a handful of games. Any system that prioritizes them over buttons is going to be limited by that. This is also why the DS works so much better than the Wii.