So i got a Wii last night.
I saw them but wasn't sure how good they are. Maybe I'll give them a look. :icon14:bitWISE wrote:I've been getting tons of games off there. Gunstar Heroes and Super Star Soldier are worth checking out if you like arcade shooters.R00k wrote:Yea I saw it the other day, it's on my list.
I downloaded Gradius, SF II and Super Contra the other day too.
I love this thing, I can't wait until more titles are up.
lol, graphics. Why are so many people obsessed with graphical power? As long as it's a semi-realistic representation, I don't give a fuck if the graphics are all cartoony like Wii Sports, graphics aren't fun, they're pretty. I never thought I'd see so many people bitching about things not being pretty enough for them, but that's Q3W for you. (((((Pretty)))))
So far, paying $5-10 a game for the virtual console alone has been enough to justify purchasing the system. I've only got Zelda and Wii Sports so far, but I really want to try Trauma Center and a number of other games for that matter.
Is Mario Kart 64 demonstrably different from Double Dash? I considered picking it up, but I've still got my N64, Super Nintendo and old Grey Box in a drawer with my Genesis and so half the games aren't worth the purchase since I have them already.
So far, paying $5-10 a game for the virtual console alone has been enough to justify purchasing the system. I've only got Zelda and Wii Sports so far, but I really want to try Trauma Center and a number of other games for that matter.
Is Mario Kart 64 demonstrably different from Double Dash? I considered picking it up, but I've still got my N64, Super Nintendo and old Grey Box in a drawer with my Genesis and so half the games aren't worth the purchase since I have them already.
Yea I had a cube but I never got DD. I had it for the RE series and killer7 but I'll have to look for a used DD copy.Turing wrote:Oh man, you can play GC games on the Wii, you have got to get DD. It's the greatest of the series from everything I've heard, though I might try out MK64 just for funsies.
Yeah I figured as much. You run along now and be a good sheep of a consumer and let them nickel and dime you to death.Turing wrote:lol, graphics. Why are so many people obsessed with graphical power? As long as it's a semi-realistic representation, I don't give a fuck if the graphics are all cartoony like Wii Sports, graphics aren't fun, they're pretty. I never thought I'd see so many people bitching about things not being pretty enough for them, but that's Q3W for you. (((((Pretty)))))
So far, paying $5-10 a game for the virtual console alone has been enough to justify purchasing the system. I've only got Zelda and Wii Sports so far, but I really want to try Trauma Center and a number of other games for that matter.
Is Mario Kart 64 demonstrably different from Double Dash? I considered picking it up, but I've still got my N64, Super Nintendo and old Grey Box in a drawer with my Genesis and so half the games aren't worth the purchase since I have them already.
Please feel free to point out somewhere that you can find a copy of a game for a modern console that's as engrossing and downright fun as the original Zelda for under $5 that isn't a yard sale.
lol, paying $5 for a video game is going to nickel and dime me until I am absolutely dead, and my Wii will be the reason for that death.
Damned nickels and dimes, if only I had a real job. Oh wait I do.
lol, paying $5 for a video game is going to nickel and dime me until I am absolutely dead, and my Wii will be the reason for that death.
Damned nickels and dimes, if only I had a real job. Oh wait I do.
The basics of MK64 are pretty much the same as MKDD. The control feels quite a bit different and making powerslides (or whatever you want to call it) is more tricky.Turing wrote:Is Mario Kart 64 demonstrably different from Double Dash? I considered picking it up, but I've still got my N64, Super Nintendo and old Grey Box in a drawer with my Genesis and so half the games aren't worth the purchase since I have them already.
One big difference with DD is that in the N64 version you won't be sitting on a kart with two characters. I think that if you've played Mario Kart on the Nintendo DS then you'll find that the MK64 is more like MK on the DS than MKDD.
cant believe no one mentioned mario galaxy. this was kinda the deal breaker for me, it looks so fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Qw1ClC ... ed&search=
You know you want a Wii after that vid. Just a little bit. Dont deny yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Qw1ClC ... ed&search=
You know you want a Wii after that vid. Just a little bit. Dont deny yourself
-
Chupacabra
- Posts: 3783
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:00 am
rook, eraser...just saw this the other day on letters to IGN. it has one of the things i was mentioning.
the one thing is though, i don't see anything changing. and i still think there will be a bit of a lag and imprecision.
"Where's the Immersion?
Up until now, and sadly still on the horizon, Wii games are still gimmicky. Yea they're fun, but not actually innovative. The Wii control is supposed to sense itself in 3-dimensional space, which should open a near infinite path of play options and allow for some amazing physics engines. So why should I still be "shaking the nunchuck" to do something? Exactly what action am I being immersed in? I really hope its rolling dice, because otherwise it doesn't make any damn sense.
The reason that Wii has such potential is that for the first time ever we can perform actions in a game and fail to do them right. Instead of pressing a button to pass a football we actually have to throw it. But right now Nintendo's idea of throwing a football is the same a pressing a button. You do a throwing motion. If you did it right then you've essentially pressed pass. If you don't have proper form the game fails to read the motion and your QB does nothing.
[note: this really gets to me, and it gets to me especially because when you do it properly (e.g. proper football throwing motion) you get penalized; the game doesn't pick it up correctly or won't throw the ball. see my earlier examples]
If the system really knows where the controller is then it should be able to take every aspect of your throwing motion and incorporate it into the game. If you arc at 135 degrees at 42 km/ph with X torque etc… you get the point. I should be able to over throw and under throw. I should be able to miss wide and all these scenarios should happen under the rules of a physics engine. This is what Wii should be trying to do and it just isn't.
Say they make a Castlevania side scroller. Nintendo would be totally fine having "shake Wii-mote" equate to whip and then pat them self on the back for it. What they need to do is make the snapping motion equal to whip and simultaneous look at the angle of motion, and the speed. Imagine doing less damage because you didn't get enough wrist into you swing. Or maybe you didn't use you wrist at all and the whip sags to the floor doing no damage. Instead of having to hold up diagonal to swing that way you just flick the remote in that direction.
Long rant I know, but please tell me I'm wrong. Or tell me these types of game will be coming out soon, because if not the Wii is nothing more than a gimmicky toy. There's a reason why blowing into your DS mic is so lame and likewise the inventor of "shake the nunchuck to throw your grenade" should be embarrassed of himself.
--Mark
Solid rant, Mark.
I totally agree with you on the state of Wii's immersion. It's a system with limitless potential, but right now it seems like motion is just a substitute for a button press, rather than actually bringing new aspects of gaming to us. To be honest, I've got a feeling that over 90% of the titles you'll play on Wii are going to be a bit weak in terms of motion control, or simply substituting movement for a button press. For those 10% though, Wii is going to destroy the competition.
Look at something as simple as Wii Sports bowling even, or the highly anticipated (by me, at least) Tiger Woods; true motion control that actually makes the experience stronger. That's what this system needs, and while the majority of publishers may not get it yet (or ever, for that matter), the Wii community just needs to be ready to support the games that do. And believe me; you give it time, and they'll make themselves seen.
--Bozon"
http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762563p1.html
the one thing is though, i don't see anything changing. and i still think there will be a bit of a lag and imprecision.
"Where's the Immersion?
Up until now, and sadly still on the horizon, Wii games are still gimmicky. Yea they're fun, but not actually innovative. The Wii control is supposed to sense itself in 3-dimensional space, which should open a near infinite path of play options and allow for some amazing physics engines. So why should I still be "shaking the nunchuck" to do something? Exactly what action am I being immersed in? I really hope its rolling dice, because otherwise it doesn't make any damn sense.
The reason that Wii has such potential is that for the first time ever we can perform actions in a game and fail to do them right. Instead of pressing a button to pass a football we actually have to throw it. But right now Nintendo's idea of throwing a football is the same a pressing a button. You do a throwing motion. If you did it right then you've essentially pressed pass. If you don't have proper form the game fails to read the motion and your QB does nothing.
[note: this really gets to me, and it gets to me especially because when you do it properly (e.g. proper football throwing motion) you get penalized; the game doesn't pick it up correctly or won't throw the ball. see my earlier examples]
If the system really knows where the controller is then it should be able to take every aspect of your throwing motion and incorporate it into the game. If you arc at 135 degrees at 42 km/ph with X torque etc… you get the point. I should be able to over throw and under throw. I should be able to miss wide and all these scenarios should happen under the rules of a physics engine. This is what Wii should be trying to do and it just isn't.
Say they make a Castlevania side scroller. Nintendo would be totally fine having "shake Wii-mote" equate to whip and then pat them self on the back for it. What they need to do is make the snapping motion equal to whip and simultaneous look at the angle of motion, and the speed. Imagine doing less damage because you didn't get enough wrist into you swing. Or maybe you didn't use you wrist at all and the whip sags to the floor doing no damage. Instead of having to hold up diagonal to swing that way you just flick the remote in that direction.
Long rant I know, but please tell me I'm wrong. Or tell me these types of game will be coming out soon, because if not the Wii is nothing more than a gimmicky toy. There's a reason why blowing into your DS mic is so lame and likewise the inventor of "shake the nunchuck to throw your grenade" should be embarrassed of himself.
--Mark
Solid rant, Mark.
I totally agree with you on the state of Wii's immersion. It's a system with limitless potential, but right now it seems like motion is just a substitute for a button press, rather than actually bringing new aspects of gaming to us. To be honest, I've got a feeling that over 90% of the titles you'll play on Wii are going to be a bit weak in terms of motion control, or simply substituting movement for a button press. For those 10% though, Wii is going to destroy the competition.
Look at something as simple as Wii Sports bowling even, or the highly anticipated (by me, at least) Tiger Woods; true motion control that actually makes the experience stronger. That's what this system needs, and while the majority of publishers may not get it yet (or ever, for that matter), the Wii community just needs to be ready to support the games that do. And believe me; you give it time, and they'll make themselves seen.
--Bozon"
http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762563p1.html
I think it needs time to grow. Look at the DS. Most early games were pretty gimmicky as well, but fun to play nonetheless.
I think developers are still figuring out how to write proper code to deal with the information they get from the remote. They've been writing code to calculate shaders for ages now, but geometric data like this is new to them I guess. There's no standard implementation models to fall back on. That needs time to grow.
You can see the same with every new console when it comes to graphics as well. First generation games often look far less impressive than the latest games. That's simply because developers learn to code for the system. I think it's nothing different with the remote.
All in all it's true that the Wii remote isn't used to it's full potential. But try Wario Ware, it already makes a lot better use of the thing than Wii Sports. And the thing is only 3 months on the market. More interesting uses of the Wii remote will come, I'm sure of it.
Also, I played a tiny bit of Zelda - Twilight Princess on a friend's GameCube a few days ago, and the controls felt very complicated to me, even though they're basically the same as in Zelda - Windwaker (which I played front to end). So I think the least the remote offers is more intuitive control.
I think developers are still figuring out how to write proper code to deal with the information they get from the remote. They've been writing code to calculate shaders for ages now, but geometric data like this is new to them I guess. There's no standard implementation models to fall back on. That needs time to grow.
You can see the same with every new console when it comes to graphics as well. First generation games often look far less impressive than the latest games. That's simply because developers learn to code for the system. I think it's nothing different with the remote.
All in all it's true that the Wii remote isn't used to it's full potential. But try Wario Ware, it already makes a lot better use of the thing than Wii Sports. And the thing is only 3 months on the market. More interesting uses of the Wii remote will come, I'm sure of it.
Also, I played a tiny bit of Zelda - Twilight Princess on a friend's GameCube a few days ago, and the controls felt very complicated to me, even though they're basically the same as in Zelda - Windwaker (which I played front to end). So I think the least the remote offers is more intuitive control.
Yea, my reply to that rant is that it's valid, but the system has only been out for 3 months. That's barely enough time for developers to get their feet wet if they haven't already been working on a game for months before it was released.
I frankly wasn't expecting quite as many games for the system at launch as there already are. I'm just being patient, and hoping that developers start really trying to find ways to use the technology -- and hopefully later this year, we'll start to see some titles come out that really focus on the level of immersion the system is capable of. But I'm not really expecting any for the next several months.
edit: From what I've read about Tiger Woods 07, it is supposed to be much better about using the remote -- it's apparently more like swinging a real golf club, where twisting the wrong way will land you with a slice or a hook, and not swinging it fast enough will get you less distance.
As for Zelda:TP, it almost seems like it was designed for the Wii remote -- i.e., the way you have to select all your items/weapons doesn't seem like it would be very accessible with a different kind of controller. I know it was originally a Gamecube game, but I suspect once they started working on it for the Wii, they added a lot of functionality specifically for that system, which doesn't translate perfectly to the GC.
I frankly wasn't expecting quite as many games for the system at launch as there already are. I'm just being patient, and hoping that developers start really trying to find ways to use the technology -- and hopefully later this year, we'll start to see some titles come out that really focus on the level of immersion the system is capable of. But I'm not really expecting any for the next several months.
edit: From what I've read about Tiger Woods 07, it is supposed to be much better about using the remote -- it's apparently more like swinging a real golf club, where twisting the wrong way will land you with a slice or a hook, and not swinging it fast enough will get you less distance.
As for Zelda:TP, it almost seems like it was designed for the Wii remote -- i.e., the way you have to select all your items/weapons doesn't seem like it would be very accessible with a different kind of controller. I know it was originally a Gamecube game, but I suspect once they started working on it for the Wii, they added a lot of functionality specifically for that system, which doesn't translate perfectly to the GC.
What sucks so much about monkeyball controls? If you're not familiar with the series, you control the level not the character. Also, each of the monkeys has its own characteristics (The smaller ones can jump higher, bounce more, accelerate faster, and have less top speed. The bigger ones jump lower, bounce less, accelerate slower, but have more top speed and stability.) For the best results you need to match each monkey to the type of stage you are on. For example, whenever I need precision control I pick the baby, whenever I need more stability after jumps/drops I get big dude. Generally I go with yanyan because she has the best balance of precision, jump height, speed, and balance.riddla wrote:confirmation that the monkeyball controls suck. my niece will still dig it though.
I'm still playing a shit-ton of wii sports baseball. just wish it was more in-depth and longer than 3 innings.
But as far as the actual controls go, they are 100x better than trying to control the stage with an analog stick.
-
Tormentius
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am
I'm playing the Gamecube version through now and its controls are pretty intuitive (almost the same as previous Zelda titles).R00k wrote: As for Zelda:TP, it almost seems like it was designed for the Wii remote -- i.e., the way you have to select all your items/weapons doesn't seem like it would be very accessible with a different kind of controller. I know it was originally a Gamecube game, but I suspect once they started working on it for the Wii, they added a lot of functionality specifically for that system, which doesn't translate perfectly to the GC.
-
Chupacabra
- Posts: 3783
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:00 am
you're right about the timing of the thing. maybe some good games will come out, but as for how the controls have been used thus far, im not a fan to be honest (which you know by nowEraser wrote:I think it needs time to grow. Look at the DS. Most early games were pretty gimmicky as well, but fun to play nonetheless.
I think developers are still figuring out how to write proper code to deal with the information they get from the remote. They've been writing code to calculate shaders for ages now, but geometric data like this is new to them I guess. There's no standard implementation models to fall back on. That needs time to grow.
You can see the same with every new console when it comes to graphics as well. First generation games often look far less impressive than the latest games. That's simply because developers learn to code for the system. I think it's nothing different with the remote.
All in all it's true that the Wii remote isn't used to it's full potential. But try Wario Ware, it already makes a lot better use of the thing than Wii Sports. And the thing is only 3 months on the market. More interesting uses of the Wii remote will come, I'm sure of it.
Also, I played a tiny bit of Zelda - Twilight Princess on a friend's GameCube a few days ago, and the controls felt very complicated to me, even though they're basically the same as in Zelda - Windwaker (which I played front to end). So I think the least the remote offers is more intuitive control.
)ill judge the system again when some of these better games come out.
maybe im a little crazy, but i actually dont like most DS games. ive been buying a lot of GBA games to play on my DS though. and it seems to me like the best DS games (Mario Kart, Advance Wars, Mario DS (though its not as good as Mario World) aren't really about the touch functionality.
i actually found the Zelda Wii controls very unintuitive. i just assumed that hey, heres my sword let me swing it however i want. with the gamecube controller, i know just pressing A will make a regular sword swing. in the Wii, i got tricked. swinging it however i want is the equivalent of simply pressing A...my vertical swinging, etc. doesnt seem to matter muhc.
so it just felt a bit unintuitive to me. thats not to say its horrible, just...came off to me as overhyped and misleading. i dont think what i was expecting is unreasonable, or is it?
-
Chupacabra
- Posts: 3783
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 7:00 am
yeah i heard that about TW07 as well. i guess we'll see how it turns out.R00k wrote:Yea, my reply to that rant is that it's valid, but the system has only been out for 3 months. That's barely enough time for developers to get their feet wet if they haven't already been working on a game for months before it was released.
I frankly wasn't expecting quite as many games for the system at launch as there already are. I'm just being patient, and hoping that developers start really trying to find ways to use the technology -- and hopefully later this year, we'll start to see some titles come out that really focus on the level of immersion the system is capable of. But I'm not really expecting any for the next several months.
edit: From what I've read about Tiger Woods 07, it is supposed to be much better about using the remote -- it's apparently more like swinging a real golf club, where twisting the wrong way will land you with a slice or a hook, and not swinging it fast enough will get you less distance.
As for Zelda:TP, it almost seems like it was designed for the Wii remote -- i.e., the way you have to select all your items/weapons doesn't seem like it would be very accessible with a different kind of controller. I know it was originally a Gamecube game, but I suspect once they started working on it for the Wii, they added a lot of functionality specifically for that system, which doesn't translate perfectly to the GC.
i was at one of my girlfriends friends houses (?) one day recently and she was tinkering with Wii baseball. It looked like 5 minutes of fun, like for between loading screens of Halo or something.R00k wrote:Yea I didn't care for the baseball, because all you can do is hit and pitch. It gets kinda boring.