Firestreak said:
Nothing wrong with a strong first-party lineup, rather that when you have a system based on brand loyalty then it's harder for 3rd party developers to sell their games. On my gamecube I didn't buy ONE third party game, how many of you bought significant amounts of 3rd party on your gamecubes? This is why the 3rd party haven't been giving a rats ass to Wii until the big sales came out, because the lineup at launch didn't show a hell of a lot of effort.
Wait, didn't Nintendo erode their brand loyalty by losing the last 2 console cycles by pretty significant margins? I didn't buy a Wii so I could play Zelda or Mario or any one specific game, I bought it because it's fresh. It's playing games in ways I haven't played them before, and that dimension of control is
allowing developers to do things outside of the dual analog setup that's been stagnating since 1998. We're three months into the console and already there's uses of the remote that I don't think anyone predicted pre-launch.
If you think different, explain to me why Trauma Center doesn't have twice as many operations? Do you think by today's standards, it would be terribly expensive to add more operations to a next gen game with low resolution graphics and motionless drawings with word bubbles for the main characters? Explain why Red Steel looks like goldeneye? Fact is that the Wii games are half assed and nobody cares because they love the remote. To me the remote is fine but I need actual quality games to justify paying 50 bucks each for them.
You're right. Trauma Center could have more operations. Red Steel could have been more polished. Such are launch lineups. PS3's launch had one true quality game in Resistance (which, tbqh, hasn't been as fun as Gears in the short playtime spurts I've played - but then again I'm not a huge FPS fan to begin with) and a lot of zero-effort ports in the sports games. Even with HD setups they're not looking demonstrably better than 360 games side-by-side (in fact, Fight Night and Madden 360 were voted the better-looking of the 2 at some comparison party in LA last December.) And in the case of Madden, you had the choice of playing it on the PS3 with butchered options, no franchise mode and the crappy next-gen engine for $60 or the Wii version running off an optimized last-gen engine (which almost everyone agrees plays better/smooter) PLUS motion controls PLUS Franchise mode and all the features that are in the last-gen versions for $50.
To me, the PS3 has potential, but I need fulfilled potential to pay $600 to have the ability to utilize it.
Sounds to me like a game that's entire point is showcasing off the fact it's for the wii.
What's wrong with this, exactly? The selling point of the Wii is, again, playing games with the new controls. It's a well-planned game that shows you what the remote can do in both normal and abnormal situations. It's like saying that NBA07's entire point was being able to view it in 1080p and that justifies the cost.
Should check out this new Star Wars game coming out, that's real next gen and something that would make the Wii explode upon pondering its awesomeness. It's still early and games are still breaking away from last gen 1.5, but I can see what's coming up.
By the time games like that are seeing the light of day (and we make sure they're actually good games, not red herrings like Killzone) the PS3 may not be $600 and I might be able to justify having the console. But what does the average consumer want from a console that isn't justifying its cost with quality titles now?
Any games that are being made thanks to Wii's success just started being made now, or will start in a few months. Of course, as a Wii owner, I'm happy that down the line the Wii is bound to get some 3rd party games worth my 50 bucks but by the time they come out the PS3 is going to get a bunch of games that have been in development for 2 years. A really good game can take up to 2 years to make, so I expect with the big installbase, around midlife the Wii is going to get a huge swarm of great 3rd party games as a response to the huge success it's getting now at its launch. At this point I'm sure I'll get a lot of playtime out of the Wii, but let's not lie and say a lot of effort has been put into these launch titles.
Name one console that's had both an abundant launch lineup and quality titles. The 360 launch, frankly, sucked, and I didn't get one until my birthday when I could pay $100 for it instead of $400. I got Zelda and Rayman at the Wii launch and Gamefly'd Trauma Center. Were all the Wii launch games great? Absolutely not. Were there reasons to buy the console? Sure. I feel much more comfortable with a $425 purchase (Wii, 2 games, nunchuk, 2nd remote) that has been a new experience from day 1 over having to spend $700 (PS3, extra controller, 2 games, memory card adapter minus what you'd get in trade for a PS2 and its accessories) for what to me and many other people feels like the same old thing.
If I had a full HD setup, I might want a PS3 more.
If I didn't own a 360, I might want a PS3 more.
If the PS3 had launched with FF13 or MGS4 or even gone the Nintendo route and made FF12 a PS3 exclusive with minor upgrades, yes, I might have considered a PS3 more.
It was a smart move by Nintendo - take a Gamecube game, give it the motion controls, and release it for Wii with some extra graphics support, etc and it will move systems. I didn't go into Zelda thinking it was a full 'next-gen experience' but if they can solder on motion controls to a GC game and, (imo) have it add to the experience, what does that say for a built from the ground up Mario or Zelda or Metroid or Metal Gear or any major franchise?
