Biggest Problem with the Wii?

I'm pretty sure Leonidas isn't saying that the Wii COULD handle God of War, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. But that it could handle games like it. Everything doesn't have to be super-realistic to work.

---

The Wii and the Gamecube are pretty much similar, except that Nintendo figured out a way in which to appeal to a casual audience; whittle the control system down to something that an idiot can understand after one look, instead of a salad bowl of brightly colored buttons that mesh together and give said idiot an involuntary seizure. I'm not saying that everyone who bought a Wii is an idiot, just the people who bought it because trying to use a standard controller is like trying to operate a NASA space station.

Because such an influx of pattern-challenged morons flocked to the Wii in excitement, third party developers decided to hitch a ride on the sagging bandwagon, feeding the passengers game fodder stolen from last generation's chicken coop. And because pigs (the customers; also not a reference to their weight or eating habits) aren't smart enough to do some research about the third party's product, they lap it up vigorously, since they're eager to play something on their Wii's.

Nothing significant has changed. The flow of quality first-party games is nearly identical to that of the Gamecube, except the ratio of shitty to good games has increased majorly. Sure, you have the gigantic pile of pig droppings next to the Wii's quality games, but it really doesn't affect the good games in the least bit. In fact, the influx of terrible games for the Wii is actually GOOD for the industry, because as stated before, the money made of them can be used to make better games. It's all about taking advantage of the stupid people to bring the informed people more frequent doses of joy enriched experiences.

So really, if you don't mind a slow flow of excellent games, then the Wii is a perfect choice, just like the Gamecube. Just don't act upset that it's being used as a dumping ground to make a quick buck. I'm aware that great things were promised to many of you Wii owners, but you shouldn't have bought one solely on the promise of greater things to come. That and, Wii Sports.

[boffo]

That's kind of the problem with this generation as far as debates go. All 3 consoles have vastly different specs. Could you have something like CoD4 on the Wii? Sure, but not in the same form that it already exists for the PS3 and 360. Could Wii Sports be played on the 360 or the PS3? Of course, but the motion controls would have to be replaced with button presses and the game would become pointless. You can even ask if a game like Uncharted could be run on the 360. Sure it could, but it also would have to be shrunk down or compressed to fit on a DVD.

If only more Wii games made better use of the motion controls, this argument could very easily go back and forth. This game wouldn't work on the Wii, but that game wouldn't work on the PS3/360.

Technically Call of Duty 3 was available on the Wii, so I don't think it's that big of a stretch.

[Sim88]

Originally Posted by Icemage

Are you talking about MoH: Airborne 2? No voice chat, no text chat, but 32 players. Yeah, impressive. Oh, but wait, it's using EA Nation so that automatically makes it better, right? Oh wait...

MoH:Heroes2. If you shrink down 32 to 18 you maybe might be able to save bandwidth enough for voice chat. Text chat could most certainly be squeezed in.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Rainbow

Argue with actual arguments, if that's the best you can do, don't reply.

Gosh darn it.

Here;
-Wiki page on The Uncanny Valley (Mr. T pities the foo' that don't educate himself)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
-Not recent Wired article for easy reading
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2005/12/69739
-Similar (perhaps better written) Slate article;
http://www.slate.com/id/2102086

From wired;
"What's the culprit here? Ironically, the blame falls partly on the Xbox 360 itself, and its bleeding-edge graphics engine. Sure, the 360 can generate the most photorealistic human avatars of any game console in history [Article from 05]. But that is precisely why they look so creepy.

This paradoxical effect has a name: the "Uncanny Valley". The concept comes from the Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, who argued that simulacra of humans seem lively and convincing so long as they're relatively low-resolution. Think of history's best comic strips: With only a few quick sketches on a page, Bill Watterson can create vivid emotions for the characters in Calvin and Hobbes. When an avatar is cartoonish, our brains fill in the gaps in the presentation to help them seem real.


But when human avatars approach photoreality? Something weird happens. Our brains rebel, and we begin focusing on the tiny details that aren't quite perfect. The realism of our avatars suddenly plunges downward into a valley -- and they begin to look like zombies."

From slate;
"When an android, such as R2-D2 or C-3PO, barely looks human, we cut it a lot of slack. It seems cute. We don't care that it's only 50 percent humanlike. But when a robot becomes 99 percent lifelike—so close that it's almost real—we focus on the missing 1 percent. We notice the slightly slack skin, the absence of a truly human glitter in the eyes. The once-cute robot now looks like an animated corpse. Our warm feelings, which had been rising the more vivid the robot became, abruptly plunge downward."

"Comic-strip artists have known this for years. As comic-book theorist Scott McCloud points out, we identify more deeply with simply drawn cartoon characters, like those in Peanuts, than with more realistic ones. Charlie Brown doesn't trigger our obsession with the missing details the way a not-quite-photorealistic character does, so we project ourselves onto him more easily. That's part of the genius behind modernist artists such as Picasso or Matisse. They realized that the best way to capture the essence of a person or object was with a single, broad-stroked detail.
Some of the best game designers understand this, too."

[Darth Alec]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Gosh darn it.

Here;
-Wiki page on The Uncanny Valley (Mr. T pities the foo' that don't educate himself)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
-Not recent Wired article for easy reading
Monsters of Photorealism
-Similar (perhaps better written) Slate article;
Why do game characters look so creepy? - By Clive Thompson - Slate Magazine

From wired;
"What's the culprit here? Ironically, the blame falls partly on the Xbox 360 itself, and its bleeding-edge graphics engine. Sure, the 360 can generate the most photorealistic human avatars of any game console in history [Article from 05]. But that is precisely why they look so creepy.

This paradoxical effect has a name: the "Uncanny Valley". The concept comes from the Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, who argued that simulacra of humans seem lively and convincing so long as they're relatively low-resolution. Think of history's best comic strips: With only a few quick sketches on a page, Bill Watterson can create vivid emotions for the characters in Calvin and Hobbes. When an avatar is cartoonish, our brains fill in the gaps in the presentation to help them seem real.


But when human avatars approach photoreality? Something weird happens. Our brains rebel, and we begin focusing on the tiny details that aren't quite perfect. The realism of our avatars suddenly plunges downward into a valley -- and they begin to look like zombies."

From slate;
"When an android, such as R2-D2 or C-3PO, barely looks human, we cut it a lot of slack. It seems cute. We don't care that it's only 50 percent humanlike. But when a robot becomes 99 percent lifelike—so close that it's almost real—we focus on the missing 1 percent. We notice the slightly slack skin, the absence of a truly human glitter in the eyes. The once-cute robot now looks like an animated corpse. Our warm feelings, which had been rising the more vivid the robot became, abruptly plunge downward."

"Comic-strip artists have known this for years. As comic-book theorist Scott McCloud points out, we identify more deeply with simply drawn cartoon characters, like those in Peanuts, than with more realistic ones. Charlie Brown doesn't trigger our obsession with the missing details the way a not-quite-photorealistic character does, so we project ourselves onto him more easily. That's part of the genius behind modernist artists such as Picasso or Matisse. They realized that the best way to capture the essence of a person or object was with a single, broad-stroked detail.
Some of the best game designers understand this, too."

Best qouting ever.

I have noticed this so much. Holy hell man that article creeped me out with it's accuracy.

[Leonidas]

G-Man superimposed on a real photo/

[Darth Alec]

I think that's the point with him.

She doesn't suffer from it.

[webshark]

are you sure thats not just cause you think she's hot darth?

[Darth Alec]

I don't think zombies are hot. If that's what you are implying...

You also have this dude, who doesn't look like a zombie: