Now, this is strictly an opinion of mine, so don't get to hostile, please.
1) It's obviously a gimmick- The Wii is a simple gimmick. It's basically a Gamecube with motion controls. Wii Sports is also a prime example of this, as a re most Wii games. The gimmick is simply the motion controls, which a re ok, unless they are shoe-horned in, which brings me to my next point;
2)Unless the game is made by Nintendo, the controls are usually awful- I'll admit, Nintendo makes excellent use of the Wii's motion control, however, almost all third party software makers do not. Seeing as the Wii is mostly shovelware at the moment, this is very important, because most shovelware is made by third parties. The controls are almost aways terribly awkward.
3)The Wii has two good games right now- Super Paper Mario and Zelda: TP (which isn't that good). One of which was originally planned for the gamecube, and the other of which is a Gamecube port. This is simply abysmal for Nintendo. This also brings me to my final point.
4)The usual non-gamer usually buys the Wii for wii sports, and that's it.- another confirmation of gimmick status. Most people outside of the gaming sphere, or whatever, but the wii solely for this reason. To play a simple demonstration of the motion controls, and that's it. Infact, mos tpeople I know buy it for Wii sports, get bored after a week, and let the Wii collect dust, like the lame gimmick it is.
[b]AGAIN THIS IS SIMPLY MY OPINION, PLEASE DO NOT GET TO HOSTILE[/B]
I disagree :)
Quite the first post.
I don't view the Wii as harshly as you do, but I do have a few reservations in regards to how bright its future is, software-wise, as well as the current lineup. Thankfully, the Wii is hardly one of my primary consoles to play games in (Xbox 360 and PS2 take up most of my gaming time), and I don't expect it to, so it serves its purpose as the cute oddball in this generation.
Im treating Wii like DS. Wii currently doesnt have the best library ever but like the DS its going to pick up eventually and be amazing. When the DS cmae out people quickly turned to the PSP because developers hadnt got the hang of Ds. Look at the situtation now.
It's over. Nintendo's finished.
Quoting Albatross64: [b]The usual non-gamer usually buys the Wii for wii sports, and that's it.
Ha, this point I agree with. Wii Sports was excellent for their "games everyone wants to play" strategy, but there hasn't seemed to be another one with universal concepts that everybody wants to try.
Anyway, the main point of your post seems to be that there aren't many good games out for the Wii right now, and that's certainly true, but I don't think you'll have as much to complain about when more come out. Even with just the games we already know to be in the works, I think Nintendo's "gimmick" will soon be a satisfying function. There are bound to be more games like Wario Ware that just seem like the kind the Wii was made for.[/b]
Nintendo Wii is met to make everyone relax and have fun without worrying about too much, and family come together, and everyone can play.
[quote]1) It's obviously a gimmick- The Wii is a simple gimmick. It's basically a
Gamecube with motion controls. Wii Sports is also a prime example of this, as a re most Wii games. The gimmick is simply the motion controls, which a re ok, unless they are shoe-horned in, which brings me to my next point;
Who cares about the Controls? Just play for a while, than it's easy. Wii Sports is a Extremely FUN, you can stand up and do whatever you want (swing with a tennis racket, or even train how to jab), and it also it makes you sweat.
[quote]2)Unless the game is made by Nintendo, the controls are usually awful- I'll admit, Nintendo makes excellent use of the Wii's motion control, however, almost all third party software makers do not. Seeing as the Wii is mostly shovelware at the moment, this is very important, because most shovelware is made by third parties. The controls are almost aways terribly awkward.
Of course Nintendo makes the best Controllers, because they made the Console. If the Shovelware is Cheap, than heck yea I'll buy it. You know, it's hard for Nintendo to make games, and even make extra Controllers. The Shovelware should make the Controllers, because it's hard for Nintendo to make a controller, while making games, and proving the games that WEREN'T made by Nintendo. Than it would take a long time to make new/fun games.
[quote]3)The Wii has two good games right now- Super Paper Mario and Zelda: TP (which isn't that good). One of which was originally planned for the gamecube, and the other of which is a Gamecube port. This is simply abysmal for Nintendo. This also brings me to my final point.
Why are you talking about, there is more up-comings, like Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or the Super Mario Galaxy, and I am sure they are more coming up. You are blind, Zelda: Twilight Princess, even though I haven't played, It's a great game, because it's the best game to buy for now.
[quote]4)The usual non-gamer usually buys the Wii for wii sports, and that's it.- another confirmation of gimmick status. Most people outside of the gaming sphere, or whatever, but the wii solely for this reason. To play a simple demonstration of the motion controls, and that's it. Infact, mos tpeople I know buy it for Wii sports, get bored after a week, and let the Wii collect dust, like the lame gimmick it is.
Don't be a Hater. They are more games to play than Wii Sports, it's simple. Like Wii Play, or the Nintendo Games.
Thank You,
Shadow
HD is more of a gimmick than something as fundamental as control. Lolz.
Dood, HD is as much the future of gaming as the Wii-mote possibly could be. :/
What's with people and hating the existance of a great consol. Around my city I get into huge discussions about Wii....I think there threatened or somethin', I don't know.
Name a console that wasn't prospected to have a grim future by everyone during the first six months. I've said it before - once developers begin with their real Wii games, we'll see what the console can offer.
I'll bet you anything that guy is fat and doesn't like the Wii becasue you have to move.
;)
Look guys! Someone doesn't like the Wii! We all want to know why, because it's important!
Well, this years lineup coming is amazing. But next year, I'm not too sure. The only game you can really count on is Mariokart. But beyond that, what do we really have to look forward to on the Wii? I was hoping at E3 Nintendo would help relieve some fears I have about the 08 outlook for Wii. Sony seems to have the best 08 outlook. So idk, I guess they're focusing on the near future cause frankly the casual market doesn't really look out that far as far as gaming goes. fingers crossed.
For me personally, those games were the main reason I bought a Wii over say a 360 or PS3. But beyond, idk. Which is going to lead me buying either a PS3 or 360 the coming year.
Yeah... those three games are great, but it's only three. Not that much, really, especially compared to the 360 at least.
shootin...gamez.
halo, cod and bioshock? the rest aren't shootan gamez really. not too bad
[quote=Ant;624896]Dood, HD is as much the future of gaming as the Wii-mote possibly could be. :/
HD is pretty old news, PCs have always been HD yet that never gave them enough of an edge to beat console games in sales. The HD we have now is just repackaged, rebranded HD, it's just as meaningless as it ever was.
I bet you don't have the setup I do or you wouldn't be saying HD was useless. No joke, it's beautiful. :(
the Wii isnt a bad system, its got a few pretty good looking games, nice fun for the family blah blah blah. personally the Xbox 360 is the greatest next gen. console out there. Moderatly priced, great game selection, xbox live (i know the others have online but live gets used the most) but if your a little tight for cash, the Wii is the way to go
No doubt the Wii is the best for those short on cash, but I always suggest waiting for a 360.
I want the 360 to break so we can get a new one. Or you could just give the old one to me and we can Live in other rooms. :(
But someone playing a game using a co-ax connection can be just as good at it or better than someone using an HD setup. I don't need to be able to read the manufacturer's label on Mario's overalls to kick butt with him in Smash Brothers. Games play the same way no matter what display setup you're using. HD support is lovely, but I wouldn't pay extra for it if I didn't have to.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;625136]3 games? =/
3 first party games, there are other 1st party games and plenty more 2nd and 3rd party games.
[quote=Fate;625255][COLOR=skyblue]I bet you don't have the setup I do or you wouldn't be saying HD was useless. No joke, it's beautiful.[/COLOR] :(
I test a PS3/360 game, we have every setup imaginable. I never said HD isn't an advance, it just has a very small affect on gameplay. For example, I'd much rather play RE4 on Wii than RE4 on 360.
HD isn't must have, most of you even overestimate just how much you like it. If HD and graphics are so important you'd all be running a PC with an ATI X2900XT and a gigantic monitor.
I agree HD is really great (I've only really seen it in stores), but it's not something that makes me want to shell out lots of extra cash. Then again, I already know I'm not in the majority opinion on graphics for saying I still love the, like, launch-title N64 games, graphics and all.
[quote=Big Boss;625291][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]It is, and HDMI makes an even bigger difference.[/COLOR][/FONT]
Filthy f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking lies. We set up PS3s on HD Samsungs side by side, one with HMDI and one with component, no one can tell the difference. Not in a "they look pretty much the same" way, but in a "there's no difference whatsoever" way.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;625553]mass effect, assassins and dmc? idk, not really shootan gamez
Sorry, I meant "Three good games? =/"
Yeah, you're right, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Batallion Wars 2 look complete dogs[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. Umbrella Chronicles certainly isn't getting any positive previews anywhere, no one's going to enjoy Wii Madden (again) or NBA Live, Rockstar's Table Tennis is a completely stupid idea, Dewy's Adventure won't even be any fun ever and...well crap, I just ran out of sarcasm.
Mario and Sonic
Guitar Hero 3
Wii Fit
Zack and motherf[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking Wiki
The incredibly bada[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s No More Heroes
Opoona
Nintendo Zapper game
Nights
Why am I always the one having to find a list of decent Wii games for a bunch of people who call me a fanboy despite the fact that I don't pull this kind of s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it for PS3 or 360s lineup?
I haven't heard of/care about half the games Speedy's mentioned. It shouldn't be a struggle for me to think of good Wii games coming this year. I should be able to think of awesome ones right off the bat. :(
As for HD/HDMI, I'm still playing on the same 15" portable TV that I got 7 years ago. I doubt I'll ever see it outside of a store.
[quote=Axis;625941]Other than that, I'm looking forward to the games on 360/PS3 more.
I don't see how your or Vamp's personal taste in games is reason enough to say that Wii has only 3 quality titles in it's lineup. It's not very difficult to see quality and hard work in a title even when it doesn't appeal to you. Mass Effect will most likely bore me braindead, but you don't see me pissing on everyone's parade like a lot of members do in Wii threads.
Wait, is that quote in Axis' post from you? As in, those are the game you think are good? Jesus Christ, man. No More Hereos is the only title on that list that I'm interested in, and Nights, though not interested in it anymore, might actually be good. The rest though? Haha, oh wow. I mean, ****, you even listed a game you have no idea about. It's like saying Afrika is going to be badass because it has lions in it.
Careful what you say around the Wii speech because apparently "majority" means nothing around here. Like saying a majority of 18-24 year-olds prefer the 360 over any other console. Nope, doesn't matter.
brand name games certainly wouldn't hurt the Wii. PS3 is loaded with them in their upcoming lineup which is expected to really increase their sales. I'm actually more excited to see what new brands will be born through the Wii considering it's a new medium of gaming.
I don't think mature titles is where it's at. Like Vamp said, which is more so what I meant to say, there needs to be more polished Wii games made outside of Nintendo. When I said 19 to 20 as a suited age group, I was giving the rough ages of experienced gamers who had been around since the Super Nintendo days(vetran gamers).
Having new IPs is one of the good things about the Wii. Seeing sequel after sequel on the PS360 is kinda lame.
SWEET NEW IP'S LIKE MANHUNT TWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
[quote]Rockstar's Table Tennis should be like Wii Tennis, correct?
If you over hand server and use full arm swings in Ping Pong sure. But for every one else probably not.
All you have to do is post software and hardware sales charts from around the world to show these fools that they are completely wrong.
Nintendo software (DS or Wii) is dominating in all regions.
Actually, I read some news article about most people that bought the console only for Wii Sports have actually purchased other games.
Cooking Mama total sales anyone?
oh man, that game sucked hard.
Mine is dusty. :(
Anyway, I'd wait until later this year/early next before we see anything good for the Wii. The 360 had the same problem - games like Gears, Dead Rising and Crackdown didn't materialize until more than a year after launch.
Dead Rising was less than year. Plus Oblivion, GRAW, CoD2, etc.
Oblivion was also on PC, and Splinter Cell was mehhhhhhh, but I'll give you the other two!
PC and 360 are basically the same thing, though. =/ Bioshock is still considered an exclusive even though it's on the PC. Either way, once fall came around the 360 picked up fast. Better yet, fans knew it was going to get better fast. Unfortunately Nintendo decided to celebrate itself at E3, rather than ensure its fans that 2008 is going to be a lot better. So who knows.
Okay okay. :(
360 still didn't r0x0r the s0x0rz right away, though.
Edit get. It's too late for me to make a coherent post on the first try. As the post said, it wasn't great at the beginning, but you knew it was going to be great within a few months and stay great throughout the entire year. Wii owners don't have that privilege right now.
Only game I've really managed to play in depth is Super Paper Mario and I didn't even finish that. The controller is so annoying! I love that game series, too. :(
I've been getting a lot of usage for my Wii from all my downloaded Vetro games. Yes, I've heard of emulators and roms, and yes, I've used them all (especially the GBA emulator, which practicly came out the same time the handheld did...still bought a GBA though), but I like the feeling I'm supporting Nintendo. That's how I show my Nintendo Fanboyism. Plus, playing Kidicarus on the TV with a controller similar in shape to the old nintendo controller really brings back a lot of fun memories from when I was in grade school :D
Fate: Yay, I'm not the only one who thought the controls for SPM were annoying.
Kid Icarus: Not as good as you once thought.
Which is the problem with retro games revived on the Wii and 360. Apparently I had ****ty taste in games when I was a kid or they just don't age well.
Not hard to see why wii sales are so good with price it's at.
The day i went to buy a wii, the person in front of me was buying 4 of them. The person behind me in line happened to be looking for a job and even he could afford to buy one lol.
edit:
lol @ the x
You always seem to disagree with me when it comes down to the price. To help you understand i paid more for my power bar than i
did for my wii. The couple of hdmi cables i bought costed more than the wii.
[quote=Unite;626377]Not hard to see why wii sales are so good with price it's at.
The day i went to buy a wii, the person in front of me was buying 4 of them. The person behind me in line happened to be looking for a job and even he could afford to buy one lol.
edit:
lol @ the x
You always seem to disagree with me when it comes down to the price. To help you understand i paid more for my power bar than i
did for my wii. The couple of hdmi cables i bought costed more than the wii.
Why did you edit out the part about Speedy owning a 'real' TV?
The following is basically an intentionally fanboyish p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ssing contest mixed in with rebuttles and corrections to your mistakes. To skip to my point start reading from the bold below.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]Wait, is that quote in Axis' post from you? As in, those are the game you think are good? Jesus Christ, man. No More Hereos is the only title on that list that I'm interested in, and Nights, though not interested in it anymore, might actually be good. The rest though? Haha, oh wow. I mean, ****, you even listed a game you have no idea about. It's like saying Afrika is going to be badass because it has lions in it.
Not really, Nintendo has a track record of making good games, the Wii has proven it's great at lightgun games and the shooting range in Wii Play was fun. Afrika is a ****ty example because we have no idea what it even is and Sony's track record isn't remotely comparable with Nintendo's, no matter how great you think mindless button mashers or average FPSs are.
I said the lightgun game is a decent entry in the lineup, not that I've rolled out the red carpet already. Besides, I'm listing games off the top of my head so you'll shut your fanboy hole, not seeking a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking investment from you.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]Dragon Quest Sword? Apparently it's really ****ing tedious.
That's alright, it'll fit right in with 360's tedious stream of shooting games and BioWar's tedious RPGs and your tedious f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking trolling.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]There's nothing to it and it's totally directed towards kids. No challenge to it whatsoever.
Okay, so now you're just completely making s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it up. This is Dragon Quest Swords, the action game with the slutty goth mage, not f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking Rocket Slime.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003] Batallion Wars was pretty lame. This one, if longer and various issues from the first fixed, could be pretty decent. But I'm not holding my breath.
Oh really? Because the last time I checked the reviews praised it's tight gameplay and innovation in the console RTS genre and criticised it's length, lack of multiplayer, limited selection of units and only one army, all of which are being fixed and added to the sequel with better graphics, controls and online play to boot.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]Umbrella Chronicles... I'll pick it up. Not looking forward to it though.
Thank you, that sentence pretty much sums you up. Even when there's a Wii game you actually want to get you still try to be grumpy about it.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003] Sports games are better on the 360. And aren't they completely simplifying the Madden series now? Except that it still has realistic graphics? lol no thanks. Plus, it's ****ing Madden.
Saved by a technicality, because only Madden has been ported properly so far you can quite rightly say that Sports (plural) are better on 360. But Madden was wildly praised for it's far superior controls and additional modes, the 08 version now has online play and even better controls, plus more modes for new gamers. As EA focus on Wii more and each sports series gets specialised for the system Wii will gradually become the dominant sports system. Sports fans care about controls more than shiny helmets.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]... Table Tennis? You mean that game from last year that came out on the 360? What the ****, man? Hahaha.
You mean the popular multiplayer game that, as soon as it was announced, everyone was like "holy crap they need to make this for Wii"? Yeah.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003] Elebits kinda sucked, Dewy's probably wont be much better. Definitely not an AA title at least.
Previews are promising and the title proves that Wii can match Xbox graphically by being the first console with normal mapping, I think it's worth keeping an eye on.
Here. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003] Also, from what I've seen, very little "hard work" is being put into the majority of the Wii titles. I mean, developers are ****ing porting PSP games onto the **** system. Jesus.
Such is the price of being the most popular system. But a flood of cash-ins doesn't mean a lack of quality titles too, a mistake I made with the PS2.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;626003]If you wanted to do it I wouldn't have a problem. As far as I know, I'm totally allowed to say what I want on any given game. So can you.
Anyone's allowed to act like a trolling ignorant fanboy, correct.
I don't care what games you like and I don't care that you don't like Wii, it just bothers me that you and a few others have the audacity to call me a fanboy when you ignorantly hate on Wii like a motherf[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cker and treat a preference to Nintendo as sacrilege. The fact is that 360 isn't to everyone's taste, the lukewarm sales in all territories prove it. Just as it's entirely possible for someone to not want one despite the good games library it's also entirely possible that the list of games I posted to be very appealing to a lot of people.
Lunairetic, he's right regarding the Gundam game. I believe it is the best-selling PS3 launch game in Japan. I wonder how the Japanese reviews were on the game, though.
Japan dislike shootan gamez, and there's no JRPGs or innovashun on the 360.
All the japanese want to do is be a westerner and all the westerners want to do is be japanese :(
I am yet skeptical on the Wii. Everyone I know who owned one, has already sold it, or traded it in. I didn't really care for Zelda, and i've lost interest in any Mario game ever to come out (With the exception of kart, and strikers).. So there game lineup seems dumb to me.
Although if I do say so myself, Nintendo's backwards compatibility is rather awesome is it not? I can play games like Romance IV of the Three Kingdoms: Wall of Fire (One of my favorite games ever), on the Wii without having to spend $60 on the **** cartridge for the SNES, and then attempt to find an SNES to play it on.
A port of a game that came out in 2005 , it's good if you didn't play the game way back when it came out. I rather play re5 that will hopefully continue the story on what happened after Code veronica X and what was said in wesker(sp) report.
I still don't see how the biggest revolution in console FPSs since Goldeneye, the most promising installment in the world's most popular franchise for the last 10 years and the sequel to the fighting game with the largest active league, plus a AAA tactical RPG, a AAA adventure and a simple but addictive RTS with games like MarioKart and Final Fantasy following up soon after is anything resembling a poor lineup for hardcore gamers, let alone anything remotely comparable to PS2s first year.
Hell, when you consider what 360 actually has coming for it Wii actually has a larger hardcore selection. 360 has relatively few hardcore AAA titles this Christmas and only one springs to mind: Mass Effect. Games like Halo 3, COD4, Burnout and Bioshock are about as casual as you can get. Metroid, Fire Emblem, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life 2; those are hardcore because they force you to engage your brain in ways that mindless games like PGR and Halo never ask of you. They're typically don't sell through the roof because only the smallest subset of gamers, the hardcore, buy them. Microsoft has just managed to decieve the legions of fratboy gamers that they're somehow the gaming elite and anything that's too hard for them is too hard period.
The new hardcore is the old casual, new-gen gamers are the new casual and old hardcore is conveniently tucked away and branded boring, overcomplicated or slow-paced by those with shorter attention spans.
At the very least Wii has as good a hardcore lineup as any other system this Christmas if not better. Their casual lineup isn't all that, but then that's never been their strong point since Sony beat them with it, which is why they've used Wii and DS to seek new markets.
Bioshock looks great, I wouldn't say that game's subpar since it does a lot with the environment and abilities, and it has a plot, which lots of games lack.
Try comparing Halo 3, COD4, Burnout, and Bioshock to just Nintendo's Wii fit and you'll see the problem. Nintendo appears not focused on Mario Kart, or Metroid corruption, or their awesome games, they are seen as being focused on Wii-fit and various gadgets to their console through the media which is why Nintendo is seen as a gimik.
Im just going to mince on in and say that Dewys adventure looks pretty sweet. I love my platformer adventure games.
Also, this thread gets far too much attention.
What's that pirate one with two names in the title? Speedfreak mentioned it I believe. That game looks pretty awwight if you ask me. Dwey's I'm not to excited for at the moment though.
Zack and Wiki
Apparently the fags over at IGN think it's amazing. Imagine a click and point adventure. Very smart puzzle action.
Treasure Island Z sounded cooler. :(
[quote=Big Boss;627043][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen][SIZE=10]O_O[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
The last preview I read said it's not the hardcore RPG/FPS everyone was expecting, but that actually it's "just a cool shooter". Though granted that was a few months ago, I'll take it out of my post.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;627050]Hahaha. You haven't seen much coverage on Bioshock, have you? Anyways, that whole post is rather... funny I guess. Hardcore games are largely left in the dust with the Wii. The moment you say it's more of a hardcore system than the 360 whatever else you say loses all credibility. The Wii is a casual system with a couple "hardcore" titles thrown in every once and awhile.
Wait, sorry, not "casual" it's a non-game platform. Always get those mixed up.
Sorry, no. Brush up on your history a little and you'll find that casual games are what made Sony a success while Nintendo and Sega were battling for the hardcore market, Nintendo's focus on hardcore titles was their downfall in the with the N64 and their attempt to be both at the same time was their problem with Gamecube. Microsoft then tried to steal some of Sony's thunder with their own casual games. The Xbox system is largely built on that market because that's what they were trying to emulate.
You could even find a 7 year old version of this site and discover that we held different meanings for "casual" and "hardcore" than we do now. Those terms are much older than DS, Wii and Xbox 360. There's 3 kinds of market now, the very niche hardcore market, the huge mainstream market and the potentially larger non-gamer market.
Wii is designed to appeal to the first and 3rd markets, 360 the first and second. In my humble opinion Wii's lineup is better suited to the real hardcore gamer than 360s is, mainly because most of 360s lineup appears to be a mainstream game wrapped around a mainstream theme with "hardcore" stamped on the box by Microsoft's marketing.
[quote=Speedfreak;627028]I still don't see how the biggest revolution in console FPSs since Goldeneye, the most promising installment in the world's most popular franchise for the last 10 years and the sequel to the fighting game with the largest active league, plus a AAA tactical RPG, a AAA adventure and a simple but addictive RTS with games like MarioKart and Final Fantasy following up soon after is anything resembling a poor lineup for hardcore gamers, let alone anything remotely comparable to PS2s first year.
I actually have no idea what games you're making reference to here. Either the games are so unremarkable that I'm not making the association, or your descriptions are too convuluted. There's a Street Fighter sequel coming to the Wii?
[quote=Speedfreak]Hell, when you consider what 360 actually has coming for it Wii actually has a larger hardcore selection. 360 has relatively few hardcore AAA titles this Christmas and only one springs to mind: Mass Effect. Games like Halo 3, COD4, Burnout and Bioshock are about as casual as you can get. Metroid, Fire Emblem, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life 2; those are hardcore because they force you to engage your brain in ways that mindless games like PGR and Halo never ask of you. They're typically don't sell through the roof because only the smallest subset of gamers, the hardcore, buy them. Microsoft has just managed to decieve the legions of fratboy gamers that they're somehow the gaming elite and anything that's too hard for them is too hard period.
Because Metroid and Half-Life 2 have puzzles in them, they're hardcore? Just because driving games don't make you push blocks or collect items doesn't mean they can't make you think hard at times.
Bioshock, the spiritual sequel to System Shock, is a casual game? get outta town.
[quote=Speedfreak]The new hardcore is the old casual, new-gen gamers are the new casual and old hardcore is conveniently tucked away and branded boring, overcomplicated or slow-paced by those with shorter attention spans.
I have no idea wtf this means.
I'm going to have to agree. Try getting grandma to play Halo and not freak out at the controls, the gore, or the fantastic XBL community. It's about as hardcore as you can get. :/
Me: "Hi, how are you? Did you find everything okay?"
Dude: "Yeah. Couldn't find those HDMI cables, though. All sold out."
Me: "Was an associate available to help you?"
Dude: "Yeah, he says that you guys won't get any until tomorrow."
Me: "Oh, that's too bad. I've got the cables and my games look so cool!"
Dude: "You're a gamer?"
Me: "Heck yeah, that's all I ever do! I play hardcore shizz."
Dude: "What, like Gears of War? I friggin' love that game."
Here's where the conversation would make a complete turn.
Me: "Umm, no, like puzzle games. Games that make you think. Super Mario games. Uh, Metroid..."
Dude: "Super Mario...?"
Verdict: Nintendo will never be hardcore ever again. It's not bad, just not hardcore.
I wouldnt say harder controls make a game more hardcore.
I wouldnt say violence makes a game hardcore
And I definalty wouldnt say online play makes a game hardcore
Hey, guys, Brain Age makes you think and is meant for casual gamers. Are they hardcore now or is Speedy going to change the definition again?
I always thought a hardcore gamer was defined by how much they spent time playing games, not what games they play :-/
It's a combination of both. But you can't seriously say Halo isn't a hardcore game. Yes, it sells millions of copies, but it's not casual. There's just millions of hardcore halo fans. Fate's right, you will never see the new market of Wii owners desiring a Bioshock or really any online-centric FPS like a Rainbow Six. The community alone would drive them away on XBL. Nintendo isn't attracting us, they're attraction the new market, and apparently they're very happy with PSP ports, RE4 and non-games.
for me a hardcore gamer is defined by about how much cash you spend on games.
[quote=Unite;627304]for me a hardcore gamer is defined by about how much you spend on games.
What is with your obscene obsession about wealth?
HE'S ****ING RICH AND NEEDS TO LET US KNOW!!
Try pulling your head out of Microsoft's ass for a second and you'll realise "hardcore", "mainstream" and "casual" are all marketing terms invented to make the average insecure 13-24 year old male feel good about their hobby. Companies have been doing it since Sega started their smear campain against Nintendo in the late 80s, they realised just how much peer pressure mattered to guys when you painted one of the choices as elite, manly or "for the big boys".
When the N64 and PS1 were out, the N64 was considered the hardcore console and PS1 was considered casual, those were the actual marketing terms being thrown around at the time.
Nintendo's games haven't changed since the N64, most of their franchises would be considered hardcore by the old standards. What made the PS1 successful was it's games that didn't ask so much of the player. While Nintendo were trying to make games harder and more complex to compete with who they viewed as their serious competitor, Sega (who were doing the same), Sony did something different. They realised that not everyone plays for hours or can be bothered to spend a while just learning how to play before they enjoyed the game, and that there was a very large group of gamers out there that only bought one or two games for their system. They capitalised on it and created what was then known as the casual market.
All through last gen the two began to mix to the point where every system had a little of both hardcore and casual games. Sony had a few hardcore titles like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter, but with a thousand games like DDR and GTA3 and so on to compensate. Microsoft had Halo as it's biggest casual franchise, but still hosted much more hardcore shooters like Rainbow Six. Nintendo just got confused and made most of their titles bizarre mixes of both, like Wind Waker being ridiculously easy or the creation of Pikmin and Chibi Robo.
Fast forward to the introduction of DS and Wii and people recycled the term "casual" for the new mass market out there, people who don't play games. Because people no longer distinguished between hardcore and casual and because there was such a vast difference between Wii's casual and PS1s casual, it was all just labelled as hardcore. Useful for Sony and Microsoft because now they could repeat Sega's old trick marketing trick with the majority of their fanbase.
All the systems have their share of games designed to appeal to those 3 markets in different proportions. Microsoft and Sony focus mostly on PS1-casual games because before Wii that's where all the money was at, hardcore titles more often than not aren't huge sellers. Nintendo still focus on the old school hardcore because that's their bread and butter, but to reclaim their throne they've had to seek out a new market with Wii and DS.
The only other system with as much focus on hardcore titles is the PC, but even now that's eroding and being slowly replaced with more casual games. Visit any PC forum you want, all the members complain about the "consoleisation" of their classic PC franchises (aka casualisation) and regard consoles as something for complete noobs because the two most popular ones focus on the casual market.
You can call these markets anything you want, but it's easy to see Wii appeals to two markets, one very small and one uncharted, and 360/PS3 mostly appeal to one very large.
Speedy, what differentiates Rainbow Six as hardcore and Halo as casual?
Just as well, you might've learnt something. Wouldn't want that now would we?
[quote=The X;627326]Speedy, what differentiates Rainbow Six as hardcore and Halo as casual?
Aim assistence, depth, patience required, lack of instant gratification. I'm not really prepared to make an in-depth game analysis right now, but it really should be obvious that Halo is geared toward the mass market more than Rainbow Six usually is. Maybe Rainbow Six became much more casual with Vegas, I have yet to play it. I'm really comparing Rainbow Six 3 with Halo 2.
[quote=Speedfreak;627327]Aim assistence, depth, patience required, lack of instant gratification. I'm not really prepared to make an in-depth game analysis right now, but it really should be obvious that Halo is geared toward the mass market more than Rainbow Six usually is. Maybe Rainbow Six became much more casual with Vegas, I have yet to play it. I'm really comparing Rainbow Six 3 with Halo 2.
What makes Rainbow deeper? Halo still has its own laws and such to discover, plus vehicles and tons of game modes. I'm not sure what you mean by instant gratification, though. I don't see how Halo is marketed more to the masses. What makes it easier to market to the masses than Rainbow?
But wait - are you saying now that a game is 'casual' if it's geared towards the mass market, rather it being down to difficulty?
[quote=The X;627331]What makes Rainbow deeper? Halo still has its own laws and such to discover, plus vehicles and tons of game modes. I'm not sure what you mean by instant gratification, though. I don't see how Halo is marketed more to the masses. What makes it easier to market to the masses than Rainbow?
But wait - are you saying now that a game is 'casual' if it's geared towards the mass market, rather it being down to difficulty?
In general hardcore games ask more of the player than casual ones. Thinking ahead and devising strategies as opposed to thinking on your feet and reusing the same tactics, patience with greater rewards later on as opposed to small quick rewards that may grow dull.
I don't really feel qualified to quantify what being a hardcore game means and to be honest I can't be bothered.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me what makes G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d of War hardcore and WarioWare casual when both essentially amount to button mashing and quick responses to single commands? Surely not presentation alone?
dude, ALL VIDEO GAMES HAVE INSTANT GRADIFICATION. What are level ups, points, currency, and items for? It's basic game theory to give awards for accomplishing anything, and are one of the secrets to keeping games appealing. Beating somebody else in a multiplayer gamer, or beating the last boss of a stage, are all gradifying.
As for your casual/hardcore game market theory: you mesh the timelines so much it's almost laughable to believe your conclusions. Casual gamers are (and this is the definition I've heard by most) people who enjoy mini games with little care for RPGs or intense gameplay (broadly). They are the first games to come out on a system because they are the quickest to develope with the least amount of possible errors, AND it expands the market.
Hardcore = games that appeal to gamers who have been playing for years experienceing many types of videogames. Is my definition perfect? No, but I'm not the one claiming he knows :P
Speed Freak, I'm a Nintendo fanboy too, so don't think of me as against you. The angle which you're agruing is just not the best one. :(
[quote=Speedfreak;627338]In general hardcore games ask more of the player than casual ones. Thinking ahead and devising strategies as opposed to thinking on your feet and reusing the same tactics, patience with greater rewards later on as opposed to small quick rewards that may grow dull.
You can't think ahead in Halo? A player's skill doesn't define if a game is casual or hardcore.
[quote=Speedfreak]I don't really feel qualified to quantify what being a hardcore game means and to be honest I can't be bothered.
... You just spent your last couple of posts attempting to tell us what the difference between hardcore and casual games are. dude wtf
[quote=The X;627342]You can't think ahead in Halo? A player's skill doesn't define if a game is casual or hardcore.
... You just spent your last couple of posts attempting to tell us what the difference between hardcore and casual games are. dude wtf
Halo doesn't require much thinking ahead, you can just throw yourself into the fray and start blasting. I talked about what the game requires, not what the player can and cannot do. Did you think my entire arguement was based on the fact that casual games have some kind of anti-thinking mind control or what?
My last couple of posts were an attempt to identify a difference, they weren't an attempt to quantify it.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;627354]Didn't you say Bioshock was a casual game? What the ****. I really don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Bioshock is built on thinking ahead and strategizing.
Mass market really doesn't equal casual. Aim-assist doesn't equal casual. Lack of in-depth strategies doesn't equal casual. Lack of patience does not equal casual. Thinking on your feet is a huge part of many hardcore games, because chances are if you're playing a clan battle or something, which is quite hardcore, your devised strategies go to **** real quick. Halo may seem casual to you, but the online portion of it is hardcore, even with lack of strategies and patience, because you really don't need any of that once you become fairly good at game. It's all second nature. And that is pretty ****ing hardcore.
in b4 tl;dr in spite :)
The 12 year olds online in Halo 2? Uber hardcore, super cereal.
Now how about trying to understand what I'm actually saying instead of instantly disagreeing with anything that goes against the usual "360 is hardcore" mantra and stopping this endless string of strawman arguements you're putting forward?
Or was that post too long and complicated for you? ;)
[quote=Speedfreak;627375]The 12 year olds online in Halo 2? Uber hardcore, super cereal.
Generalizations, lol.
Halo 2 has been one of the main tournaments at World Cyber Games Championships on a number of occassions, so I wouldn't downplay it as an amateur's choice.
I don't think Wii Sports or Mario Party 8 will be appearing on their roster any time soon.
Generalisations? I played that game for 2 years, 90% of Halo players are morons that either are screaming 12 year olds or act like screaming 12 year olds. Halo isn't played in MLG tournaments the same way most people play it online.
Mr Strawman sure is popular today, when did I say Wii Sports and Mario Party 8 were hardcore? Are you countering made up arguements because you can't argue with real ones?
Yeah, halo can be pretty Pick and go for a casual who want's to davel in FPS's. But when you get skilled players on the field it becomes pretty hard core gaming. Casual games become hard core when actual skill is involed. Have you seen SSBM? Probably the most casual fighter there is. But hell if it's not hardcore when the skilled come to fight one another.
No way, Tekken's more casual than Smash. Nintendo just has a knack for creating games that any kind of player can enjoy, it's sort of why they're so popular. A lot of other companies produce games like that, but AFAIK Nintendo's the only one that has it as a mission statement.
[quote=Speedfreak;627387]Mr Strawman sure is popular today, when did I say Wii Sports and Mario Party 8 were hardcore? Are you countering made up arguements because you can't argue with real ones?
idk, you said the Wii had hardcore games. Those were the best I could find! :D
Where were you looking? Sales charts?
Yeah I know, its still pretty casual as fighting games go. It becomes very hard core when you get a group of very skilled players playing with one another. Infact most games become "hard core" when these conditions are met.
Halo might be casual and full of 12 year old's, but I don't think thats the point. When you and your oponet make a simple game harder with stratagies and those stratagies spark more stratagies then it can easily become hard core.
Actually my point is the terms "hardcore" and "casual" don't mean jack shit. The fact that so many of you got so riled up at the mere suggestion that Wii is more hardcore than 360 is pretty shameful, the word doesn't even have a meaning. It should serve as a lesson not to shove all games into two pretty vague groups and use it as a base for your arguement.
If you don't like a lineup then you're entitled to your opinion but don't go pissing people off by telling them they aren't playing "proper games". Writing off or summing up any of the system's entire lineups with a marketing buzzword is stupid and I just showed you guys exactly why.
Accept the fact that a game doesn't have to be exactly how you want it for it to appeal to any kind of gamer. Peter Moore and Reggie would call me a hardcore gamer, yet I'm looking forward to Wii Fit. And my non-gaming Dad? Well he's pretty fond of RE4.
Thanks for playing, guys.
[quote=Speedfreak;627429]Actually my point is the terms "hardcore" and "casual" don't mean jack s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. The fact that so many of you got so riled up at the mere suggestion that Wii is more hardcore than 360 is pretty shameful, the word doesn't even have a meaning. It should serve as a lesson not to shove all games into two pretty vague groups and use it as a base for your arguement.
If they're meaningless, then why [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showpost.php?p=627028&postcount=101]go into such detail?[/url] I don't understand.
You lost me too Speed.
I mostly made s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it up, it's not difficult to think of what a "hardcore game" might actually mean. The world isn't that simple though, the definition doesn't work.
I was trying to get you guys to disagree with me labelling something like Bioshock. When you started realising the labels didn't hold much meaning at all I flipped it round and threw "Wii isn't hardcore" right back at you.
I wanted the thread starter and some other people to realise that Wii doesn't lack some magical hardcore factor, it's just not to their taste. The exact same viewpoint could be taken of 360 or PS3.
Yeah. Just as planned, right? :D
[quote=The X;627443]Yeah. Just as planned, right? :D
I pretty much fudged it. I wanted to make that point and after a while of fruitless arguing I thought the only way to do it properly was to p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss people off with Vamps logic. I'm not claiming to be Houdini or some kind of mastermind or anything. Most of the time I was just trying to challenge the concept of a hardcore game. Whilst trying to define the old version of it I realised it's just a marketing term, changed my arguement but drove my original point home. I'm not ashamed to admit I was wrong on some points because in the end I think I reached a pretty good conclusion.
ok....?
cant wii all just live in peace?
well, looks like everyone was right then. YAY. [spoiler]lol ya i been lurkin ur thread[/spoiler]
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;627639]You're an idiot then. I think everyone realizes that the Wii has hardcore games on it and will have hardcore games in the future, but it's not and never will be a machine meant for the hardcore audience. der der der. Jesus.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that all came down to "uh, **** I'm actually wrong, I need an excuse........ HAHAHA, GOT YOU GUYS! I WAS JOKING! LOL" haha
Says the guy who regularly cops out with "I'm never serious on the internet". Gimme a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking break.
So wait, the designers say it's supposed to appeal to "hardcore" gamers, the system has "hardcore" games, "hardcore" players play it and the philosophy of gameplay being more important than graphics is "hardcore" in itself. But according to you despite all that it's not actually "hardcore"?
Way to prove the word's entirely meaningless.
I'd ask what being a hardcore system actually means because I honestly think you're talking bullshit, but I don't see the point in arguing about semantics of words made up by a marketing department to sell their hardcore-branded system to guys who are compensating for something.
To sum up: You're a douchebag if you say any systems suck. Only the games on the systems are capable of sucking, blowing, or otherwise having The Not Good. "Hardcore" is a desireable trait. "Casual" is less desireable but does not necessarily get you thrown in the scorpion pit unless you make a douchebag out of yourself (see above). Winning the battle between "Hardcore" and "Casual" is next-to-impossible because no two people can quite agree on what the definitions of those two words actually are, and battle lines are drawn unevenly and in several different fruity colors.
And I think it's just bull **** to even brand a system all together. Trying to call your system of choice "Hardcore" is like campaigning yourself to BE hardcore.
Example
I'm hardcore ****it, and I play wii, and I don't like Xbox. Thus, the Wii is the hardcore system. Now, I must argue with everyone else who doesn't think Wii is hardcore because it's now a personal attack against my preference, indirectly calling me a non-hardcore gamer!
He's right, you know. But he forgot to mention that hardcore gamers actually play the games they buy, too.
anything you gotta put time into and can't just pick up and play I'd define as hardcore, personally. Likewise, a person who sinks time into video games and considers it a hobby I'd call hardcore. Chances are, those players won't focus the majority of their time on quick pick-up-and-play games. It's not like you'll see many grandmas and moms plays rainbow six, oblivion, gears.
I agree. Pick-up-and-play isn't hardcore, even if you invest a million hours into it. There's hardcore by general terms, then there's genre-specific hardcore. Like, a PC-only gamer doesn't go around saying he's a hardcore gamer-- he says he's a hardcore PC gamer. Generally, if you say you're a hardcore gamer, you mostly mean most/all home consoles and don't really discriminate the content so long as it varies (like I don't only play shooten gamez). The definition hasn't changed.
Ikaruga.
Aww, you can list a hardcore game on a nintendo machine. YAAAAAY
are we trolling speedfreak for the sake of trolling now? cause it's starting to get funny.
Nah. It's just this thread. Good memories.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;629215]Aww, you can list a hardcore game on a nintendo machine. YAAAAAY
Ikaruga was a Dreamcast game, dipsh[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]t. It was just ported to Gamecube.
I didn't realise your "hardcore games cannot be pick up and play" arguement didn't had such an anti-Nintendo bias. But fine, if that doesn't count...
Radiant Silvergun.
Done being wrong yet?
EDIT: Yes, thank you.
RadiANT Silvergun more like.
Ibara beat's 'em both. Cave's shooters are more difficult than Treasure's, and they're more obscure, too. I've gotta get Ibara 2 in my arcade soon. Just about all of the shooter fans have beaten the first one.
Speedfreak, I'm not sure you're understanding what we're trying to say. Vamp said that the Wii is a casual console with occasional hardcore titles. Just because you can name a few doesn't make it a hardcore system. That's pretty much the point we're trying to make here. :/
My point is you don't know the meaning of your own words and have so far failed utterly to form a coherent arguement to back up your sweeping generalisation.
The definition of "hardcore" hasn't changed. I don't know what you're talking about. :cookie:
Then define it. What is a hardcore system?
Xbox 360.
fukken lol. going in circles now are we? i'm done lurking this thread.
[quote=Ant;629492]fukken lol. going in circles now are we? i'm done lurking this thread.
I hear that, she obviously hasn't got a leg to stand on. I literally BOLed.
I was trying to be funny, guys, jeez. Lighten up.
And I think you misunderstand me as well, Lunairetic. Games that you can pick up and play aren't excluded, but an extremely high amount of them could never be hardcore. No doubt Ikaruga is one of them.
[quote=Fate;629503][COLOR=skyblue]Games that you can pick up and play aren't excluded, but an extremely high amount of them could never be hardcore.[/COLOR]
What's your point?
I think you're both under some kind of delusion that most Wii games are in the same vein as Brain Training and Nintendogs. They aren't. There's Wii Sports, Wii Play with Wii Fit coming. That's pretty much it. Everything else on the system is the same kind of stuff the other systems have. Granted there's ports with different controls because of 3rd parties that totally underestimated the system need to cash in quick, which all but guarantees future development and there's less killer apps for it than 360, which is understandable because 360s already been out a year. Otherwise it's pretty par for the course.
Whether you're talking to me or Miso, the entire post was the point.
[quote=mis0;629522]I don't think you spent very much time reading what I said, especially because you just edited your post for a third time to include me in your (inadequate) response.
STOP.
I was addressing Fate, you posted before me, hence my editing.
EDIT: Okay, I was addressing Fate and Vamp. If you read the fucking page that would've been obvious you complete moron.
Yeah, he wasn't really replying to you.
Anyways, let's just drop this discussion. We're not going to agree on definitions here since there really isn't one. Let's just get out of here. I'll UPS everyone some coffee.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;630462]Spoilers: Ikaruga isn't really a pick-up-and-play game. If you want to get good at it, you're going to have to invest time. Lots of it.
Ikaruga is a pick up and play game, because you can very easily pick it up and play 1/5th of the game. The game uses a D-Pad and two buttons and you can get like a billion lives. You don't get much more pick up and play than that. And how about Super Mario Brothers, and Metal Slug? Both are difficult towards the end and both are obviously designed to be pick up and play. Lets exit the world of videogames for a moment and consider other games, how about Poker or Soccer? Any idiot can learn to play those in 10 minutes but you wouldn't dare argue that there isn't much to master in either of those sports. Your arguement is entirely worthless.
I would argue that the best and most popular games of all are those that are easy to learn and difficult to master, for they appeal to any kind of gamer.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;630462] One that's library is, largely, hardcore titles (at least the titles worth playing)? That didn't seem to hard to define. And technically that would be the 360. Shooters by nature are hardcore, especially the multiplayer focused shooters like most on the 360.
Minigame games are casual, so are movie-based games and the like :(
By that definition the PS1, PS2, NES, SNES, Gamecube, DS, GBA and MegaDrive/Genesis weren't hardcore systems despite how easily you could put together a library of 20+ hardcore games on each because the majority of the titles were shovelware, movie tie-ins, mass market etc.
There's a pattern in your definition, it's biased against popular systems. Any system that's popular will have the indsutry's crap dumped on it and by your definition will lose it's hardcore status.
If people bought the Xbox 360 in droves and abandoned Wii then Wii would be the more hardcore system because developers wouldn't support it, and therefore wouldn't push all their cheap crap onto it. The only games that'd be left would be mostly 1st and 2nd party titles, the overwhelming majority of which are titles only suited to veteran players. 360 on the other hand would have all the crap, the majority of it's titles would cease to be "hardcore".
Basically, "hardcore" is another way of saying "not popular enough for mass market". Because a longtime gamer can be entertained by any system that's the only meaning "hardcore system" has, it holds no relevence to those who only care about what they're going to be playing and not what anyone else is.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;631222]didn't read the rest lulz
I suppose that's one way of admitting you're wrong when you're too scared to.
Read the last paragraph. If you disagree then read the other two so I don't have to just post them in two seperate posts so it's small enough for you to read.
I think what is trying to be said here is that hardcore systems have games that are meant for older people and have an incredibly large fanbase to the point where you can say, "What?! You don't play that game?"
Either way, we really ought to stop this thread...
I just think that hardcore is a property and shouldn't be used as an overall summary.
I just find it bizarre that I can be a hardcore gamer and go for systems with the hardcore games that I want yet still be told that my systems aren't "hardcore" by some 12 year old that only plays Halo and God of War. I mean 2 of the 5 or so games I'm buying this Christmas are Metroid and Fire Emblem, you don't get much more hardcore than those.
No, because Madden is mainstream before it is hardcore. See the dif?
[quote=Fate;631292][COLOR=skyblue]I think what is trying to be said here is that hardcore systems have games that are meant for older people and have an incredibly large fanbase to the point where you can say, "What?! You don't play that game?"
Either way, we really ought to stop this thread...[/COLOR]
Every synapse in my brain is firing trying to figure out how Wii doesn't fit that exact description.
I think it's because you're thinking older people. The Wii doesn't have a Halo!
Look, we're not lawyers here. I'm sure you possess enough intelligence to piece **** together. Please, please tell me you can do at least that.
Halo is for 14 year olds, Wii has Metroid. Any serious game critic will tell you Metroid is the more mature, more hardcore title. That's why it's appeal is so friggin' limited.
Most combo-based fighters are inherently hardcore. Not the best example.
WoW is not hardcore. Call of Duty is. Smash Bros. is not hardcore. Street Fighter is. Metroid blurs the line. There's a big difference to what age each game caters to and the leeway of it. Like I said before, hardcore isn't just about the games you play, either, it's about the variety of them and the love of just playing the games. Someone addicted to puzzle games that is very good at them and only plays them can go around calling themselves hardcore gamers if they choose because technically they are hardcore puzzle gamers, but they can't possibly say they are hardcore gamers in front of an every-possible-man-game player. That's just the way it is and the definition hasn't changed. I'm a gamer focused on variety. I play games all the time. Games are incorporated in my life. I play as good if not better than the boys and girls in the games I play. I have an Xbox 360 wristband that I wear every day and comment on games that people bring for me to ring up. I am hardcore.
You could even say there are "levels" of hardcore and "types" of hardcore.
I'm gonna put down the Smash Bros, Street Fighter thing down to living with Carlos and ignore it despite the fact that the two are more similar than he might think, but Call of Duty? An FPS, whilst beautifully crafted and cinematic as anything, at the end of the day at it's core is a mindless shooter among many. Whilst on the other hand one of the most demanding adventure series there is is borderline? Come on.
What makes Metroid so much deeper? That you're 'mindlessly shooting' and going on a big treasure hunt?
I've got to say, out of the years I've been at VGC this argument is one of the dumbest I've ever read.
Yeah because shooting was a central gameplay element in the first 2 Prime games.
I dunno, Speedy, I think DOA and Street Fighter are more similar to each other than Smash Bros. can be. The fighting type is just different, kind of like how Metroid games are different from those normal FPSs. And while I'm not arguing that Metroid isn't demanding, there's just something about it that can't really put it on par with other FPS types. I can't put my finger on it just yet, but it's there.
btw, I like Smash Bros., suck at combo-based fighters, like Metroid Prime, and hate Call of Duty games.
[quote=Fate;631432][COLOR=skyblue]I dunno, Speedy, I think DOA and Street Fighter are more similar to each other than Smash Bros. can be. The fighting type is just different, kind of like how Metroid games are different from those normal FPSs. And while I'm not arguing that Metroid isn't demanding, there's just something about it that can't really put it on par with other FPS types. I can't put my finger on it just yet, but it's there.
btw, I like Smash Bros., suck at combo-based fighters, like Metroid Prime, and hate Call of Duty games.[/COLOR]
Metroid isn't on par with other FPS games because it isn't really an FPS. The basis of the series has never been "how well can you aim and shoot?". It's always been about your attention to detail and the limits of your memory with the odd puzzle thrown in. The shootier Wii game obviously goes some way to bridge the gap, though.
Smash Bros is comparable to Street Fighter, but I think Soul Calibur might be a closer comparison. Having said that, Smash is still way out there. But I think the game is easily a deep enough fighter to be called hardcore, it's unfair that it should be considered otherwise purely because the designer is talented enough to make it fun for more than just that kind of gamer.
I'm just gonna go ahead and stick with my original arguement. You can argue about what's more hardcore til the cows come home, the meaning is entirely subjective. If you like hardcore games and a system offers a decent selection then that system is a viable option for hardcore gamers, whether or not the business strategy of the manufacturer seeks more than just that audience.
And by the way, all of them now do.
Well, like I said, real hardcore gamers don't just play hardcore games. The generally accepted "hardcore" definition is someone who plays a hell of a lot of games on different consoles, a lot of which have to be games that are made to be hardcore (Gears, CoD, etc.). Not only that, but they just love to play games and talk about them. There's obviously more stuff that makes up the general definition, but when you present yourself as a plain ol' "hardcore gamer" it usually implies that you play many titles, including the ones meant to be hardcore. Otherwise you specify what type of hardcore gamer you are, such as a hardcore PC gamer or puzzle gamer.
Honestly I've been browsing the last few pages and everyone involved in this argument is talking in circles, contradicting yourselves, and generally not making any sense. There's no definitive way to describe "hardcore," so just give it a rest. The term is stupid.
Just to add my two cents on the orginal topic here...
I agree with most of what the orginal poster says. It is gimmicky, it is corroded with ****ty titles. Every developer has been lazy up to this point and there's little sign of improvement.
However, from a commercial standpoint, the Wii is obviously a huge success. It succeeds in what it aims to be, the "non-gamer" platform. But honestly what's selling the most units is first and foremost the pricetag, a fraction the cost of the competitors, and... the Wii sports bundle. Yes many people do buy it because it comes with Wii sports. It's a family console and a party console. And even then, it's only good in short stints. But for anyone who plays games as a hobby, it is seriously lacking.
There is potential, and plently of room for progress, but honestly the future is looking bleek as of now. Sure there's the well known Nintendo titles coming in the months ahead, but 3 games is hardly enough to pull this thing out of the water.
All I have to say right now.
Think of Assassins Creed. The time, energy, and talent that is being put into that game. I don't see developers doing that for the Wii, except for obvious main titles that have a history and reputation to uphold. And even with the main titles, I don't see any that are going to bring us to the next step, set a new standard. Call of Duty 4 looks like a game that will set a new standard to me. Metroid Prime 3, although rad as it is, doesn't look like something that will set a new standard or bring us to a new step. I love that feeling of progress in games, and I just don't seem to be feeling that with the Wii. If I do sense progress it's usually within the Wii itself and not in overall gaming.
The Wii actually leads in sheer volume of announced exclusives:
http://gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=7252
It takes time to make games, and many developers are only recently jumping on the Wii bandwagon due to its runaway success.
Of course it's going to have the most exclusives. Being that it's pretty different than the other consoles it only makes sense.
It actually leads over PS3 in "green" exclusives, too. That is to say sequels to proven franchises or new games from proven developers. Obviously 360 is winning in green exclusives because it's been out a year longer, but the fact that Wii has that many surprises me.
Meh, I'd just wait for the holiday season to pass to see if any hidden gems pop up... You'd be surprised to see just what, besides the hyped games end up being very good, and what hyped games end up proving what sell-outs many of these critics and promoters are.
So many things that are supposed to be 'That best game EVER!!!' that end up being just average or even sub-par... and
So many things that went under the radar, but to those lucky enough to find out about it, is better than the 'best'.
As for the idea of ANYTHING just being a gimmick, what would it matter?
If people enjoy it for what it is, then they enjoy it, if the company improves upon the technology or learns how to use more moderation in deciding how to implement controls, then even better! It seems to be something everybody can do... Haven't we all, at least once, gotten ahold something new, unique, and incredibly enjoyable, and just use it just because you have it? Like money (Maybe when you got your first job, you may have been in a situation where you could afford to buy a lot of things you couldn't before, and got them simply because you could), video games (I played Harvest Moon: FoMT until I couldn't stand it anymore), books (LoTR, The Divine Comedies, anyone?), words (There's a reason why you mutter that swear word when you get angry, it didn't come instantly, but you just used that word so much that it just became an unnoticed reaction)... Nintendo did that with the DS, and now they're doing that with the Wii... Nintendo had their fun, and finally buckled down with some moderation and awesome ideas for their technology, and we can always hope that the Wii will soon do the same.
...Why must I contradict the very idea I start out with by the end of the very post in every post I make?
i'd be a hardcore gamer if I could afford it :(
Everyone I know with a Wii has stuff other than sports for it. My uncle bought Twilight Princess for his, but idk if he actually played it.