I have a dilemma... I'm trying to figure out if I should get either a 360, or a Wii.
anyone have any opinions to share on this?
It's totally recommended you get both, but if funds disallow it, then I'd say a 360, since you'd be getting more of a hardcore package with XBL and the multiplayer games that are out, and the other shootan games (namely BioShock and Mass Effect). That is, if you're into that sort of stuff. If you don't much care for shooting or multiplayer, then I'd say a Wii, because it's ****ing awesome.
Though, seriously, if you can get your hands on both now, do it. If you can get your hands on one now, and the other later, do it. It's a great package.
Buy both at the same time with aleast 6 games for each system.
if you can't go with the xbox 360
Since he's asking, I'm assuming he only wants to buy one at the moment. Putting an end to all the "buy both" posts now.
360.
Depends if you want a Smash Player or a Shootan Player.
the problem is I'm both a smash player and a shootan player
I'd just get a 360 then because it has a lot of shootan, whereas the Wii only has one Smash. Well, I guess it depends how long you can wait to play Smash right? If you can wait half a year to a year or whenever you get the money, then you might as well get a 360, right?
360 wins, I think you'd have more fun for a longer time with the Xbox than with the Wii.
Wii's a gimmick imo.
360. Only reason I hold onto my Wii is for Brawl.
Get the Wii for Smash and play shooting games on your Wii and PC. Wii will eventually have shootan, 360 will never have Smash.
based off this kids priorities...idk...I wanted to say both at first, but I think he'd prefer a 360.
Though I opted for the Wii first. can't live without my nintendo mainstays.
i say the 360 i have both and i havent touched my wii in at least 5 months
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;797850]Haha, no thanks.
Okay I'll rephrase.
Play your shootan games on PC or Wii unless you actually prefer thumbsticks over more precise controls for some insane reason.
You should get both though, really. Considering you want Smash on Wii and right now it's before Christmas perhaps it's not out of the question to buy a 360 now and get a Wii when Smash is out after a couple of months?
I have both a 360 and a Wii and I play Wii more than the 360. Right now if you want shooting games on Wii, there are a couple. The first shooting is Metroid 3 which is amazing. In the future there will probabily a multiplayer metroid game thats like the one on DS. Although the online isn't that great, it still has online! Also don't forget about Brawl. Oh ya and it has Zelda TP!
I thought I said it wasn't multiplayer
The 360 is the console with more AAA games that are out right now. The Wii is still at an early stage, just like the PS3, so the great ones seem few and far between for now.
It's important to consider what types of games you're into, and you should then look into how much a console will cater to your love of those types. Everyone wants Brawl, but it's just one game and it's not out yet. What other Nintendo franchises do you like? Meanwhile, the 360 has an array of top-notch shooters that you could go out and buy today, and new hits will keep coming for sure.
I've heard the controls for Medal Of Honor whatever you call it are even better than metroid. and it's a first person shootan
Except it's MoH... and still stuck in WWII. I mean, the controls are the best, but who cares? It's tired and boring. Though I haven't tried online, I just can't play a shooter that looks that bad for more than thirty minutes. Oh, and world war two.
shut up
Nah. Sorry I don't enjoy shooters that got boring three plus years ago and look like they came out seven years ago.
ok I'm goin' with the 360, thank you all for helping me out!
Could you even find a Wii now?
Yes, I see them around.
Both consoles have great games. I suggest you to go for both.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;798064]It's tired and boring.
The whole friggin' genre is tired and boring. Even FPS "greats" like Half-Life and Bioshock played quite badly a lot of the time. No one questions them though because no one else dares to do anything different, or better. The fact that you're so concerned about graphics just goes to show you're just skirting the gameplay issue.
But wait, the gameplay was good. :confused:
K, i got the 360 2 days ago and I'm glad i got it. It was more than I had expected, but it was definitely worth it.
when I was looking for the Wii, i called every gaming store I could think of in Maryland, and no one had it. when I went to get my 360, there was a huge pile of Wii's at best buy!
Well isn't irony a bitch.
Bet if you go back they'll probably be sold out.
To this day, I still haven't walked into a store and seen a Wii. Ever. I got very lucky upon getting mine, as I just happened to call right when Toys R Us got a morning shipment. But ever since November 2006, I have never seen a Wii in a store.
Anyway I still want a 360 and a PS3 :(
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;798949]As for the genre being "tired and boring" I'd disagree. It's one of the few genres that actually care to innovate.
The biggest gameplay innovation of recent times that I can think of was physics in Half-Life 2. Which they padded out the game with with crap like see-saw puzzles, tedious "put s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it in front of you so you can walk on it and then pick up the thing behind you and so on" sections and then a really big see-saw puzzle in episode 2. Looking back, were those parts really all that fun? Picking up random objects and throwing them around wasn't new either, physics just helped make it look more realistic.
AI still isn't very impressive because the second you want a difficult challenge the developers just increase their health, fire-rate and numbers instead of writing great AI.
So I'll rephrase, the genre's built on tired gameplay and broken promises dressed up with pretty engines and clever narrative.
[quote]Except, you know, both of those games were very fun. The looked great and played even better. Red Steel, Medal of Honor, and uh, what else... oh, Far Cry and Call of Duty on the Wii on the other hand not only looked mind-numbingly bad, but they played way, way worse. Except for MoH2 which has great controls, but again, it's in WWII. I mean, all those games are objectively pretty terrible. And besides those games, the only other shooter the Wii has is Metroid 3.
Again, I did refer to it's potential and not it's current library. My other option was the PC, which has the library and controls to match.
I could go on a needless tirade here about how Super Mario Galaxy is essentially built on the same gameplay from 12 years ago in Super Mario 64, or how Fire Emblem has hardly changed in 18 years, but I'm pretty sure everyone's aware - all genres have the same problem as FPS games.
all games are the same. know why? they're all on cds. and who's to thank for that? SONY. everyone feel free to get in line and suck SONY'S cock.
[SIZE=7][COLOR=Red]OBJECTION! [/COLOR][/SIZE]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Sega-Mega-CD-with-Mega-Drive_on_top.jpg/800px-Sega-Mega-CD-with-Mega-Drive_on_top.jpg[/IMG]
What do you expect out of an FPS? Most of the time, you shoot. What, you want puzzles and things other than shooting? Play an adventure game or something. You used to ask me if RPGs should base themselves on numbers, but I couldn't really give you a positive answer. Why? Because numbers are really what they are. Anything else would be merging ideas from another genre. That's just the way it is.
You want a weird kind of innovative FPS with the ability to go into third person (or is it the other way around?) that involves stealth, action, narrative, awesomeness, and cool AI? I'm pretty sure you know the game coming out next year.
serious sam 3?
No, it's obviously Oblivion.
FATE AND BIG BOSS KNOW WHAT'S UP
That just makes it sound so much more awesome. :(
I've been playing CoD 3 on the Wii and even I, one who hardly touches FPS that aren't Metroid, found the game a bit off with the controls and AI. Plus, The American war story/band of brothers **** gets old in WW2 games fast.
I figured Wii's hardware played a role. The AI was just very perdictable at certain spots. I understand that the entire game won't be perfect, but the Nazis didn't adapt at all to my actions. If you killed a Nazi, another one might respawn somwhere else, but run to that same exact spot the first Nazi was. I didn't even have to change aim, they just mimed each other.
No... that was just CoD3.
[quote=Big Boss;801425][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]AI can't be too complex or deep on the Wii, especially if you want FPS enemies with squad tactics that adapt to the player's actions in an unpredictable and believable way throughout the entirety of a single-player game. A robust AI system in this gen is just too much for Nintendo's little console, unless the game is simplified so enemies don't require complex AI, such as games that aren't shooter-heavy.[/COLOR][/FONT]
I know that you've got more experience than me, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and contest that. Every peice on game AI I've ever read has stated that AI is not particularly CPU-intensive and is much more limited by the imagination of the developer than than power of the CPU. Even when you've got masses of characters animating them becomes a problem way before AI does. The original Xbox seemed to handle AI just fine, and the Wii's processor is a fair clip faster than an overclocked celeron.
i shud get skools lernans