Reggie: No Reason for Wii Owners to Get PS3 Move

[Burck]

Regardless of right or wrong, the man [Reggie] knows how to answer corporate questions. At the corporate level, people listen/read to what he said, make the obvious connection to recession issues, then gasp and become unsure. Conversely, Nintendo investors gasp as sigh of relief.
Well done Reggie.

(Yes, I am prejudiced against Sony, for no real reason other than they aren't Microsoft or Nintendo)

 

[SavingPrincess]

-snip-

I don't want to play middleware engines, I want games. Plot completely aside Crysis was not enjoyable to me as a game.

Visuals SHOULD be an afterthought and not the core of a games development. It has nothing to do with being stuck in a decade, it has to do with Transformers 2. Graphics are probably the least important aspect of a game to me. Silent Hill is still just as scary today. Final Fantasy VI's characters are still just as deep and Megaman is still a little blue guy that shoots pellets out of his arm at robots, still fun. Visuals are AWESOME and FUN, but should NOT be the core of game development. They should be an afterthought. Something done to "enhance" a game, but games like Crysis are not enhanced by visuals, they RELY on visuals. That's a broken experience. If I want realistic visual environments, I'll go outside. If I want a game, I stay in. That, is the crux of my argument. Disagree all you like, but pretty shiny things doth not a good game make. If a developer wants to spend time making a game look great, fine... but do it after ALL the other elements are in place, that means story, dialogue, gameplay, music, sound, acting, etc. etc. Visuals should be the least focused on aspect of a game.

 

[spartan773]

now the wii has a few good games; No More Heroes, (hopefully) red steel 2 and a few others, but unlike the wii, the playstation move is getting 1:1 motion control right the first time around and didn't sony first come up with a motion controller with the EyeToy, which came out on the ps2, so obviously they know what they'll be doing.

the playstation move is one of the solid stone pillars holding up the ps3, the others being Heavy Rain, God of War 3 and (painfully) Uncharted 2

the wii has it's constant mario/zelda/metroid/pokemon formula worked out, which is represented by a shaky pillar of stacked chairs.

the 360...
eh... Halo, Gears, Crackdown and Natal are like stale breadsticks holding up a 4 ton brick of fail and red rings of death.

 

[ntnimara]

I have a Wii and a PS3. >_>

and money?

Actually, no. lol
I got my PS3 this past year for Christmas/Birthday (the black friday special at game stop with the slim, LBP, and GoW collectors edition), and that was all I got from the majority of my family. Same thing with the Wii, only two years before that, back when they were nearly impossible to find. My step mom got lucky and walked into Walmart right when the got new ones in and she picked one up...

awww.. hah.. funny how things work out.. lucky you mate..

I guess I also never really asked for a PS3 or XBOX360 cause I think the games are kinda high priced on them.. probably the whole HD and blue ray thing or something..

I'm pretty pleased with the Wii.. it's kinda like the Volkswagen Beatle... iconic of a (console) generation, but ultimately kinda crappy

 

[Burst6]

Motion control for the PS3 might mean monster hunter tri for ps3. The only reason i ever even considered a wii, and it might be on the ps3. Why not, all the other monster hunter games have been on playstations.

 

[Megacherv]

-snip-

I don't want to play middleware engines, I want games. Plot completely aside Crysis was not enjoyable to me as a game.

Visuals SHOULD be an afterthought and not the core of a games development. It has nothing to do with being stuck in a decade, it has to do with Transformers 2. Graphics are probably the least important aspect of a game to me. Silent Hill is still just as scary today. Final Fantasy VI's characters are still just as deep and Megaman is still a little blue guy that shoots pellets out of his arm at robots, still fun. Visuals are AWESOME and FUN, but should NOT be the core of game development. They should be an afterthought. Something done to "enhance" a game, but games like Crysis are not enhanced by visuals, they RELY on visuals. That's a broken experience. If I want realistic visual environments, I'll go outside. If I want a game, I stay in. That, is the crux of my argument. Disagree all you like, but pretty shiny things doth not a good game make. If a developer wants to spend time making a game look great, fine... but do it after ALL the other elements are in place, that means story, dialogue, gameplay, music, sound, acting, etc. etc. Visuals should be the least focused on aspect of a game.

You see, as much as I agree with you on this, visuals still need a good thinking out, and here I'm going to use a good example: Team Fortress 2

The visuals there contribute to the game. I went through the developer's commentary and realised that the visual style actually contributed loads to the gameplay. The areas around the characters feet are dark and dull whilst the bright, stark contrasts of colours on their chests draw your eyes to them so you can get quickly identify who they are, what team they're on, and what weapon they're carrying. Their lighting engine makes the lights and darks strongly contrast, to the point where a regular light-to-dark spectrum becomes to just 2 shades or that colour. The lighting engine also gives the characters a glow arouns the edges (kinda like the ring around a total eclipse) so that they're easier to see in front of the background scenery.

Now, to be honest, these are the kind of things that you're only going to think about in a game with a distinct art-style like TF2, but it shows that visuals shouldn't always be an afterthought

 

[SavingPrincess]

You see, as much as I agree with you on this, visuals still need a good thinking out, and here I'm going to use a good example: Team Fortress 2

The visuals there contribute to the game. I went through the developer's commentary and realised that the visual style actually contributed loads to the gameplay. The areas around the characters feet are dark and dull whilst the bright, stark contrasts of colours on their chests draw your eyes to them so you can get quickly identify who they are, what team they're on, and what weapon they're carrying. Their lighting engine makes the lights and darks strongly contrast, to the point where a regular light-to-dark spectrum becomes to just 2 shades or that colour. The lighting engine also gives the characters a glow arouns the edges (kinda like the ring around a total eclipse) so that they're easier to see in front of the background scenery.

Now, to be honest, these are the kind of things that you're only going to think about in a game with a distinct art-style like TF2, but it shows that visuals shouldn't always be an afterthought

I agree; victim of semantics in this case. "Visuals" should be central to the game, as ultimately, you're looking at the thing the whole time...

I'm talking about "Graphics" when I say visuals. Making sure each blade of grass is accurately rendered, making sure each strand of hair has the proper physics. Things like that. I am always a huge proponent of artistic stylization and integrating visuals with gameplay... I just think that playing "middleware engines" like Crysis just to prove how neat you can make things look is a decided step AWAY from what makes games fun.

 

[Hazy]

I refuse to listen to a man who will not localize Mother 3 outside of Japan.
[sub]*Sniff* You broke my heart, Reggie...[/sub]

The Move isn't a priority for me, but I am fond of it's accuracy, at least from the tech demo's I've seen.

Throw in some good games that implement it well, and they'll have my money.

 

[Megacherv]

I refuse to listen to a man who will not localize Mother 3 outside of Japan.
[sub]*Sniff* You broke my heart, Reggie...[/sub]

The Move isn't a priority for me, but I am fond of it's accuracy, at least from the tech demo's I've seen.

Throw in some good games that implement it well, and they'll have my money.

How's Ape Escape for you.

Yes I know I've mentioned it many times on here before, but I'll mention it again:-

BRAND NEW APE ESCAPE WITH MOTION CONTROLS! FUCK YES!!!

*ahem*

You see, as much as I agree with you on this, visuals still need a good thinking out, and here I'm going to use a good example: Team Fortress 2

The visuals there contribute to the game. I went through the developer's commentary and realised that the visual style actually contributed loads to the gameplay. The areas around the characters feet are dark and dull whilst the bright, stark contrasts of colours on their chests draw your eyes to them so you can get quickly identify who they are, what team they're on, and what weapon they're carrying. Their lighting engine makes the lights and darks strongly contrast, to the point where a regular light-to-dark spectrum becomes to just 2 shades or that colour. The lighting engine also gives the characters a glow arouns the edges (kinda like the ring around a total eclipse) so that they're easier to see in front of the background scenery.

Now, to be honest, these are the kind of things that you're only going to think about in a game with a distinct art-style like TF2, but it shows that visuals shouldn't always be an afterthought

I agree; victim of semantics in this case. "Visuals" should be central to the game, as ultimately, you're looking at the thing the whole time...

I'm talking about "Graphics" when I say visuals. Making sure each blade of grass is accurately rendered, making sure each strand of hair has the proper physics. Things like that. I am always a huge proponent of artistic stylization and integrating visuals with gameplay... I just think that playing "middleware engines" like Crysis just to prove how neat you can make things look is a decided step AWAY from what makes games fun.

This is why I feel ashamed at myself for liking UT3 so much, because that's what it is. I'd have preffred it if they made an Unreal 3 instead.

 

[SavingPrincess]

This is why I feel ashamed at myself for liking UT3 so much, because that's what it is. I'd have preffred it if they made an Unreal 3 instead.

Don't! Unreal Tournament 3 had gameplay in spades and was hilariously meta in it's ridiculous suppositions on why people could respawn and the like. It was great, no shame in that game.

 

[Megacherv]

This is why I feel ashamed at myself for liking UT3 so much, because that's what it is. I'd have preffred it if they made an Unreal 3 instead.

Don't! Unreal Tournament 3 had gameplay in spades and was hilariously meta in it's ridiculous suppositions on why people could respawn and the like. It was great, no shame in that game.

Well, yeah, but again half of the time it seems more like a developer showing off.

However, great things like Borderlands and The Haunted have come out of it, so that excuses it

 

[DrDeath3191]

I find the Move unimpressive as of yet. Maybe they'll show off some software that actually makes some good use of the controller, but if people couldn't do it on the Wii, then I don't expect them to achieve it on the more expensive and lowest selling console this generation. Plus there's the pricepoint. Motion+ is $20, and comes bundled with some games (including the absolutely excellent Red Steel 2) which eliminates half that. I don't see why any Wii owner really needs to switch or would want to do so at all.