Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Quality Wii game overload!


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 Wolfpup

Wolfpup

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 04:12 PM

Thing that annoys me throughout this thread: Referring to the 360 and PS3 as the 'current-gen' systems, which implies that Wii isn't.


It isn't. I only use hardware generations to talk about hardware generations, not release dates, as we already know release dates. The Dreamcast, Playstation 2, Playstation Portable, Gamecube, Wii, and Xbox 1 are all part of one hardware generation, with relatively similar capabilities (although obviously there's a large jump between the Dreamcast and Xbox, and stuff the lower end systems couldn't do, but generally speaking it wouldn't really be considered enough for a full hardware generation.)

Note that this isn't some sort of insult, it is what it is. And if you want to consider "any currently sold system is current generation" well, I don't think that's useful, but go for it I guess.

Of course if you get into PC hardware generations and were going by that, the Xbox/Playstation are many generations out of date.
Please help cure diseases like cancer and Parkinson's by running Folding @ Home! :)
Recent games, Netflix Scale:
[LIST]

Posted Image

#62 M-PG71C

M-PG71C

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:04 PM

My only two cents is that all three consoles suffer from sequels. Yes, the Wii got sequels to Donkey Kong, Kirby, Mario, etc....but the 360/PS3 got sequels to Fallout, Assassin's Creed, and a whole world of other stuff. Which is not a bad thing, but it is what it is. I love sequels, especially to games that haven't been updated a long time (ala Kirby and DKC) so I'm not going to bash them. But lets face it, all three consoles have suffered a drain of innovation as of late.

Which is expected given that happens around this time in a console's life cycle.

As far as quality games go, anyone that says the Wii lacks core content has been pretty fucking blind the last several years. I own more games for my Wii then I do my PS3 by far (nearly double). Its more of a matter of taste than it is which has quality software, its far more subjective than what a bunch of fanboys exemplify. I mean, going back a couple generations ago, a whole world of people love the N64. I hate that fucking system, there has been about ten games I enjoyed on it and beyond that, I could care less for it. I thought the PSOne had more games I cared for on it.

But that's strictly my opinion and I know a lot of people that would disagree with that. Well, when it comes to this generation, I feel the Wii by far has more quality software I liked than the PS3/360. It is what it is. To argue a point of subjectivity is futile.
Posted Image

#63 jr233270

jr233270

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:08 PM

I just bought a Wii for this reason (and to play all of the older exclusives).

#64 007

007

    Areaologist

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:44 PM

It isn't. I only use hardware generations to talk about hardware generations, not release dates, as we already know release dates. The Dreamcast, Playstation 2, Playstation Portable, Gamecube, Wii, and Xbox 1 are all part of one hardware generation, with relatively similar capabilities (although obviously there's a large jump between the Dreamcast and Xbox, and stuff the lower end systems couldn't do, but generally speaking it wouldn't really be considered enough for a full hardware generation.)

Note that this isn't some sort of insult, it is what it is. And if you want to consider "any currently sold system is current generation" well, I don't think that's useful, but go for it I guess.

Of course if you get into PC hardware generations and were going by that, the Xbox/Playstation are many generations out of date.


While I get that, it still smacks of referring to the Wii as a 'lesser system', which I find to really be a subjective statement. Is it the most powerful system? Certainly not. The question truly is, why does that matter? Let's be fair here, the PS3 and 360 have HD graphics, online, a store to buy things from, in console storage, and (now) motion controls. What other qualifications does the Wii need to be in the same generation?

Your layout also begs a question... you consider the PSP to be from the last generation, but you have no mention of the DS. Was that an oversight, or does it not count in this generation? I'm honestly curious as to the answer. To further that, what would the 3DS be when it eventually launches?

At the end of the day, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I've always classified generations by the systems that are in direct competition with one another. I admit, the Wii sort of throws a wrench into that, as this is really one of the first times that one of those consoles in direct competition didn't make the same hardware jump... but I think it's ridiculous to consider it last-gen. That's just me, though.

#65 Wolfpup

Wolfpup

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:52 PM

While I get that, it still smacks of referring to the Wii as a 'lesser system', which I find to really be a subjective statement. Is it the most powerful system? Certainly not. The question truly is, why does that matter?


It doesn't in and of itself really. It's just a shorthand for the relative hardware performance of various systems.

Let's be fair here, the PS3 and 360 have HD graphics, online, a store to buy things from, in console storage, and (now) motion controls. What other qualifications does the Wii need to be in the same generation?


The same class of hardware as far as I'm concerned. I mean maybe that's no longer the way most people take that phrase, but I know when systems are available, and I know when systems are supported, so that doesn't tell me anything. Before it's always meant relative hardware performance more than anything to do with release date, which was just incidental.

Your layout also begs a question... you consider the PSP to be from the last generation, but you have no mention of the DS. Was that an oversight, or does it not count in this generation? I'm honestly curious as to the answer.


It's two generations old hardware. Basically the DS, Saturn, Playstation 1, and N64 are all part of the same generation.

To further that, what would the 3DS be when it eventually launches?


Last gen from the looks of it. Appears to probably fit in somewhere around the Dreamcast/Playstation 2/Playstation Portable. GBA was more or less two generations old at the time of it's release too, although maybe that's a little tricky, since it was probably the most powerful system overall of that generation, yet really not part of the next one...so sort of like the Xbox 1 of it's gen I guess.

At the end of the day, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I've always classified generations by the systems that are in direct competition with one another. I admit, the Wii sort of throws a wrench into that, as this is really one of the first times that one of those consoles in direct competition didn't make the same hardware jump... but I think it's ridiculous to consider it last-gen. That's just me, though.


Yeah, no that's fine. I don't know if it helps that I emphasize "hardware generation" or not, since I'm really talking about the hardware. Maybe I'm just being an ass. Maybe I like thinking of things in terms of the hardware. I don't know. :D
Please help cure diseases like cancer and Parkinson's by running Folding @ Home! :)
Recent games, Netflix Scale:
[LIST]

Posted Image

#66 Altanis

Altanis

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:55 PM

Meh, I see the list of 360/PS3 games that people call "good". They have different taste than me, because there are only about 10 games there I'd consider worth playing at all - and several of those games are also available on Wii anyway.

This. When I bought the Wii in May, yeah, I had been planning for months (and really, years) to buy one, but I also was debating the PS3 or even 360. I ended up getting the Wii because the games I liked were available for it, and also because the upcoming releases were also pretty strong.
I decided against a PS3 because their lineup, much like the 360s, seems pretty meh to me. Like I said above, normally a new Need for Speed game would be kick-ass... yet, I don't even want it (plus, it's available for the Wii, although I've literally heard 0 about that... I only discovered they made a Wii version on accident, when I searched Amazon for one of the PS1 or PS2 games.

Like whatever games you want, but if you want support for 360/PS3 being the best systems go post in those forums. Frankly, I'm here because I prefer the Wii and find more good games (on a regular, ongoing basis) for that console.

This. Plus, Wii games are already cheaper. I find the prices I pay for my Wii games are much much much lower than PS3 games I would want. I've bought two systems and all my games and accessories for under $1000 out of pocket, which is unheard of for the PS3 or 360 (I also am never able to find clearance games).


Oh, and if you are counting on IGN to tell you which Wii games are worth playing, then no wonder you can't find any good games. There aren't many online media outlets that do a good job covering Wii because, quite frankly, the people who make games their living tend to be very traditional core gamers. That's not necessarily a bad thing - most of their audience fits into the same catogory - but it does tend to create a natural bias against the Wii from all evidence that I've seen.


I agree with this as well. IGN doesn't seem to cover Wii stuff very well. I'm not the "core" gamer I guess, because my attention span doesn't let me play the same game all the way through, or because I don't have a huge budget for my gaming setup or anything. I also tend to play with at least 1 friend, and none of us take gaming as life- it's all fun.

#67 TheLongshot

TheLongshot

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:57 PM

At the end of the day, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I've always classified generations by the systems that are in direct competition with one another. I admit, the Wii sort of throws a wrench into that, as this is really one of the first times that one of those consoles in direct competition didn't make the same hardware jump... but I think it's ridiculous to consider it last-gen. That's just me, though.


Considering that I own both a PS2 and a Wii, I don't have much doubt which console's games looks better, so to say the Wii is a "last generation" console is selling it short. They just decided to make different design decisions. While the "core" gamer might have felt left behind by it, it does seem to be a good decision by Nintendo.

Personally, I would have liked to have gotten a PS3, but price and family-friendliness made Wii a better overall choice, and I don't regret it much. My 4 year old gets a lot of joy playing SMG2 and Kirby right now.

#68 bk187

bk187

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 09:08 PM

I've always classified generations by the systems that are in direct competition with one another.


This seems to be the simplest way to do it in my book. The hardware generation idea just seems overwrought and complicated while simultaneously missing the point.

#69 Crunchewy

Crunchewy

Posted 06 December 2010 - 09:22 PM

There are a lot of really great games for the Wii, and this year has been an especially good one. I've generally enjoyed the games I've downloaded too, though those are few and far between because of the lack of demos which is a sore point for me. It's also a sore point for Nintendo, because I buy a lot more Xbox 360 download titles then I do WiiWare, VC and DSiWare, and that's because of the lack of demos for all download titles across the board. The limited demos they are doing now are welcome, but not nearly enough. I was pleased to see that they *finally* put up a demo for a game on the day of release, that being for Fluidity. I'm looking forward to trying that out tonight. Of course the fact that they didn't also release demos for the other games released today has me presuming that those are complete and utter crap.

Of course there's also the lack of system-wide achievements, the lack of an online community, etc. For all these reasons I really want Nintendo to get moving on the sequel to the Wii.

Crunchewy.png


#70 TheLongshot

TheLongshot

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 09:32 PM

There are a lot of really great games for the Wii, and this year has been an especially good one. I've generally enjoyed the games I've downloaded too, though those are few and far between because of the lack of demos which is a sore point for me. It's also a sore point for Nintendo, because I buy a lot more Xbox 360 download titles then I do WiiWare, VC and DSiWare, and that's because of the lack of demos for all download titles across the board. The limited demos they are doing now are welcome, but not nearly enough. I was pleased to see that they *finally* put up a demo for a game on the day of release, that being for Fluidity. I'm looking forward to trying that out tonight. Of course the fact that they didn't also release demos for the other games released today has me presuming that those are complete and utter crap.

Of course there's also the lack of system-wide achievements, the lack of an online community, etc. For all these reasons I really want Nintendo to get moving on the sequel to the Wii.


Yeah, that is one aspect that I think Nintendo really fumbled. I really have little incentive to buy much online or even to go online.

#71 Altanis

Altanis

Posted 06 December 2010 - 09:32 PM

Can someone please explain to me why achievements are this necessity in consoles? It's like all people on the 360 care about is getting the achievements in a game, not actually enjoying the experience. They trudge through a game they despise just to say that they finished it, which isn't what gaming is about (unless I've completely been left behind by some new standard).

I don't mind the relative lack of online play because in my dorm (where I am 9 months a year), I either can connect my laptop or my gaming system to the internet, but not both at the same time. I have played a few Wii games online while at home, but I also have noticed that the system is pretty poorly designed. There's so many things they really need to change (instead of 16 digit friend codes, please at least allow for GamerTags or something similar. I can remember those without writing them down), but to me I don't need online play.

#72 bk187

bk187

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 December 2010 - 09:36 PM

Can someone please explain to me why achievements are this necessity in consoles? It's like all people on the 360 care about is getting the achievements in a game, not actually enjoying the experience. They trudge through a game they despise just to say that they finished it, which isn't what gaming is about (unless I've completely been left behind by some new standard).


As much as I would like to bemoan the rise of achievements all day and night, it is the new standard of video games.

#73 moothemagiccow

moothemagiccow

    Tall buildings shake

  • Silenced

Posted 06 December 2010 - 10:36 PM

Can someone please explain to me why achievements are this necessity in consoles? It's like all people on the 360 care about is getting the achievements in a game, not actually enjoying the experience. They trudge through a game they despise just to say that they finished it, which isn't what gaming is about (unless I've completely been left behind by some new standard).


Sometimes they're cool and they devise a different way of playing the game. People used to challenge themselves to play the game differently before trophies/achievements and they still do. For example, some folks try to beat Legend of Zelda without picking up a heart container upgrade.

The ones in fat princess were neat - one was to get 100 kills in every class - archer, mage, etc. It's an online capture the flag game, and that was one way to keep it interesting if you'd gotten bored of normal play. Maybe you stuck to one class too much and the trophy encouraged you to play all of them.

But I agree, most of the time they are pretty dull, especially the "get all the other trophies" trophy. The people who obsess over them are goofy.

#74 Corvin

Corvin

    ...of Gilead

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:20 AM

It's like all people on the 360 care about is getting the achievements in a game, not actually enjoying the experience.


:roll: Generalize much?

#75 Altanis

Altanis

Posted 07 December 2010 - 03:09 AM

:roll: Generalize much?

You can't read can you? I wasn't generalizing, I was making an observation. In nearly every 360 game thread people comment about achievements. Are they really that big of a deal? I don't get the point of them, and asked a legitimate question about why they were so important and why people thought the Wii just absolutely needed them. And yes, I understand that the PS3 has a system similar to the 360's. However, PS3 players don't bemoan only getting 999/1000 on a game nearly as much as the 360 people do.

I swear, any thread that praises the Wii in the tiniest bit is always shat all over by PS3 and 360 fanboys who try to jump down any Wii supporter's throat.

I play games for the experience and to enjoy it. I don't need a system telling me how to have fun to enjoy a game. Yet that seems like one major "flaw" the Wii online play has according to people here. Online play on the Wii isn't that great, but it also does its job just fine. Yeah, there's a bit left to be desired, but at least Nintendo has some form now. The GCN barely had anything.

#76 bk187

bk187

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 06:00 AM

Achievements aren't really the problem in and of themself. I mean they are decent way of introducing challenges to gameplay while keeping the easier way of doing things available to those who don't want to take up the challenge. However, problems arise due to several reasons:

1. Xbox games are required to have a certain number of achievements which creates achievement points for doing pointless crap or stuff you would do any way. These pointless achievements seem like a product of the "everyone is special" mentality that society has today and that every kid who participates deserves an award for participation. To quote the noob effect, "there is such a thing as talent," we don't need to reward mediocrity.

2. Achievements inevitably lead to epeen discussions which is really the biggest problem. People will always find ways to lord things over others and point out how they are better than others, achievement points being a supremely stupid version of this.

What would really solve things would be the hiding of achievements so that they are not viewable or linkable to others on top of the abolition of mandatory achievement points for game developers. However, I don't see either of these happening ever.

#77 Crunchewy

Crunchewy

Posted 07 December 2010 - 06:04 AM

I felt the same way about achievements before I got a 360. Then I got a 360. Achievements can be fun and some games do them right. Yes, some don't, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fun in other games. Trials HD is a great example. Some of the achievements get you to perform stunts you'd otherwise have no reason to do. They are fun little challenges that enhance the game. Also they can help you track progress and it's fun to look at what achievements your friends have gotten in games. The short version is they are fun and if given the option of a version of a game without them and one with them, I will probably pick "with".

#78 ejamer

ejamer

Posted 07 December 2010 - 08:12 AM

I'm torn about achievements. They can add replay value when done right, and clearly can help to make a great game even better... but they can also be a lazy way for developers to appeal to the gaming OCD instinct that so many have, possibly even damaging the game experience in the process. (Usually you can just ignore them though, so usually I'm in favor of having achievements available as long as the developer makes some effort.)

What does bug me is the vocal pride that people express in gathering virtual trophies or achievements. Do it because you like the game, not because you are so desperate to impress a group of virtual friends.

#79 KingBroly

KingBroly

    CAG Club Nintendo

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 10:51 AM

My hatred for Other M knows no bounds. But I've come up with Achievements for it that will add some great replay value.
Spoiler


Achievements are a necessary evil. However, I'd like the ability to not earn them at all. I don't want them hanging over my head, even in the background if I don't want them to. Even if I'm not seeing them being unlocked, I know in the back of my mind I've unlocked one or two or four, and it kinda takes me out of it a little bit.
Completed Games: 2011 | 2012
CAG Club Nintendo Thread
Posted Image

#80 Corvin

Corvin

    ...of Gilead

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:47 PM

I play games for the experience and to enjoy it. I don't need a system telling me how to have fun to enjoy a game.


Do you go for purple coins in Galaxy? Did you 100% the Metroid games? Get all your medals in Wii Sports Resort? Find all those Heart Containers in Zelda? Those games are "telling you how to have fun to enjoy a game." The only difference between that and a 360/PS3 game is merely having a way to share and track those "achievements" with friends. It's really no different.

In nearly every 360 game thread people comment about achievements. Are they really that big of a deal? I don't get the point of them, and asked a legitimate question about why they were so important and why people thought the Wii just absolutely needed them.


From your post it sounds like you don't own a 360, so why are you reading "nearly every 360 game thread?" lol That is certainly a generalization.

But if you are honestly looking for a serious answer then it's simple... replay. Just like the samples I cited above for Wii games, for the most part Achievements give you extra things to do or shoot for in a game. Personally I go through a game once for the experience and if I liked it well enough I'll go back and clean up on the achievements that look fun or doable. Just like purple coins in Mario or Missile tanks in Metroid. They give you more time in a game you enjoy therefore giving you more playtime for your money. They also add challenge to those looking for it. Personally I thought both Galaxy games were too easy, but the purple coins give someone like me more enjoyment. Catching the biggest fish in Ocarina? Why bother? Because it's fun and something to keep you in that game world longer.

Three of my favorite non-Wii examples; in both Condemned and Mirror's Edge there is an achievement for finishing the game without firing a gun. Both were challenging and fun and were made better by those achievements, and I would have never thought to do that in either game. Then in Dead Rising there is one for killing 53,000+ zombies in one playthrough. Again, who would think to do that without that little nudge from the developers? It was a fun way to kill a couple hours, nothing more. There are hundreds of good examples just like there are plenty of shitty ones (kill 1 gajillion Locust in Gears of War with a pistol). As with anything, there's going to be good and bad examples.

As for thread discussions go, once a game is finished there's not much to talk about, so in the same way that achievements add playtime, they also give people more to talk about, how to do something, etc. I have to turn this one around on the Wii as well... there was tons of talk in the Other M thread about getting all the E-tanks, Missile tanks, where to find them and what not to get 100%. Why? Because they are fun to hunt down and just something to talk about. Discussing achievements ≠ bragging about your e-cock.

Like crunchewy said, it's one thing to "not get it" when you don't own the system, it's another thing when you get that game you love and want to do more in it and the achievements just "click" with you and it snowballs from there.

Does the Wii need a global tracking system? Of course not. Would it be nice? Sure. I'm getting all those "extras" anyway, why not have a system that allows you to compare with your friends? I don't see it happening though with Nintendo's online structure.

#81 Crunchewy

Crunchewy

Posted 07 December 2010 - 03:08 PM

My hatred for Other M knows no bounds.


I honestly thought you liked Other M. I'm confused. Well, I liked it a lot, but I didn't have any investment in the line of games, never having really played any of the others.

And Corvin put it better then I did, regarding achievements. Spot on!

Crunchewy.png


#82 Wolfpup

Wolfpup

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 03:50 PM

My hatred for Other M knows no bounds. But I've come up with Achievements for it that will add some great replay value.

Spoiler


Just noticed this. I'm very curious, what do you hate about it?

So far the part I like least is the constant boss fights, and fighting in general. I don't always hate the fights (although I've come close to quitting at least once, when I was fighting this bee hive), but I like the story and exploration, but kind of feel "oh, here we go again" every 5 minutes when there's yet another boss fight. Half the normal enemies are basically boss fights too :lol:

Spoiler


Not sure how I feel about achievements. I went from neutral to super against them to sort of positive to I'm not sure now. I went super negative when I saw people buying or playing games they didn't want to because of it. And I don't like how you can't delete ones you don't want, and I agree they sort of take you out of it. They're sort of addicting though too, but I'm not sure I like that.

Like when I enjoy a PC or a Wii or a PSP or a DS game, I kind of start forgetting about them, but yet I'll sometimes think "I'd buy that/play through that again if it had points/trophies".

I don't know...it's far from the worst recent development in games (I'd say worst is the partial destruction of gaming thanks to activation, second worst might be motion/touch stuff when it's not OPTIONAL). But I like people playing games to play games, you know? This meta thing is annoying. And I'm ticked off I couldn't get points in Halo 2 since I CAN'T EVEN LOG IN TO Microsoft's servers with their stupid software!
Please help cure diseases like cancer and Parkinson's by running Folding @ Home! :)
Recent games, Netflix Scale:
[LIST]

Posted Image

#83 Crunchewy

Crunchewy

Posted 07 December 2010 - 04:24 PM

I went super negative when I saw people buying or playing games they didn't want to because of it. And I don't like how you can't delete ones you don't want, and I agree they sort of take you out of it. They're sort of addicting though too, but I'm not sure I like that.


Why worry about why other people play games? I don't buy games soley for achievements (King Kong? Uh, no thanks), but if that's what others like to do, then why not? Go for it, I say. On the other hand I'm right there with you about not being able to delete games from your achievement lists. I wish we could do that. iOS's (iPhone, etc) Game Center allows this. When you delete a game it gives you the option to delete it from Game Center too. The Xbox should let you do that too. I've got a few games in there I'm never going to play, and I'd rather that I could delete them. Still, it's not really a big deal. They'll get pushed down as I play more games I do like.

Crunchewy.png


#84 Altanis

Altanis

Posted 07 December 2010 - 05:22 PM

Do you go for purple coins in Galaxy? Did you 100% the Metroid games? Get all your medals in Wii Sports Resort? Find all those Heart Containers in Zelda? Those games are "telling you how to have fun to enjoy a game." The only difference between that and a 360/PS3 game is merely having a way to share and track those "achievements" with friends. It's really no different.

Nope, nope, and nope. Like I said, I play games to enjoy them, not to make sure I get every fricking thing possible.

From your post it sounds like you don't own a 360, so why are you reading "nearly every 360 game thread?" lol That is certainly a generalization.

Sounds like I don't own one? At least I read, since I've made it pretty damn clear I don't own, or want, a 360 or PS3.

But if you are honestly looking for a serious answer then it's simple... replay. Just like the samples I cited above for Wii games, for the most part Achievements give you extra things to do or shoot for in a game. Personally I go through a game once for the experience and if I liked it well enough I'll go back and clean up on the achievements that look fun or doable. Just like purple coins in Mario or Missile tanks in Metroid. They give you more time in a game you enjoy therefore giving you more playtime for your money. They also add challenge to those looking for it. Personally I thought both Galaxy games were too easy, but the purple coins give someone like me more enjoyment. Catching the biggest fish in Ocarina? Why bother? Because it's fun and something to keep you in that game world longer.

If you are trying to Platinum a game or (whatever the term is), all you are doing is forcibly playing the game to get an achievement (which is true over a BUNCH of games). I don't play a game with the thought process of needing to get everything or whatever. The only games I do that in are the ones that it's required in order to beat every level (NSMB, Kirby). I don't aim for 100% in a game,

Three of my favorite non-Wii examples; in both Condemned and Mirror's Edge there is an achievement for finishing the game without firing a gun. Both were challenging and fun and were made better by those achievements, and I would have never thought to do that in either game. Then in Dead Rising there is one for killing 53,000+ zombies in one playthrough. Again, who would think to do that without that little nudge from the developers? It was a fun way to kill a couple hours, nothing more. There are hundreds of good examples just like there are plenty of shitty ones (kill 1 gajillion Locust in Gears of War with a pistol). As with anything, there's going to be good and bad examples.

I don't need to be told what to do in a game to enjoy it. Killing zombies, not firing a gun, etc, are all nice things to extend someone's play time maybe, but why do I need to do that in order to have fun? Exactly: I don't. Which is my entire problem with achievements, that they require you to do something that basically becomes you trudging through the game in order to complete it.


Like crunchewy said, it's one thing to "not get it" when you don't own the system, it's another thing when you get that game you love and want to do more in it and the achievements just "click" with you and it snowballs from there.

That might be so, but I still don't get why the lack of achievements is, as multiple people here have claimed, one of the biggest flaws of Nintendo's online play. If anything, the biggest flaw is that the online play is often just bad or unnecessary. The online play does however do what its name says: it lets you play online. It's simplistic but effective (at least in Mario Kart and other 1st-party titles).

Does the Wii need a global tracking system? Of course not. Would it be nice? Sure. I'm getting all those "extras" anyway, why not have a system that allows you to compare with your friends? I don't see it happening though with Nintendo's online structure.

I don't think Nintendo will add achievements or anything simply because then they will be seen as copying Microsoft and Sony- right after each of them just took the motion controls of the Wii and put their own spin on them.

I also had the motion controls that are unnecessary. About the only games that really get it right are Nintendo-published (with a few others). Even then, I feel like those in DKC:R are hastily added with no real rhyme or reason to them.

#85 soonersfan60

soonersfan60

    Longing for retro CAG...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 05:51 PM

I only go for "achievements" when I get something for the "accomplishment." Not just bragging rights or a trophy, but access to new worlds or play in reverse or something.

And I have 35-40 quality Wii titles that we've owned since the system launched. If you avoid shovelware and listen to substantive recommendations, you would never run out of good Wii games to play.

#86 Corvin

Corvin

    ...of Gilead

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 06:57 PM

Nope, nope, and nope. Like I said, I play games to enjoy them, not to make sure I get every fricking thing possible. \


That's fair, but I'm making the comparison since a lot of people do go for those things in Nintendo games and then turn around and bash achievements. It's a bit hypocritical, IMO.

If you are trying to Platinum a game or (whatever the term is), all you are doing is forcibly playing the game to get an achievement (which is true over a BUNCH of games).


And you are speaking from what perspective having never owned a 360 or PS3? I'm not trying to get on your case, but you are projecting your opinion on the masses without having a valid perspective.

Sure some people "trudge" through games, but some just want more of the experience, much like multiplayer is a component of the main game. Take Bioshock and Bioshock 2. I LOVED both games but even after 15-20 hours of each, it wasn't enough. I wasn't ready to leave Rapture just yet, so having some achievements gave me a reason to hop back in and not just "trudge" through the game again as you put it. I had just as much fun going for those as I did playing the main game.

I don't play a game with the thought process of needing to get everything or whatever.


And that is fine, not everyone does, but some like to get the most out of their purchase so why bemoan the way others play their games?

Also to be fair, the "achievement" mentality has been around for 30 years with games in the form of speed runs, collectibles, performing "tricks" like the 99-life Mario thing, gaining a different ending, high scores, etc. All Microsoft did was put a sound effect, generic numeral value and pop-up image to go with what's people have been doing in games for decades already. That's why having a beef with achievements is pretty silly considering they've, more or less, been around a lot longer than the 360 or PS3.

#87 Snake2715

Snake2715

    Gotta Have Your Toys...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 December 2010 - 09:29 PM

Altanis and Corvin are both right in my eyes. I used to have more time for those, but now rarely find myself going back to a game. So now its just a playthrough for me or if I hear of something on a gamesite that seems really cool, I might do that.

but I really think both your points are vaild, and probably come down to total time available to play.
-Josh

Posted Image
-courtesy of onetrackmind-

TRADE LIST

#88 Achilles00

Achilles00

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 December 2010 - 06:44 AM

Hmm is epic yarn that good? I may have to look into it.

Have not got Metroid other M yet either... working on downsizing my games...


It's a lot of fun. You'll get about 10 hours out of it, probably more if you seek completion, but I enjoyed almost every moment of the game.
Posted Image

#89 schuerm26

schuerm26

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 December 2010 - 06:28 PM

Epic Yarn is very good. I got it for my kids as a rental and it was completed within 4 days. NOT 100% complete but all levels which is good enough for them.