I said quite specifically that the things the Wii does in this regard do not compare to PSN/XBL. Very specifically. I don't even know why we're still talking about it, unless we go in circles over the HDD subject, which I (and anyone else worth their salt) already has a sore spot for, and thinks it is ridiculous that no solution exists, AND that it limits the system both in terms of existing software, as well as scaring away new clients/developers from adopting it.
No, I brought Brawl for a variety of reasons. The first is that I love the series and want every sequel to it. The second is that I liked the new things it added, which (again) I've tried to mention every time, but you consistently ignore. This includes new characters, new modes, all the little nostalgic touches that appeal to a fan, the music, the fact that I have close friends who play it, etc etc etc. Most of these things cannot be extended to other people, but that doesn't matter. You keep diluting it down into "oh you just like it even though it just has more polys and no motion" which is kind of like saying I drink water simply to survive.
You make a halfway interesting point in "wouldn't you just have liked it on the GC/N64?" N64, no - because limitations on 13+ year old hardware ruin any prospect of that. GC? Perhaps. Except I get a fair amount of usage out of the online, despite that I know it is broken, so that argument falls apart. Further, GC discs couldn't hold the same amount of data, couldn't keep the game running at 60 fps given the amount of detail in the characters/backgrounds, and would limit the roster due to space limitations. While we're at it, yes - the game SHOULD add support for DLC, because new characters down the line actually make sense.
Finally, the suggestion that the Wii is holding back the online is sort of a half-truth. It's pretty well known in the Brawl community that the netcode sucks, so that's more of a bad programming thing versus an actual hardware-determining-problems thing.
"Why settle for the Wii"
Because I LIKE NINTENDO. HOLY DAMN, WHY IS THAT SUCH A BAD THING? [B]THIS[/B] is the attitude I'm so tired of.
There's a host of first party content I want access to, and will ALWAYS want access to. Again, anything third party that shows up is pure icing. In this case, I want Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, and hopefully things like Starfox and Kirby. I want Sin and Punishment 2 and Art Style:Cubello.
It is NO DIFFERENT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT HALO, KILLZONE, MGS, ETC. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
At least I can make the assessment and allocation that "Hey, some people only want to play shooters for the rest of their life, and that's okay." But then I see a double standard kick in with people telling me "Holy damn, why even bother with Mario anymore?"
That's just retarded, and it's pretty stupid that this crap attitude is so prevalent and so accepted by the "hardcore" because they are so pissed a machine with a fraction of the power is mowing down their asses in the sales lane.
It has nothing to do with money, it has nothing to do with release pace, it has nothing to do with some smug superiority complex of "graphics over gameplay." It is PURELY about choice.
For the record, this is the same reason I HAVE A 360. There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
And yet you're the one telling ME its just some victimized bullshit? That's ridiculous. It's been like this since the goddamn N64, except its just exacerbated to a point where - again - you can't even goddamn mention "Hey I like the Wii" without some built-in bullshit from the "hardcore" about how this suddenly instantly means you only like wagglefest mini games, as if that were a valid assumption to make.
Wii owners - those of us that give a damn - actually want valid gameplay experiences JUST AS MUCH as any regular 360 owner, and it would do the entire industry a damn bit of good if this retarded argument were ended once and for all. Notice that [I]I'm[/I] the one who is willing to do that - [I]you're[/I] the one who isn't. Saying it's a victim complex? Fine. YOU'VE got a justification complex, and some endless need to feel bigger than those around you.
You pretend I don't even find truth in those comments? I know there is. But at the same time I'm sick of the falsehoods. "There's no games to play." Fuck that. There's plenty to play, and even plenty of GOOD games to play, it's simply that they are in genres that the hip trendy hardcore fanboys don't care for. That's the bottom line.
Oh piss off. Why even give them more than .2 seconds of attention? They hurt no one, they actually [I]don't[/I] drive the market, they never will, and developers are not going to focus on them forever. It's pretty sad a bunch of big mean manly gamers feel so threatened by Gladys having a roll of Wii Bowling. It's like getting mad that they watch TV.
"Developers caught off guard doesn't hold water"
Why? It takes - on average - 2 years to develop a game. Most people didn't even begin to think the Wii was worthwhile until mid 2007, and some a year after that. Even if we take the people who ignored it to begin with (Konami, Capcom, Square, basically all Western devs outside of EA), then there is no way they'll get games out before THIS year. And even then, there's no gaurantee that those games will be good.
Right now I'll admit this is a time-delay excuse. But at the same time, I'm patient enough to think that people might still be struggling with the hardware. If I judged the 360's first six months of software as the end-all-be-all, I'd have given up on it entirely, because those were dark days indeed, full of shoddy ports from PS2 and otherwise poorly executed games.
We've still got a situation where tons of companies completely ignore it (mostly Western at this point), which is fine if it weren't seen as such a condemnation, and ALWAYS was accompanied with some bullshit "Oh it's a toy" sort of dismissal.
This is just the same old "oh nothing but waggle in the future" argument, with built-in blinders about how there's absolutely no chance it'll ever improve. That might be the truth, but I'm not pompous enough to stop there and say it most CERTAINLY is, because I'm never certain about anything.
This whole tirade is ridiculous because so many facts are ignored, such as length of development cycles, the need to allow for adjustments, and refusing to make allocations based on who is doing what and who is looking like a cashing-in-jackass. There's absolutely no reason the games can't look Xbox quality or better (which I'd even just say is "serviceable" by today's standards), no reason the controls can't work, no reason why the whole system can't be treated like the orphan it is by the development community. But that's not going to change the fact that, say, Ubisoft is going to use it for shit games to fund their big projects, which make them less profit overall than if they actually attempted to give a shit.
In the end, this is the entire problem. It's a multi-faceted, multi-layered thing, but it's all a bunch of pandering to the minority at this point. It's screaming about how there's success in something that shouldn't be there, so let's diminish and refuse to accept. Then let's all sit back and be total douches to the thought that there's actually people with an entirely different perspective, who both want genuine experiences AND are enjoying some that are already there.
Instead, what it OUGHT to be is a sort of happy cease-fire, with qualifications that rest upon waiting to see if anything ever justifies all the stupid bitching that's already occurred.
Feb 08 2009 09:59 AM