Question about online multiplayer.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
Sytzepunk
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
no and im a huge nintendo fan and if the wii doesnt see online play afte those games thats outright bs. i love games online and to be thats the only downfall of the wii. i wish super smash would be online but ofcourse its not. i mean they have had online gameplay since like 1997 since the dreamcast. i was surprised to learn that there wern't any at launch let alone waiting like 6 monthsJlobel
you got proof SSBB ain't got online?Â
I think and i know im a bit right, that there are only going to be online multiplayer and features in wii games if they are official non-third party games for eg. Super smash bros., Pokemon, Starfox, Mario kart. Trust me there is no light at the end of the tunnel for wi-fi wii games.....
Online gameplay doesn't save a game from having a horrible single-player mode (read Halo 2). While I hope a decent amount of the Wii's games have an online multiplayer feature, I hope even more that any addition of that feature does not come at the cost of the single-player experience.FFXIsAstyanax
Umm, that's exactly what saved Halo 2. And if Nintendo doesnt see the need for online-enabled games later on, I'd say that their sales would suffer. Pretend that you're a random consumer. If you see a console that lets you play COD III in mediocre graphics for $250 and a console that lets you play COD III in hi-def and unlimited replayability due to online matches for $400, which one would you get? Not to mention that (in terms of multiplats) its not just COD III that looks better and has online, its everything.
[QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
GanonBuRAP
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.Â
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.Â
[QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
HerbSewell
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.Â
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.Â
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
[QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
GanonBuRAP
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And if it weren't for all their online games, Xbox wouldn't have survived and the 360 would be the blandest system out now, we nintendo "fanboys" can play the generalizing card too.Â
[QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"]Online gameplay doesn't save a game from having a horrible single-player mode (read Halo 2). While I hope a decent amount of the Wii's games have an online multiplayer feature, I hope even more that any addition of that feature does not come at the cost of the single-player experience.ColonelWilks
Umm, that's exactly what saved Halo 2.
No, having an online multiplayer does not stop the single-player mode from sucking. Regardless of how well the game sold, nobody can claim that sales figures were due to a great single-player campaign mode. Halo 2 was a terrifyingly boring single-player game, and I doubt anyone plays it for anything other than multiplayer. And if a lacking single-player game with a decent multiplayer feature is what people want these days, gaming is coming to a sad decline. I'm not saying online is a bad feature. In fact, I'm all for it - provided it doesn't take away from single-player gameplay.
[QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"]Online gameplay doesn't save a game from having a horrible single-player mode (read Halo 2). While I hope a decent amount of the Wii's games have an online multiplayer feature, I hope even more that any addition of that feature does not come at the cost of the single-player experience.ColonelWilks
Umm, that's exactly what saved Halo 2. And if Nintendo doesnt see the need for online-enabled games later on, I'd say that their sales would suffer. Pretend that you're a random consumer. If you see a console that lets you play COD III in mediocre graphics for $250 and a console that lets you play COD III in hi-def and unlimited replayability due to online matches for $400, which one would you get? Not to mention that (in terms of multiplats) its not just COD III that looks better and has online, its everything.
Nintendo's sales have been suffering for two home console generations now and they are still head and shoulders more profitable than microsoft or sony game divisions.
and really, nintendo fans don't buy the systems for generic stuff like CoD3. it was fun to plow thru in a weekend rental, but that's not the meat of the experience, and wouldn't be even if it was hi def, online, etc.
that said, most games that have a reason to be online, will be online, somewhat in 2007, and majorly in 2008 and on.Â
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"]Online gameplay doesn't save a game from having a horrible single-player mode (read Halo 2). While I hope a decent amount of the Wii's games have an online multiplayer feature, I hope even more that any addition of that feature does not come at the cost of the single-player experience.FFXIsAstyanax
Umm, that's exactly what saved Halo 2.
No, having an online multiplayer does not stop the single-player mode from sucking. Regardless of how well the game sold, nobody can claim that sales figures were due to a great single-player campaign mode. Halo 2 was a terrifyingly boring single-player game, and I doubt anyone plays it for anything other than multiplayer. And if a lacking single-player game with a decent multiplayer feature is what people want these days, gaming is coming to a sad decline. I'm not saying online is a bad feature. In fact, I'm all for it - provided it doesn't take away from single-player gameplay.
I was talking about saving the game in general, and its single player didnt suck. It was short, and had a bad ending, but the plot and the action were awesome. If you played it on co-op it was even better. And saying that no one plays it for single player is rediculous, i played through co-op with a bud yesterday for the umpteenth time.
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"]Online gameplay doesn't save a game from having a horrible single-player mode (read Halo 2). While I hope a decent amount of the Wii's games have an online multiplayer feature, I hope even more that any addition of that feature does not come at the cost of the single-player experience.Xerlaoth
Umm, that's exactly what saved Halo 2. And if Nintendo doesnt see the need for online-enabled games later on, I'd say that their sales would suffer. Pretend that you're a random consumer. If you see a console that lets you play COD III in mediocre graphics for $250 and a console that lets you play COD III in hi-def and unlimited replayability due to online matches for $400, which one would you get? Not to mention that (in terms of multiplats) its not just COD III that looks better and has online, its everything.
Nintendo's sales have been suffering for two home console generations now and they are still head and shoulders more profitable than microsoft or sony game divisions.
and really, nintendo fans don't buy the systems for generic stuff like CoD3. it was fun to plow thru in a weekend rental, but that's not the meat of the experience, and wouldn't be even if it was hi def, online, etc.
that said, most games that have a reason to be online, will be online, somewhat in 2007, and majorly in 2008 and on.Â
Although, most of the Wiis games are generic stuff like COD III.
[QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
ColonelWilks
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
And how bad do you think Nintnedo screwed up? Sure, Nintendo isn't going to get a lot of PlayStation 2 and Xbox fans to switch over to the Wii as their main console, but the Wii is the one of the most popular and fastet selling home game consoles to date, unlike the Xbox 360 and (especially) PlayStaion 3. If Nintendo screwed up as badly as you imply it did, why is the on-line-less Wii selling faster than the other consoles?
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
HerbSewell
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
And how bad do you think Nintnedo screwed up? Sure, Nintendo isn't going to get a lot of PlayStation 2 and Xbox fans to switch over to the Wii as their main console, but the Wii is the one of the most popular and fastet selling home game consoles to date, unlike the Xbox 360 and (especially) PlayStaion 3. If Nintendo screwed up as badly as you imply it did, why is the on-line-less Wii selling faster than the other consoles?
Im not saying that the effects will show now, but im confident they will in the long-run. Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
ColonelWilks
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
I want online play now. Period
And what is with the hate of the online games?
They add replay value
I was talking about saving the game in general, and its single player didnt suck. It was short, and had a bad ending, but the plot and the action were awesome. If you played it on co-op it was even better. And saying that no one plays it for single player is rediculous, i played through co-op with a bud yesterday for the umpteenth time.
ColonelWilks
Were we playing the same game? Halo 2's single-player mode was bland and repetitive. Get locked in a room, blast your way out, move to the next room and repeat. The story wasn't bad, but it didn't drive me to finish the game. The best part of the game is either the good choice of weapons or when you're allowed to use a vehicle, but even then it's not enough to rescue single-player.
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
FFXIsAstyanax
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
Ya, because losing respect on da intawebs= very bad!Â
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
HerbSewell
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
And how bad do you think Nintnedo screwed up? Sure, Nintendo isn't going to get a lot of PlayStation 2 and Xbox fans to switch over to the Wii as their main console, but the Wii is the one of the most popular and fastet selling home game consoles to date, unlike the Xbox 360 and (especially) PlayStaion 3. If Nintendo screwed up as badly as you imply it did, why is the on-line-less Wii selling faster than the other consoles?
As much of a Nintendo fan I am, I honestly think it is selling as well as it is because of it's price. Look at the huge price difference between the Wii and the 360 as well as the Wii and the PS3. That being said, people are also picking them up because the Big 3 are being released soon.Â
I want online play now. Period
And what is with the hate of the online games?
movin_target
They add replay value
There's nothing wrong with online play. It's a good addition to a game - but it has to be an addition. It cannot be the core around which an entire game is built.
I can't wait to play online-enabled games on the Wii. My only concern is that games will be built almost entirely around online play, and devs could lose focus on single-player modes.
if the wii gets online multiplayer then it will be one hundred times better! Having a good single player is important, but online will make the game sooo much better. I hope nintendo does the right thing and starts making games with online multiplayer. If they make a FPS with co-op and online play then i will be soo happy! And if they put multiplayer in SSBB like having online tournaments with players around the world, well...........THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!!
[QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
stevenk4k5
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
And how bad do you think Nintnedo screwed up? Sure, Nintendo isn't going to get a lot of PlayStation 2 and Xbox fans to switch over to the Wii as their main console, but the Wii is the one of the most popular and fastet selling home game consoles to date, unlike the Xbox 360 and (especially) PlayStaion 3. If Nintendo screwed up as badly as you imply it did, why is the on-line-less Wii selling faster than the other consoles?
As much of a Nintendo fan I am, I honestly think it is selling as well as it is because of it's price. Look at the huge price difference between the Wii and the 360 as well as the Wii and the PS3. That being said, people are also picking them up because the Big 3 are being released soon.Â
I Agree with your 2nd statement about the big 3... but im sorry... people dont buy things just because they cost less than something else. There has to be an underlying reason. Not in the video game console world anyway.
[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="GanonBuRAP"][QUOTE="Sytzepunk"]Why should they? I don't really see a collection of games that would be awesome for online play.
natebayne
ugh you have nintendo fanboy written all over you. without ample online games, nintendo will fall behind. hell if it werent for their long time franchise games like zelda and mario, they'd be longggg gone.
And you have modern videogamer written all over you. Nintendo never really liked the idea of on-line because all it does is make it easier for the developers to make the games. Any game that has on-line already has most of its work cut out for it. At that point, all it needs to have is a solid multiplayer and it's adored by all. One great example is Halo 2. The single player was almost abysmally, but since the on-line multiplayer was so successful in implantation it completely made up for it, becoming more popular that the first Halo which was far superior in quality. Was the game more innovative or original? No, all the game was was just an updated version of Halo with an inferior single player but with on-line multiplayer.
I'm very sorry if Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fans absolutely need on-line for a game to be good but Nintendo fans like originality and innovation in their games, not cheap ways to expand the replayability of games by including an on-line service with it.
Wow. Your misunderstanding of online in your systems probably stems from the fact that you only have a Nintendo cosole. The Single Player in Halo 2 was short, and the ending was bad, i'll give you that. But the gameplay was a blast from start to finish, especially if a friend was there to play co-op with you. Oh, and to answer your question, yes it (online) did make Halo 2 more innovative. It had original matchmaking, as well as killer multiplayer features that prolonged its replayablity immeasurably. Speaking of replayability, ive noticed that 360 games have alot more of it. Lets say you buy COD III Wii and COD III 360. Both games are beaten in 8 hours. Now what? If you got the Wii version, you wait around for a friend to play lackluster multiplayer. If you got the 360 version, you get to play as much as you want online, extending the game's value. Trust me, Nintendo screwed up when it didnt implement online at launch, or in the 6 months that followed, for that matter.
And how bad do you think Nintnedo screwed up? Sure, Nintendo isn't going to get a lot of PlayStation 2 and Xbox fans to switch over to the Wii as their main console, but the Wii is the one of the most popular and fastet selling home game consoles to date, unlike the Xbox 360 and (especially) PlayStaion 3. If Nintendo screwed up as badly as you imply it did, why is the on-line-less Wii selling faster than the other consoles?
As much of a Nintendo fan I am, I honestly think it is selling as well as it is because of it's price. Look at the huge price difference between the Wii and the 360 as well as the Wii and the PS3. That being said, people are also picking them up because the Big 3 are being released soon.
I Agree with your 2nd statement about the big 3... but im sorry... people dont buy things just because they cost less than something else. There has to be an underlying reason. Not in the video game console world anyway.
Think of it this way. A casual just walks into a store looking for their first gaming experience. They go to the cabinet and notice three systems. What do you think they notice first? The price. One system is listed as $600.00 (Response: Whoa, that's too expensive for a video game!), the other system is listed as $400.00 (Response: That's still expensive for a video game! Store worker: It has Halo and Mass Effect is coming soon. Casual: What's a Mass Effect? O.o), and the last system is listed as $250.00 (Response: Wow, that's a great deal! And look, it has Mario! Everyone knows and loves Mario!). See where I'm going? Casuals don't care about all the extra features or how many polygons a console can push. They care about what is easily accessible to them while not burning a hole in their pocket.
Also to the guy that said SSBB has no online.. i believe you're wrong. I am not totally sure but there are more signs that point to it having online than there are not.natebayne
Yes, i haven't seen any points where they said no online and only the statment of a 4 player online experience is unlikely to be implemented as well as an online ranking system. However, I do believe that it will go online and possibly be one of the greatest online. As long as there's hardly any lag. Only reason I'm so for it is because SSB is my favorite series and the multiplayer is what makes that game. Online only expands it. Note that I'm not a fanboy as I have a 360 as well as a PS3. I'll admit my Wii isn't getting much use, but Blazing Angels is heating up my PS3, and my brother uses his 360 all day. When SSBB comes out its a totally new story. It would take a miracle to drag me away from that if online capability happened.
probably not
microsoft seem to be forcing online onto games that don't even make sense to have it... Nintendo is being quite lax, and saying if you wish for online you can
probably about 2 years down the line you'll see 50% of games released with online
Â
Think of it this way. A casual just walks into a store looking for their first gaming experience. They go to the cabinet and notice three systems. What do you think they notice first? The price. One system is listed as $600.00 (Response: Whoa, that's too expensive for a video game!), the other system is listed as $400.00 (Response: That's still expensive for a video game! Store worker: It has Halo and Mass Effect is coming soon. Casual: What's a Mass Effect? O.o), and the last system is listed as $250.00 (Response: Wow, that's a great deal! And look, it has Mario! Everyone knows and loves Mario!). See where I'm going? Casuals don't care about all the extra features or how many polygons a console can push. They care about what is easily accessible to them while not burning a hole in their pocket.
 Well you see that is exactly my point... the has to be an underlying reason and in your own description.. it was mario. I am not saying that price has NO effect on what people buy, but its not the major effect.
The average consumer will at least do some research on what they want when it comes to electronics... you wont normally see someone walk in and just buy a console. At least I never have.
The main reasons people are buying the Wii are.. its a new way to play games... its familiar beloved chars (Mario, Zelda, Samus, Fox, etc..) and to a lesser extent its the cheapest. I personally would never buy an electronic, no matter how cheap it was, if it offered no entertainment value.
probably not
microsoft seem to be forcing online onto games that don't even make sense to have it... Nintendo is being quite lax, and saying if you wish for online you can
probably about 2 years down the line you'll see 50% of games released with online
monty_4256
How are they forcing it into games? Even if they were (which they're not), online > no online any day of the week. And as a a Wii owner, im very dissapointed in replayability of Wii games due to the lack of online.
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
FFXIsAstyanax
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
That's the kind of remark that was supposed to be a joke but was perceived by you to be a personal attack due to your pointless responsibility to defend a cold piece of electronics. Take a joke man. There isnt even a Winney vs Cinderella game out there.
[QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
ColonelWilks
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
That's the kind of remark that was supposed to be a joke but was perceived by you to be a personal attack due to your pointless responsibility to defend a cold piece of electronics. Take a joke man. There isnt even a Winney vs Cinderella game out there.
Was it really a joke? It sounded more like an unintelligible answer for a question I posed. If it was really a joke as you say then you should stop making jokes and actually form reasonable arguments for your unsupported position.
I think the point people are trying to get at is that online does not nesscessarily beat non-online. There are some games where online is absolutley critical (Battlefield Series, Shadowrun), but games that the online is crucial usually lack in the single-player department.Â
Single player and multiplayer experiences are totally different. If a series that previously had an exceptional single player switches to a lackluster single player with online multiplayer, the experienced is ruined, and I'd rather have the single player way.Â
Let's say if for GTA IV, Rockstar decides to implement an online deathmatch part, but in the process, the core game gets slashed down to a small portion of what San Andreas was . I know I'd much prefer the full single player game without any online multiplayer. But maybe that's just me.
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
HerbSewell
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
That's the kind of remark that was supposed to be a joke but was perceived by you to be a personal attack due to your pointless responsibility to defend a cold piece of electronics. Take a joke man. There isnt even a Winney vs Cinderella game out there.
Was it really a joke? It sounded more like an unintelligible answer for a question I posed. If it was really a joke as you say then you should stop making jokes and actually form reasonable arguments for your unsupported position.
Stop making jokes? I made just 1. Anyway, to be perfectly honest, most of nintendo's products have been aimed at a younger audience. Say what you will about "its for all ages", but N's main audience is kids. Its why the prices on their products are lower than the competition, because when a kid wants something, you might as well get him/her the cheapest brand out there on the market.
maybe but mainly wi-fi for the wii is EXTREMELY new so they will update the software before they make most gaems online maybe in the near future they will be.clarkeyboy21
Is that really a factor, though? 360 and PS3 were outfitted with online games from day 1, and it seems like utter lazyness for N not to do the same. Not to mention their horrible user interface. Friend Codes!? Who the **** thought that was a good idea?
[QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
ColonelWilks
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
That's the kind of remark that was supposed to be a joke but was perceived by you to be a personal attack due to your pointless responsibility to defend a cold piece of electronics. Take a joke man. There isnt even a Winney vs Cinderella game out there.
Was it really a joke? It sounded more like an unintelligible answer for a question I posed. If it was really a joke as you say then you should stop making jokes and actually form reasonable arguments for your unsupported position.
Stop making jokes? I made just 1. Anyway, to be perfectly honest, most of nintendo's products have been aimed at a younger audience. Say what you will about "its for all ages", but N's main audience is kids. Its why the prices on their products are lower than the competition, because when a kid wants something, you might as well get him/her the cheapest brand out there on the market.
Just like Manhunt 2 and Resident Evil 4 Wii edition. Both aimed at kids, right?
My point is that even if Nintendo was only aimed at kids for their demographics who's to say that great games can't be rated E for everyone? As long as developers know that there is a market for teen and mature games on Nintendo products then games will be made to fit the demographics.
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="HerbSewell"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"][QUOTE="FFXIsAstyanax"][QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]Oh, and to answer your question about who's buying it, it's mothers for their children that wish to play Winney-the-Poo vs. Cinderalla Wii.
HerbSewell
That's the kind of remark that loses you respect on message boards.
That's the kind of remark that was supposed to be a joke but was perceived by you to be a personal attack due to your pointless responsibility to defend a cold piece of electronics. Take a joke man. There isnt even a Winney vs Cinderella game out there.
Was it really a joke? It sounded more like an unintelligible answer for a question I posed. If it was really a joke as you say then you should stop making jokes and actually form reasonable arguments for your unsupported position.
Stop making jokes? I made just 1. Anyway, to be perfectly honest, most of nintendo's products have been aimed at a younger audience. Say what you will about "its for all ages", but N's main audience is kids. Its why the prices on their products are lower than the competition, because when a kid wants something, you might as well get him/her the cheapest brand out there on the market.
Just like Manhunt 2 and Resident Evil 4 Wii edition. Both aimed at kids, right?
My point is that even if Nintendo was only aimed at kids for their demographics who's to say that great games can't be rated E for everyone? As long as developers know that there is a market for teen and mature games on Nintendo products then games will be made to fit the demographics.
Like i said, most of N's products are aimed at a younger demographic. a few games dont change the company's long-running history. Besides, none of the games you mentioned were developed my Nintendo, which was kinda the point.
this thread is pretty much winney vs cinderella
lol, jokes
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment