Why Nintendo is doing a disservice to hardcore gamers...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="coolviper2003"][QUOTE="OMGTEHGRUKWTF"][QUOTE="axt113"]Sorry dude, Hardcore is a small segment of the market, there will still be games for them, but the blue ocean strategy of Nintendo is about much more, as for grpahics, if you can't stand SD level graphics then I feel sorry for you Dr_DudeMan
LOL. SD is 640x480. The polygons are as big as boulders.
Riiiight, because SD is so crappy :roll:, yet if the movie Shrek or Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children can look amazing and completely destroy anything on the PS3 and 360, then SD still has plenty of kick left. HD really is over rated, PS3 and 360 games could've looked even better then they do now if their maximum resolution was capped at 480p. Lol, try watching advent children in hd then tell me sd is just as good... I'm not saying SD > HD, in fact it's obvious HD >>> SD. I'm saying SD isn't nearly as bad we've been led on to believe. The industry makes us feel that we really need HD, when SD isn't bad at all. I'm all for HD, but saying "SD is 640x480. The polygons are as big as boulders." is by far one of the dumbest statements I've ever read. The fact that a six year old movie displayed at SD completely destroys anything on or that's going to be on the PS3 or 360 shows that SD still had a lot of life left.
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"] Read what I write for christ sake. I said zelda looked good, I couldnt finish it because it wasnt challenging and it got boring since there was no sense of accomplishment, and I got all the way to sky temple which from my understanding is the final leg of the game.TSComboWhat sense of accomplishment do you get from other adventure games? Do prizes fly out of the consoles or something? You don't like Mida or the new weapons? How was TP as disservice to hardcore gamers then? What game services the "hardcore"? Your idea of hardcore gamer is off. Have you played Ninja Gaiden? or Devil May Cry 3? those are tremendously difficult, and after beating a boss and eventually the game you feel like you actually accomplished something. Zelda did not do that for me. I loved Ninja Gaiden and the Prince of Persia games for the most part. I loved RE also. I've been a fan of Zelda for the longest time also. Zelda TP wasn't that difficult other than the puzzles, but it was epic in it's scope and the creativity of the dungeons and weapons/boss fights was incredible. Still don't understand how someone could be turned off by it. The puzzles were not challenging at all. Thats what turned me off to it, and yes PoP and RE are both extremely fun. First PoP was best though.
You know that whole "it looks worse on an HDTV" thing could have easily been solved by getting component cables for your Wii.TyrantDragon55Obviously I had component cables, hence it looked worse IN HD then SD, not it looked worse ON HD then SD.
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]Seriously, get back on topic. I made a thread to debate something I am interested in, not social lives, cooking, everyones histories, etc...JandurinFine, as to your topic, you asked maybe a week ago if you should trade a Wii for a PS3? How did you then happen to retroactively trade them several months ago? Is this topic fake? Or the previous one? I did not trade them several months ago. What are you talking about? I got the ps3 saturday and sold the wii friday. As for the trade the guy bailed but I found a dude to buy my wii for $550 so it worked out in the end.
[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]You know that whole "it looks worse on an HDTV" thing could have easily been solved by getting component cables for your Wii.JandurinI do hope he tried component cables... they're clearly a necessity. Gets rid of the lag, too. Once again, I did get the component cables, I had them at launch. I also played with the regular cables on an SD tv while visiting my parents for Christmas.
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="WIIRUS"]Your just a graphics whore. Bad graphics shouldnt stop you from playing a good game. oh, and TP is beautifulaxt113
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]They also don't have much visual appeal because all but Nintendo's first party art is bland and limited by weak hardware.
YellowPik
Wait, what? :?
What game other then zelda has reasonably interesting art?Paper Mario, Wario Ware, Mario Galaxy, Metriod Prime 3. Need any more? Paper Mario alone is enough to prove that point wrong.
Wow, games that have looked the same for ages...mario galaxy looks good, but the rest look terrible. I am very disappointed in what I have seen in metroid so far. Prime was great because it was lush, and now it seems like they are heading in a resistance/gears direction which looks terrible for that particular series.It's obvious that you just don't like the Wii at this point. You'll only be able to see what you want to. I would suggest to try and look at these games in a fair light, but to each his own.
I camped 2 days for it. Played it like crazy for a month, bought a ton of games for it hoping a few would be fun, so I think I gave it an extremely fair chance. And dumped it because you didn't like how the graphics looked :roll: yeah that's a fair chance 3 months is a fair chance...how long of a dust collection did it need before I should have sold it? You dumped it because of the graphics, you know quite well that most consoles take a few months to get rolling on titles, especially if you claim to be a "Hardcore" gamer, so no you didn't give it a chance, I agree with LosDaddie, you sound like a Fakeboy I DID NOT DUMP IT BECAUSE OF GRAPHICS, I DUMPED IT FOR MANY OTHER REASONS I LISTED...bad online support, easy games, bad art/same old art, lack of longetivity for the games....buh buh buh apparently the sheep seem to skip all these other things I listed. And again the main part of your post was in reference to the graphics, as for your other reasons they are foolish as well, you knew what type of online was going to be on the Wii beforehand, and you knew that the game library would take some time to get off the ground, more and more you prove that you are a fakeboy, because none of these issues were top secret before the launch Actually no, I did not know the online would be like ds online, and no I did not know they were going to focus on making easy games, and no I didnt expect Nintendo to make games with low replayability. If I would have known that I would not have bought it.Oh how I tire of these threads, you are not 'hardcore' you are just too keen to part with your money and allocate an overly substantial amount of your free-time to pressing buttons.
My take on some of the arguments you raise:
'
There is a recurring notion that pervades throughout the supposed ‘hardcore‘ gaming community. A mindset focussed on the miniscule and the micro. There is a complete disregard of art-style in the favour of technical grunt and processing power. Within this overbearing notion is a definitive crux we need to address: the consumer demand for graphics will never be satiated.
We see games that were once regarded as the pinnacle of technology being denounced as 'dated' and 'archaic' a few years after release, this gap is becoming increasingly narrow, we now see games that at the start of a consoles lifespan were deemed aesthetically amazing now seen as mediocre. The reason for this is the retardation of graphical advancement; we are forced to focus on evermore pernickety details such as 'jaggies' and screen resolution.
The relationship between developer output and consumer demand does not tessellate, we have reached a stage where graphics are advancing arithmetically (1,2,3,4) whilst demand increases geometrically (1,2,4,8 ). There are two conventional ways to avert this dissatisfaction: a) Timeless gameplay and b) timeless art-style.
Our focus shall be the latter. Consider these questions, aesthetically which game holds up better:
Yoshi's Island or Resident Evil?
LoZ: A Link to the Past or Final Fantasy VII?
Obviously those answers are based on opinion, but survey a random bystander and the likelihood is the former shall win in both cases. So we as consumers have a huge influence on the output of developers, do we buy games for the short term that at present look amazing but in years to come will look drab and uninspired? Or perhaps we, through our purchasing power, partially control the course of game development to focus on the long-term in which a game will age gracefully and remain productive forever?
An analogy would be agriculture, do we have intensive farming which yields results instantaneously but in the long-term leaves us with a dustbowl or do we practice crop-rotation and contour ploughing that will leave prosperous pastures for gaming in the future?
A third and more challenging approach for developers is to create a frame, demarcate boundaries and then express themselves as much as possible within those boundaries. An example would be the Sonnets of Shakespeare; each has a distinct set of rules but within those rules absolute masterpieces are created.'
You could stand standard resolutions 6 months ago. Has the world changed in that much time? Are those games not fun anymore?bloodychimpI have been playing 480p for years. And the fact that wii is defended by means of arguing for last gen consoles is pitiful.
[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"] Read what I write for christ sake. I said zelda looked good, I couldnt finish it because it wasnt challenging and it got boring since there was no sense of accomplishment, and I got all the way to sky temple which from my understanding is the final leg of the game.Dr_DudeManWhat sense of accomplishment do you get from other adventure games? Do prizes fly out of the consoles or something? You don't like Mida or the new weapons? How was TP as disservice to hardcore gamers then? What game services the "hardcore"? Your idea of hardcore gamer is off. Have you played Ninja Gaiden? or Devil May Cry 3? those are tremendously difficult, and after beating a boss and eventually the game you feel like you actually accomplished something. Zelda did not do that for me. I loved Ninja Gaiden and the Prince of Persia games for the most part. I loved RE also. I've been a fan of Zelda for the longest time also. Zelda TP wasn't that difficult other than the puzzles, but it was epic in it's scope and the creativity of the dungeons and weapons/boss fights was incredible. Still don't understand how someone could be turned off by it. The puzzles were not challenging at all. Thats what turned me off to it, and yes PoP and RE are both extremely fun. First PoP was best though. The puzzles were more challenging than anything I came across in POP. I found the first POP to be the better one also and the common denominator in all three was the short adventure. Another reason why I enjoyed Zelda TP.
Another graphics addict. v_v The Wii was not made for you, it was made for people who play games. Not look at them.OhhSnap50893Read the topic, and read my other posts before you make ignorant posts please.
[QUOTE="OhhSnap50893"]Another graphics addict. v_v The Wii was not made for you, it was made for people who play games. Not look at them.Dr_DudeManRead the topic, and read my other posts before you make ignorant posts please. I'm not convinced he's wrong.
i dont care if they make games for noobs as well but give me a break theres absolutely nothing for the truly hardcore except for little appetizers which we can absorb in a matter of days
i dont care about the graphics or the sound...what i do care about is the fact that there are no games which have a decent amount of depth for the wii so far...zelda was good but it was also a GC title and wasnt that much more compelling than the GC version..schuTHIS is a serious problem. Hopefully Super Paper Mario will be the beginning of the end of this depth issue.
POST of the YEAR. You should have started a thread with this one. It gets to the heart of gaming and consumer values. I would put it in my sig if it wasnt so long. BRAVO!!!!11111!one!111!Oh how I tire of these threads, you are not 'hardcore' you are just too keen to part with your money and allocate an overly substantial amount of your free-time to pressing buttons.
My take on some of the arguments you raise:
'
There is a recurring notion that pervades throughout the supposed ‘hardcore‘ gaming community. A mindset focussed on the miniscule and the micro. There is a complete disregard of art-style in the favour of technical grunt and processing power. Within this overbearing notion is a definitive crux we need to address: the consumer demand for graphics will never be satiated.
We see games that were once regarded as the pinnacle of technology being denounced as 'dated' and 'archaic' a few years after release, this gap is becoming increasingly narrow, we now see games that at the start of a consoles lifespan were deemed aesthetically amazing now seen as mediocre. The reason for this is the retardation of graphical advancement; we are forced to focus on evermore pernickety details such as 'jaggies' and screen resolution.
The relationship between developer output and consumer demand does not tessellate, we have reached a stage where graphics are advancing arithmetically (1,2,3,4) whilst demand increases geometrically (1,2,4,8 ). There are two conventional ways to avert this dissatisfaction: a) Timeless gameplay and b) timeless art-style.
Our focus shall be the latter. Consider these questions, aesthetically which game holds up better:
Yoshi's Island or Resident Evil?
LoZ: A Link to the Past or Final Fantasy VII?
Obviously those answers are based on opinion, but survey a random bystander and the likelihood is the former shall win in both cases. So we as consumers have a huge influence on the output of developers, do we buy games for the short term that at present look amazing but in years to come will look drab and uninspired? Or perhaps we, through our purchasing power, partially control the course of game development to focus on the long-term in which a game will age gracefully and remain productive forever?
An analogy would be agriculture, do we have intensive farming which yields results instantaneously but in the long-term leaves us with a dustbowl or do we practice crop-rotation and contour ploughing that will leave prosperous pastures for gaming in the future?
A third and more challenging approach for developers is to create a frame, demarcate boundaries and then express themselves as much as possible within those boundaries. An example would be the Sonnets of Shakespeare; each has a distinct set of rules but within those rules absolute masterpieces are created.'
Caviglia
Once again, I addressed my view on many of you arguments here, I dont feel like retyping it all. Good post, but nonetheless I disagree. And I am saying that the wii is not making and will not make timeless games. It is making games for casuals. The games that are timeless are so because of the hardcore community who continues to play and rant about them. Yoshi's island is not timeless, and if someone thinks TP holds up against Ocarina, then I couldnt help but laugh. And in terms of graphics, I dont care that it is not HD necessarily, I am saying that in choosing SD they are limiting there art significantly.Oh how I tire of these threads, you are not 'hardcore' you are just too keen to part with your money and allocate an overly substantial amount of your free-time to pressing buttons.
My take on some of the arguments you raise:
'
There is a recurring notion that pervades throughout the supposed ‘hardcore‘ gaming community. A mindset focussed on the miniscule and the micro. There is a complete disregard of art-style in the favour of technical grunt and processing power. Within this overbearing notion is a definitive crux we need to address: the consumer demand for graphics will never be satiated.
We see games that were once regarded as the pinnacle of technology being denounced as 'dated' and 'archaic' a few years after release, this gap is becoming increasingly narrow, we now see games that at the start of a consoles lifespan were deemed aesthetically amazing now seen as mediocre. The reason for this is the retardation of graphical advancement; we are forced to focus on evermore pernickety details such as 'jaggies' and screen resolution.
The relationship between developer output and consumer demand does not tessellate, we have reached a stage where graphics are advancing arithmetically (1,2,3,4) whilst demand increases geometrically (1,2,4,8 ). There are two conventional ways to avert this dissatisfaction: a) Timeless gameplay and b) timeless art-style.
Our focus shall be the latter. Consider these questions, aesthetically which game holds up better:
Yoshi's Island or Resident Evil?
LoZ: A Link to the Past or Final Fantasy VII?
Obviously those answers are based on opinion, but survey a random bystander and the likelihood is the former shall win in both cases. So we as consumers have a huge influence on the output of developers, do we buy games for the short term that at present look amazing but in years to come will look drab and uninspired? Or perhaps we, through our purchasing power, partially control the course of game development to focus on the long-term in which a game will age gracefully and remain productive forever?
An analogy would be agriculture, do we have intensive farming which yields results instantaneously but in the long-term leaves us with a dustbowl or do we practice crop-rotation and contour ploughing that will leave prosperous pastures for gaming in the future?
A third and more challenging approach for developers is to create a frame, demarcate boundaries and then express themselves as much as possible within those boundaries. An example would be the Sonnets of Shakespeare; each has a distinct set of rules but within those rules absolute masterpieces are created.'
Caviglia
[QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="WIIRUS"]Your just a graphics whore. Bad graphics shouldnt stop you from playing a good game. oh, and TP is beautifulDr_DudeMan
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]They also don't have much visual appeal because all but Nintendo's first party art is bland and limited by weak hardware.
YellowPik
Wait, what? :?
What game other then zelda has reasonably interesting art?Paper Mario, Wario Ware, Mario Galaxy, Metriod Prime 3. Need any more? Paper Mario alone is enough to prove that point wrong.
Wow, games that have looked the same for ages...mario galaxy looks good, but the rest look terrible. I am very disappointed in what I have seen in metroid so far. Prime was great because it was lush, and now it seems like they are heading in a resistance/gears direction which looks terrible for that particular series.It's obvious that you just don't like the Wii at this point. You'll only be able to see what you want to. I would suggest to try and look at these games in a fair light, but to each his own.
I camped 2 days for it. Played it like crazy for a month, bought a ton of games for it hoping a few would be fun, so I think I gave it an extremely fair chance. And dumped it because you didn't like how the graphics looked :roll: yeah that's a fair chance 3 months is a fair chance...how long of a dust collection did it need before I should have sold it? You dumped it because of the graphics, you know quite well that most consoles take a few months to get rolling on titles, especially if you claim to be a "Hardcore" gamer, so no you didn't give it a chance, I agree with LosDaddie, you sound like a Fakeboy I DID NOT DUMP IT BECAUSE OF GRAPHICS, I DUMPED IT FOR MANY OTHER REASONS I LISTED...bad online support, easy games, bad art/same old art, lack of longetivity for the games....buh buh buh apparently the sheep seem to skip all these other things I listed. And again the main part of your post was in reference to the graphics, as for your other reasons they are foolish as well, you knew what type of online was going to be on the Wii beforehand, and you knew that the game library would take some time to get off the ground, more and more you prove that you are a fakeboy, because none of these issues were top secret before the launch Actually no, I did not know the online would be like ds online, and no I did not know they were going to focus on making easy games, and no I didnt expect Nintendo to make games with low replayability. If I would have known that I would not have bought it. You knew what the initial batch of games would be, everyone did, and anyone who knows anything about Nintendo knew what their online was going to be like, and if you didn't then I really want to know where you'll be practicing medicine, so I can stay away, anyone who can't even figure that stuff out I don't want near my internal organs :P[QUOTE="Caviglia"]POST of the YEAR. You should have started a thread with this one. It gets to the heart of gaming and consumer values. I would put it in my sig if it wasnt so long. BRAVO!!!!11111!one!111! So hardcore gamers dont play halo 2? CS (not source)? This whole archaic thing is terrible. The wii is limited in hardware, yes. But my main complaint is that the games are bad. They are easy and they are retroactive. There was no innovation in TP in terms of art, gameplay mechanics (and dont tell me the couple things that you are able to do with the wiimote is anything mindblowing). If sheep are easily entertained and cant handle having to restart at the same point a few times until they get the puzzle or tackle a hard boss, then I am sorry because they will miss out on a lot of great games this gen. While I will miss ou on SMG which if its anything at all like Super mario sunshine, I am not missing out on anything.Oh how I tire of these threads, you are not 'hardcore' you are just too keen to part with your money and allocate an overly substantial amount of your free-time to pressing buttons.
My take on some of the arguments you raise:
'
There is a recurring notion that pervades throughout the supposed ‘hardcore‘ gaming community. A mindset focussed on the miniscule and the micro. There is a complete disregard of art-style in the favour of technical grunt and processing power. Within this overbearing notion is a definitive crux we need to address: the consumer demand for graphics will never be satiated.
We see games that were once regarded as the pinnacle of technology being denounced as 'dated' and 'archaic' a few years after release, this gap is becoming increasingly narrow, we now see games that at the start of a consoles lifespan were deemed aesthetically amazing now seen as mediocre. The reason for this is the retardation of graphical advancement; we are forced to focus on evermore pernickety details such as 'jaggies' and screen resolution.
The relationship between developer output and consumer demand does not tessellate, we have reached a stage where graphics are advancing arithmetically (1,2,3,4) whilst demand increases geometrically (1,2,4,8 ). There are two conventional ways to avert this dissatisfaction: a) Timeless gameplay and b) timeless art-style.
Our focus shall be the latter. Consider these questions, aesthetically which game holds up better:
Yoshi's Island or Resident Evil?
LoZ: A Link to the Past or Final Fantasy VII?
Obviously those answers are based on opinion, but survey a random bystander and the likelihood is the former shall win in both cases. So we as consumers have a huge influence on the output of developers, do we buy games for the short term that at present look amazing but in years to come will look drab and uninspired? Or perhaps we, through our purchasing power, partially control the course of game development to focus on the long-term in which a game will age gracefully and remain productive forever?
An analogy would be agriculture, do we have intensive farming which yields results instantaneously but in the long-term leaves us with a dustbowl or do we practice crop-rotation and contour ploughing that will leave prosperous pastures for gaming in the future?
A third and more challenging approach for developers is to create a frame, demarcate boundaries and then express themselves as much as possible within those boundaries. An example would be the Sonnets of Shakespeare; each has a distinct set of rules but within those rules absolute masterpieces are created.'
TSCombo
i dont care about the graphics or the sound...what i do care about is the fact that there are no games which have a decent amount of depth for the wii so far...zelda was good but it was also a GC title and wasnt that much more compelling than the GC version..so far..nintendo has screwed the hardcore gamer..This I can agree with, but its only been four months, the more in depth games are coming, anyone who deicides to sell a console based on the first few months is foolish
i dont care if they make games for noobs as well but give me a break theres absolutely nothing for the truly hardcore except for little appetizers which we can absorb in a matter of days
schu
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="YellowPik"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="WIIRUS"]Your just a graphics whore. Bad graphics shouldnt stop you from playing a good game. oh, and TP is beautifulaxt113
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]They also don't have much visual appeal because all but Nintendo's first party art is bland and limited by weak hardware.
YellowPik
Wait, what? :?
What game other then zelda has reasonably interesting art?Paper Mario, Wario Ware, Mario Galaxy, Metriod Prime 3. Need any more? Paper Mario alone is enough to prove that point wrong.
Wow, games that have looked the same for ages...mario galaxy looks good, but the rest look terrible. I am very disappointed in what I have seen in metroid so far. Prime was great because it was lush, and now it seems like they are heading in a resistance/gears direction which looks terrible for that particular series.It's obvious that you just don't like the Wii at this point. You'll only be able to see what you want to. I would suggest to try and look at these games in a fair light, but to each his own.
I camped 2 days for it. Played it like crazy for a month, bought a ton of games for it hoping a few would be fun, so I think I gave it an extremely fair chance. And dumped it because you didn't like how the graphics looked :roll: yeah that's a fair chance 3 months is a fair chance...how long of a dust collection did it need before I should have sold it? You dumped it because of the graphics, you know quite well that most consoles take a few months to get rolling on titles, especially if you claim to be a "Hardcore" gamer, so no you didn't give it a chance, I agree with LosDaddie, you sound like a Fakeboy I DID NOT DUMP IT BECAUSE OF GRAPHICS, I DUMPED IT FOR MANY OTHER REASONS I LISTED...bad online support, easy games, bad art/same old art, lack of longetivity for the games....buh buh buh apparently the sheep seem to skip all these other things I listed. And again the main part of your post was in reference to the graphics, as for your other reasons they are foolish as well, you knew what type of online was going to be on the Wii beforehand, and you knew that the game library would take some time to get off the ground, more and more you prove that you are a fakeboy, because none of these issues were top secret before the launch Actually no, I did not know the online would be like ds online, and no I did not know they were going to focus on making easy games, and no I didnt expect Nintendo to make games with low replayability. If I would have known that I would not have bought it. You knew what the initial batch of games would be, everyone did, and anyone who knows anything about Nintendo knew what their online was going to be like, and if you didn't then I really want to know where you'll be practicing medicine, so I can stay away, anyone who can't even figure that stuff out I don't want near my internal organs :P I am sorry that I expected more of Nintendo. My mistake. And once again with the personal attacks. How about next post you leave that last part off, and it will up your posts credibility in my book ;D.Once again, I addressed my view on many of you arguments here, I dont feel like retyping it all. Good post, but nonetheless I disagree. And I am saying that the wii is not making and will not make timeless games. It is making games for casuals. The games that are timeless are so because of the hardcore community who continues to play and rant about them. Yoshi's island is not timeless, and if someone thinks TP holds up against Ocarina, then I couldnt help but laugh. And in terms of graphics, I dont care that it is not HD necessarily, I am saying that in choosing SD they are limiting there art significantly.Dr_DudeManOoT isn't timeless, it's revolutionary but not timeless. Yoshi's Island isn't timeless but their formula's are. Most of the great franchises were born in the days of limitation graphically speaking. The first Zelda, Mario, Metal Gears, FF, etc..Nintendo isn't taking us back to those days graphically but they are saying we have come to a point where we can express ourselves graphically and conceptually. Look at Mario Galaxy. HD and SD is not necessary for great games. There will be great HD games and there will be great games with out HD.
Owned.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Koolsen
[QUOTE="schu"]i dont care about the graphics or the sound...what i do care about is the fact that there are no games which have a decent amount of depth for the wii so far...zelda was good but it was also a GC title and wasnt that much more compelling than the GC version..so far..nintendo has screwed the hardcore gamer..This I can agree with, but its only been four months, the more in depth games are coming, anyone who deicides to sell a console based on the first few months is foolish With GC's track record, I don't know why you would expect this to be any different, so far things are shaping up very similarly. If SMG ends up being good, and a significantly better zelda comes out, I will probably buy a wii in a few years when it is $100 and play the very few good first party games, as for it sitting and rotting for months waiting for a good game that I will beat in a couple days, its just not worth it, especially when demand is high and I could sell it at a very high price.
i dont care if they make games for noobs as well but give me a break theres absolutely nothing for the truly hardcore except for little appetizers which we can absorb in a matter of days
axt113
[QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Jandurin
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. I wasn't really worried about calling ownage or whatever. You should really beat games before reviewing them, though, in case that happens. I often find that the second half of a game is worse than the first.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Dr_DudeMan
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. How much did they pay you to become a fakeboy? :xhttp://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Dr_DudeMan
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Dr_DudeMan
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. How much did they pay you to become a fakeboy? :x 550 dollars. 200 dollar pure profit on the 250 he spent on the Wii.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
TSCombo
Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game.Koolsen/Agree.
[QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="schu"]i dont care about the graphics or the sound...what i do care about is the fact that there are no games which have a decent amount of depth for the wii so far...zelda was good but it was also a GC title and wasnt that much more compelling than the GC version..so far..nintendo has screwed the hardcore gamer..This I can agree with, but its only been four months, the more in depth games are coming, anyone who deicides to sell a console based on the first few months is foolish With GC's track record, I don't know why you would expect this to be any different, so far things are shaping up very similarly. If SMG ends up being good, and a significantly better zelda comes out, I will probably buy a wii in a few years when it is $100 and play the very few good first party games, as for it sitting and rotting for months waiting for a good game that I will beat in a couple days, its just not worth it, especially when demand is high and I could sell it at a very high price. Actually things are not shaping up the same way, if you paid attention you can clearly see that the Wii's sales are far outpacing the GCN's sales and that the third party support is growing, if anything Wii looks like it'll have the lions share of the market in a few months, something GCN never did, the only legitamite reason for selling the Wii is the potential profit you could make on the sale, but that's not the reason you came in arguing, you came in arguing the graphics and the games, both of which are silly arguments for the reasons that many in this thread have given you.
i dont care if they make games for noobs as well but give me a break theres absolutely nothing for the truly hardcore except for little appetizers which we can absorb in a matter of days
Dr_DudeMan
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game. I played through sky temple, I was saying it started to drag after water temple.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Koolsen
[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. How much did they pay you to become a fakeboy? :x 550 dollars. 200 dollar pure profit on the 250 he spent on the Wii.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Jandurin
Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game.Koolsen/Agree. $300 pure profit.
[QUOTE="Koolsen"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game. I played through sky temple, I was saying it started to drag after water temple.Then why not finish the game? You have 1 dungeoun left.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Dr_DudeMan
$300 pure profit.Dr_DudeManIndeed. But, I was counting a game and a controller purchased? Unless that was just the system sold?
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Koolsen"][QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Koolsen"]Owned. I was going to go back and edit it, but that was based on TP up through the lava temple. By the time I was done with water temple TP was dragging. Trust me.. the game doesnt even pick up steam until AFTER the water temple. Your missing out on the best part of the game. I played through sky temple, I was saying it started to drag after water temple.Then why not finish the game? You have 1 dungeoun left. I wanted to, I tried, I just got so bored. I am not ragging on it. I said several times zelda was a good game, it was just too easy which took away from the majority of its fun factor. So I had not motivation to finish. I actually quit zelda to play through KOTOR for the first time since I had missed it on xbox.http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/player_review.html?id=392025
Pretty high score for someone who couldnt even finish the game...
Koolsen
Hardcore gamers don't sell away there consoles. If your Wii doesn't provide you with 5 hours of challenging gameplay a day then buy another console. Anyone who throws around the term hardcore should be able to afford more than one console. Since there isn't much for Wii right now I play my 360 a lot. Hell, I even have a few PS2 games to catch up on. Why would I sell my Wii? No console shows its potential in a matter of months. Give it time. Hell, even just 5 or 6 decent Wii games a year should be enough if you have multiple consoles to play.PatchMasterWhile you have valid pts, you will see later that I sole it at 550 for a profit of 300 and I said I will probably buy it in a few years when it is 100 just for the few first party games that might be good. As for letting it sit and rot, I think a hardcore gamer who doesnt use a console does more service to the console giving it to someone who will play it and buy games for it, etc...
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]$300 pure profit.JandurinIndeed. But, I was counting a game and a controller purchased? Unless that was just the system sold? That was system sold, sold extra controllers and games seperate. Frankily, I think even the biggest wii fan woulda done this and then just bought another wii, lol.
Hardcore gamers don't sell away there consoles. If your Wii doesn't provide you with 5 hours of challenging gameplay a day then buy another console. Anyone who throws around the term hardcore should be able to afford more than one console. Since there isn't much for Wii right now I play my 360 a lot. Hell, I even have a few PS2 games to catch up on. Why would I sell my Wii? No console shows its potential in a matter of months. Give it time. Hell, even just 5 or 6 decent Wii games a year should be enough if you have multiple consoles to play.PatchMasterCompletely agree here. Hardcore gamers do not sell away their consoles. It's the ultimate sin. :P
[QUOTE="Dr_DudeMan"]Edit: What peeved me off at the start was that Nintendo put a wireless card in the wii that costs nearly $100 whereas they could have put a $10 LAN port in and used the remainder of the money towards hardware. I am sure that the wii could have been a nice little 720p console with amazing visuals had they done this, and in doing this they also alienate all the casuals who do not have wireless.Funny, the reason I don't own a 360 is because they charge 100 dollars for wireless on top of the console cost. Ya but you can still connect wired
Jandurin
To start I owned the 360 before getting the wii. Nonetheless, I was still pumped for Nintendo's "revolutionary" system. Don't get me wrong, the console is fun, but not nearly as fun as it is made out to be and it gets tremendously boring.
I used to defend the wii on these forums and now I feel like a sheep for being a blind fool. For any hardcore gamer with a nice tv and surround sound system rig, the wii is aweful. Not only is the sound horrendous, but it looks worse in HD then in SD in most cases. I find myself having way more fun playing my 360 in full hd and 7.1 digital optical surround sound. With the wii, I felt like I was back at the beginning of last gen, which resulted in it collecting dust as I continued to play my 360. About 3 months after getting it I traded my wii for a PS3.
Honestly, I am extremely glad I did. Nintendo games just don't have the longetivity that xbox live and PSN bring to games. They also don't have much visual appeal because all but Nintendo's first party art (to those color lovers, art doesn't necessarily mean painting a game in a rainbow) is bland and limited by weak hardware. I don't care if casuals and kids are dumb enough to buy the wii, and if the wii wins because of this, the 360 and even ps3 are still better consoles.
Finally, the reason I say that Nintendo did a disservice to the hardcore gamer, is because we want to be wowed by our games and stay addicted, where as kids and casuals want to flail their arms around like idiots for a couple hours instead of just going outside and playing sports, etc. I have been gaming for over 20 years, and I LOVE zelda and I could not even finish Twilight Princess. It was frustratingly easy, and actually looked worse in HD then in SD. Sorry Nintendo but that is not what I, and most tech savy folk are looking for. Congrats on getting back to the top and bringing more gamers in, but next time don't leave all of us hardcore adult gamers (and no I am not asking for mature games, I am asking for more challenging games with more longetivity) out in the cold.
Edit: What peeved me off at the start was that Nintendo put a wireless card in the wii that costs nearly $100 whereas they could have put a $10 LAN port in and used the remainder of the money towards hardware. I am sure that the wii could have been a nice little 720p console with amazing visuals had they done this, and in doing this they also alienate all the casuals who do not have wireless.
Dr_DudeMan
I agree
You Sheep act like such babies when anybody has any opinions on your WII. Everytime someone has legimate point you guys all start crying and start saying "oh but this, and oh but that", and then you start bashing because certain people don't like the Wii. Who cares, you like it so go play it, don't sit here and cry and try to convience somebody to like something when they give two rat's a$$'s about it honestly. Your just wasting your breath.xscrapzx
everyone else cries when their system gets bashed. why should the sheep not get to?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment