wii mote is best for shooters

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

DustAmulet

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

DustAmulet

MP3 looks fine to me. and i'm mostly a pc gamer with an HDTV.

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

tomarlyn

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

DustAmulet

No you don't!! Have you only just start playing games or something? Graphics haven't always looked as good as they do today you know.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

No just like Crysis scored higher then MP3 here.

IMO kb/m is still the king but I could not see myself using a wii-mote for Halo 3 or CoD4, I guess i'm too use to analog.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Yeah and the Wiimote made games like Red Steel and Farcry Vengeance so awesome:roll:

A bad game is a bad game, there's always going to be more potential in a system with greater resources however.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

More power gives the potential for better gameplay.

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

fraz1776

Noyoudon't!!Didyouonlyjuststartplayinggamesorsomething?Graphicshaven'talwayslookedasgoodastheydotodayyouknow.

Games haven't been as good as they are today you know.

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

tomarlyn

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Yeah and the Wiimote made games like Red Steel and Farcry Vengeance so awesome:roll:

A bad game is a bad game, there's always going to be more potential in a system with greater resources however.

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

tomarlyn

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Not always. Hour of Victory idoesn't have better gameplay than Goldeneye. BioShock isn't quite as complex as System Shock 2.

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

Actually, it does make the game a lot more fun, gameplay wise and ... erm ... sexy-wise... :P

why's everyone going off topic? the thread was about controls not graphics.Ontain

Going off topic was the only way they could come up with an arguement, I take it.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

The raw power behind the PS3 isnt the reason for LAIR being so bad, it was the terrible motion sensing controls that where implanted into it, that and it lacked depth and content. Yes graphics are eye candy, but eye candy is a good thing. SMG is the best looking game on the Wii, are you telling me you could of done without the nice graphics in SMG and perfectly enjoyed him looking like a square head. SMG would of only gotten better if Wii had better hardware.

those are made by ubi no wonder . medal of honour heros 2 have best controlls i have ever seen. deadmeat59

Ubi make great games, just not so much for inferior hardware. Fancy controls aren't everything.

Power>>Control.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]why's everyone going off topic? the thread was about controls not graphics.TheEndBoss

Going off topic was the only way they could come up with an arguement, I take it.

There's no arguement to be had.

He thinks wiimote is best for FPS, I think differently. A key word for all this is opinion. His opinion differs from mine, but I can still acknowledge and accept it. The only way to make a debate it to bring other issues into the topic, such as good graphics, something the Wii hasn't got and never will get.

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

DustAmulet

i dont get it, no video game looks even close to real life yet, so in terms to being graphically immersive, all games suck

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

tomarlyn

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Agreed but as far as acual controls are concerned Wiimote is better than analogue. Whether one wants to put up with inferior graphics for better control is another question.

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"]

those are made by ubi no wonder . medal of honour heros 2 have best controlls i have ever seen. tomarlyn

Ubi make great games, just not so much for inferior hardware. Fancy controls aren't everything.

Power>>Control.

But without decent controls, power means nothing. Nobody's going to give a damn if Anubis II looks like Crysis if the controls make the game near unplayable.

There's no arguement to be had.

He thinks wiimote is best for FPS, I think differently. A key word for all this is opinion. His opinion differs from mine, but I can still acknowledge and accept it. The only way to make a debate it to bring other issues into the topic, such as good graphics, something the Wii hasn't got and never will get.

super_mario_128

"Good graphics" is also a matter of opinion. I might not think a game is very pleasing to look at, even if it is technologically impressive. Therefore, I don't think it looks good. For an example, I don't think Lair looks good. It's technologically impressive, but it having "good graphics" is an opinion.

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

VendettaRed07

i dont get it, no video game looks even close to real life yet, so in terms to being graphically immersive, all games suck

However, some games are less graphically immersive. Thet aren't all on equal footing, here.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"]

those are made by ubi no wonder . medal of honour heros 2 have best controlls i have ever seen. TheEndBoss

Ubi make great games, just not so much for inferior hardware. Fancy controls aren't everything.

Power>>Control.

But without decent controls, power means nothing. Nobody's going to give a damn if Anubis II looks like Crysis if the controls make the game near unplayable.

Sorry but what's Anubis II ?? oh and I kinda agree with ya, I like a game that's looks decent with a good controls then just a game that looks awsome with horid or the same old controls.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]

There's no arguement to be had.

He thinks wiimote is best for FPS, I think differently. A key word for all this is opinion. His opinion differs from mine, but I can still acknowledge and accept it. The only way to make a debate it to bring other issues into the topic, such as good graphics, something the Wii hasn't got and never will get.

TheEndBoss

"Good graphics" is also a matter of opinion. I might not think a game is very pleasing to look at, even if it is technologically impressive. Therefore, I don't think it looks good. For an example, I don't think Lair looks good. It's technologically impressive, but it having "good graphics" is an opinion.

FPS is the type of genre that is best suited for 'realistic' graphics. Imagine Half Life 2 with cartoony/art-likegraphics, now stop screaming. Then again, Team Fortress 2 is best suited with a'cartoony' look, because of the humour in the game. So, I think realism is best suited to FPS's, because they are normally serious, and gritty games that 'need' that look. Therefore, PC is probably the best for FPS's, due to good control and power.

Power>>Control.

tomarlyn

Can I quote you on that?

[QUOTE="TheEndBoss"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"]

those are made by ubi no wonder . medal of honour heros 2 have best controlls i have ever seen. Oroin

Ubi make great games, just not so much for inferior hardware. Fancy controls aren't everything.

Power>>Control.

But without decent controls, power means nothing. Nobody's going to give a damn if Anubis II looks like Crysis if the controls make the game near unplayable.

Sorry but what's Anubis II ?? oh and I kinda agree with ya, I like a game that's looks decent with a good controls then just a game that looks awsome with horid or the same old controls.

Be glad you don't knowits crap.

after playing all the systems and pc . the wii mote feels by far the most real. i even like it better then keyboar and mouse . i dont like how on pc theres no rumble you have to lay down it on a table. the wii mote is light you hold it in your hand has speak ruble and mothin sensor it just works the best . deadmeat59

by this logic, wouldn't a light-gun be the best controller for shooters. True, the Wiimote is basically a tilt sensing light gun, but is it really easy to move and shoot quickly with it? shotting in red steel was a painful experience

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

deadmeat59

FPS is the type of genre that is best suited for 'realistic' graphics. Imagine Half Life 2 with cartoony/art-likegraphics, now stop screaming. Then again, Team Fortress 2 is best suited with a'cartoony' look, because of the humour in the game. So, I think realism is best suited to FPS's, because they are normally serious, and gritty games that 'need' that look. Therefore, PC is probably the best for FPS's, due to good control and power.super_mario_128

I think what you should be saying is "most first-person shooters are gritty and realistic" instead of "first-person shooters are best-suited toward realism and grittiness". First-person shooters not trying to be realistic has remained untapped potential. The successful shooters were all realistic. Developers don't want to take risks anymore since games cost so much to make now. Hence the many shooters, hence the main realistic shooters.

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

DustAmulet

What did you do last gen?

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"][QUOTE="deadmeat59"][QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

Games played from a first person perspective need cutting edge graphics in order to fully immerse the player in the game world. The Wii cannot do this.

tomarlyn

I'm sorry but raw power = better and more advance gameplay.

Graphics can do this as well with good lighting. I look to the likes of Doom 3 and Bioshock in that instance, when enemies can hide in the shadows and take you by surprise among other things. The controller means less than the actual building blocks of a game itself.

Yeah and the Wiimote made games like Red Steel and Farcry Vengeance so awesome:roll:

A bad game is a bad game, there's always going to be more potential in a system with greater resources however.

[QUOTE="TheEndBoss"]

[QUOTE="Ontain"]why's everyone going off topic? the thread was about controls not graphics.super_mario_128

Going off topic was the only way they could come up with an arguement, I take it.

There's no arguement to be had.

He thinks wiimote is best for FPS, I think differently. A key word for all this is opinion. His opinion differs from mine, but I can still acknowledge and accept it. The only way to make a debate it to bring other issues into the topic, such as good graphics, something the Wii hasn't got and never will get.

did you even play SMG?

because last timeI checked those constitute as "good" graphics :|

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]FPS is the type of genre that is best suited for 'realistic' graphics. Imagine Half Life 2 with cartoony/art-likegraphics, now stop screaming. Then again, Team Fortress 2 is best suited with a'cartoony' look, because of the humour in the game. So, I think realism is best suited to FPS's, because they are normally serious, and gritty games that 'need' that look. Therefore, PC is probably the best for FPS's, due to good control and power.TheEndBoss

I think what you should be saying is "most first-person shooters are gritty and realistic" instead of "first-person shooters are best-suited toward realism and grittiness". First-person shooters not trying to be realistic has remained untapped potential. The successful shooters were all realistic. Developers don't want to take risks anymore since games cost so much to make now. Hence the many shooters, hence the main realistic shooters.

I hope TimeSplitters makes a good comeback. I always liked it because it didn't take itself too seriously (like 99% of modern shooters).

Sorry but what's Anubis II ?? oh and I kinda agree with ya, I like a game that's looks decent with a good controls then just a game that looks awsome with horid or the same old controls. Oroin

One of the worst games ever made. Don't make the same mistake I did and play it just to find out how bad it was.

did you even play SMG?

because last timeI checked those constitute as "good" graphics :|

Shinobishyguy

Half Life 2, a game made in 2004, looks nicer. I'm not saying SMG looks bad, but it only looks good by Wii's standards.

I hope TimeSplitters makes a good comeback. I always liked it because it didn't take itself too seriously (like 99% of modern shooters).--ProtoMan--

Indeed. Playing a humorous shooter was a refreshing experience amidst the seriousness of almost all other shooters today. This is exactly why we need Duke Nukem! :cry:

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

did you even play SMG?

because last timeI checked those constitute as "good" graphics :|

super_mario_128

Half Life 2, a game made in 2004, looks nicer. I'm not saying SMG looks bad, but it only looks good by Wii's standards.

You're comparing realistic graphics to cartoony graphics, and telling us one looks better than the other? Might want to reconsider your statement.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

did you even play SMG?

because last timeI checked those constitute as "good" graphics :|

TheEndBoss

Half Life 2, a game made in 2004, looks nicer. I'm not saying SMG looks bad, but it only looks good by Wii's standards.

You're comparing realistic graphics to cartoony graphics, and telling us one looks better than the other? Might want to reconsider your statement.

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Steel to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Steel to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.super_mario_128

1. All of which is a matter of opinion, since you can't gauge which game looks better as you can with realistic games. With them, you can say "this game looks more realistic". For cartoony games, you can't really say much other than you like the art sty1e of one game more than another (which would be an opinion.)

2. Or you could use Metroid Prime 3: Corruption so you don't look quite as biased.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Ste[QUOTE="TheEndBoss"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"]

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Steel to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.TheEndBoss

1. All of which is a matter of opinion, since you can't gauge which game looks better as you can with realistic games. With them, you can say "this game looks more realistic". For cartoony games, you can't really say much other than you like the art sty1e of one game more than another (which would be an opinion.)

2. Or you could use Metroid Prime 3: Corruption so you don't look quite as biased.

1) Firstly, it is not opinion. Viva Pinata looks a lot smoother and has a seriously similar art-**** Ratchet is also very similar and looks smoother. Team Fortress doesn't look similar, so fair enough, in this case it is opinion.

2) Metroid Prime is an FPA. Not only that, but the graphics look totally different to Half Life 2.

kaythxbai.

el to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.

1. All of which is a matter of opinion, since you can't gauge which game looks better as you can with realistic games. With them, you can say "this game looks more realistic". For cartoony games, you can't really say much other than you like the art sty1e of one game more than another (which would be an opinion.)

2. Or you could use Metroid Prime 3: Corruption so you don't look quite as biased.

1) Firstly, it is not opinion. Viva Pinata looks a lot smoother and has a seriously similar art-**** Ratchet is also very similar and looks smoother. Team Fortress doesn't look similar, so fair enough, in this case it is opinion.

2) Metroid Prime is an FPA. Not only that, but the graphics look totally different to Half Life 2.

kaythxbai.

[QUOTE="TheEndBoss"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"]

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Ste[QUOTE="TheEndBoss"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"]

Ok, then I'll compare SMG to Viva Pinata, or Ratchet and Clank, or Team Fortress 2; all of which have nicer graphics than SMG and all of which are very good games.

Perhaps if I compared Red Steel to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.super_mario_128

1. All of which is a matter of opinion, since you can't gauge which game looks better as you can with realistic games. With them, you can say "this game looks more realistic". For cartoony games, you can't really say much other than you like the art sty1e of one game more than another (which would be an opinion.)

2. Or you could use Metroid Prime 3: Corruption so you don't look quite as biased.

1) Firstly, it is not opinion. Viva Pinata looks a lot smoother and has a seriously similar art-**** Ratchet is also very similar and looks smoother. Team Fortress doesn't look similar, so fair enough, in this case it is opinion.

2) Metroid Prime is an FPA. Not only that, but the graphics look totally different to Half Life 2.

kaythxbai.

el to Half Life 2? Now look at the difference.

1. All of which is a matter of opinion, since you can't gauge which game looks better as you can with realistic games. With them, you can say "this game looks more realistic". For cartoony games, you can't really say much other than you like the art sty1e of one game more than another (which would be an opinion.)

2. Or you could use Metroid Prime 3: Corruption so you don't look quite as biased.

1) Firstly, it is not opinion. Viva Pinata looks a lot smoother and has a seriously similar art-**** Ratchet is also very similar and looks smoother. Team Fortress doesn't look similar, so fair enough, in this case it is opinion.

2) Metroid Prime is an FPA. Not only that, but the graphics look totally different to Half Life 2.

kaythxbai.

Do you deny that SMG is a "good" looking game that looks pleasing to the eye?

Have you even played thething?

1) Firstly, it is not opinion. Viva Pinata looks a lot smoother and has a seriously similar art-**** Ratchet is also very similar and looks smoother. Team Fortress doesn't look similar, so fair enough, in this case it is opinion.

2) Metroid Prime is an FPA. Not only that, but the graphics look totally different to Half Life 2.

kaythxbai.

super_mario_128

1.) Smoother is all you can really say. I wouldn't call the art sty1es similar at all. And you're telling me Super Mario Galaxy doesn't look good, I take it?

2.) And Red Steel's don't?

Wiimote is best for shooters.....

Too bad the best shooters aren't on Wii and never will be.....

To Shinobishguy:

1) My point where I said Wii could never have good graphics was both exaggerated and worded wrong and I apologise to anyone who I offended with my statement.]

2) Super Mario Galaxy is a good looking Wii game, and I suppose, a good looking game i general. But if it was on the PS3 and xbox360, it certainly wouldn't be praised for having 'nice' graphics.

3) No I haven't, some people aren't made of money but are still entitled to judge things from screenshots.