So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="Nikalai_88"]

Sheep are delusional the wii mote is not realistic, it dosen't hold like a gun, it dosen't look like a gun, you don't point it in the same way like a gun, you don't hold it in the same way,there are no iron sights etc. It feels more likea remote than a gun, its much more immersive to pretend that my index finger is a barrel ofa gun then the TV remote. Both of the control methods are so far from what its like to be firing a real gun that they are essentially at the same place.

Simply keeping something pointed on the screen does not equal immersion. You also have to realise that Wii shooters will never be as immersive or as good as those of the PC. Everytime I go back to playing old RTS anf RPG games I find them fun, but when I try to play the old graphically dated FPS games (even with mods)I can never finish them. Graphics and Sound matter in shooting games and in immersion. Not just in higher quality textures but in facial animations, destructible environments, rope physics, shadows etc.

The arguments that PC gamesneed things like implemented recoil to offset the advantages of a mouse and make it more realistic shows have foolish and inexperienced FPS players Wii owners are. Its not just PC FPS games that have those, Im pretty sure there are many Tom Clancy FPS games on the Xbox and the Xbox 360 that implemented those features too with a less accurate control method.

Anyways I don't understand the argument that the less accurate control method is the better one, becaus either its too easy with the mouse or its so good that its unrealistic. The PS3 control after all is the most uncomftorable for FPS games, but also makes them the most challenging, hence following that logic it would be the best, because the most intuitive and comfortable way of playing something is not the best.

There is also one person who made the stupid point of stating that enemies in Operation Flashpoint and in Red Orchestra pop up in the fashion of heghogs. Again if Nintendo fans actually played those games then they would know that the enemies in those games act nothing like that.

TimeToPartyHard

This post is pretty much spot. I've actually been rather amused at the people stating that the Wiimote is more like "using a real gun". Holding an 8.5lb rifle is nothing like holding a remote control. The only thing they have in common is that it sits in the hand and has a trigger. Not enough difference from a mouse to warrant some false sense of "immersion".

You've missing the qualifier "more." Yes, the wiimote is MORE like firing a real gun than a traditional controller, but nothing like a gun itself. Secondly, there is more immersion, plain and simple, but as with being immersed in any game, if you already are biased and have a poor imagination, then you'll get exactly what you put in.

I guess it's more like firing a real gun like $3.99 is more like $100 than $3.89.

Sheep are delusional the wii mote is not realistic, it dosen't hold like a gun, it dosen't look like a gun, you don't point it in the same way like a gun, you don't hold it in the same way,there are no iron sights etc. It feels more likea remote than a gun, its much more immersive to pretend that my index finger is a barrel ofa gun then the TV remote. Both of the control methods are so far from what its like to be firing a real gun that they are essentially at the same place.

Simply keeping something pointed on the screen does not equal immersion. You also have to realise that Wii shooters will never be as immersive or as good as those of the PC. Everytime I go back to playing old RTS anf RPG games I find them fun, but when I try to play the old graphically dated FPS games (even with mods)I can never finish them. Graphics and Sound matter in shooting games and in immersion. Not just in higher quality textures but in facial animations, destructible environments, rope physics, shadows etc.

The arguments that PC gamesneed things like implemented recoil to offset the advantages of a mouse and make it more realistic shows have foolish and inexperienced FPS players Wii owners are. Its not just PC FPS games that have those, Im pretty sure there are many Tom Clancy FPS games on the Xbox and the Xbox 360 that implemented those features too with a less accurate control method.

Anyways I don't understand the argument that the less accurate control method is the better one, becaus either its too easy with the mouse or its so good that its unrealistic. The PS3 control after all is the most uncomftorable for FPS games, but also makes them the most challenging, hence following that logic it would be the best, because the most intuitive and comfortable way of playing something is not the best.

There is also one person who made the stupid point of stating that enemies in Operation Flashpoint and in Red Orchestra pop up in the fashion of heghogs. Again if Nintendo fans actually played those games then they would know that the enemies in those games act nothing like that.

Nikalai_88

This post is pretty much spot. I've actually been rather amused at the people stating that the Wiimote is more like "using a real gun". Holding an 8.5lb rifle is nothing like holding a remote control. The only thing they have in common is that it sits in the hand and has a trigger. Not enough difference from a mouse to warrant some false sense of "immersion".

[QUOTE="Klash47"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Hey, if they want to spent millions of dollars developing games for a system with a small installed user base that probably won't warrant them much of a return on their investment thats their sauce.Vandalvideo

its small now because it hasn't been on the market that long, think think

If every developer took that approach then no games would ever be developed seeing as how all systems start at zero.

So my big question is, will this adapter support upscaling of DVD movies over HDMI?thinicer

My guess would be no. The 360 (premium version) itself will still be required to output an analog signal (which would be converted to digital outside the unit) and thus it won't upscale a DVD since it has no way of knowing HDMI is enabled. The only way it could is if the HDMI adapter uses a vga connection at its source.

The xbox doesnt support 1080p over component, doesnt matter what your tv can handleMontavious2004

Actually it does.

1080p is defeninetly an advantage, if the game uses it right :| So far little to NO ps3 games have used it right. They include the option to use it but they don't use it right.

kittykatz5k

Actually there are several PS3 games that run native 1080p.