The Video Game Critic

a don't be niave.  Dead Rising has hundreds of enemies at once.  Even if they used simpler models the Wii couldn't handle it.  Without the graphics it would also lose what fear factor it has.

 [/QUOTE]

Just playing devil's advocate here but in Raving Rabbits you walk into a colleseum with literaly hundreds of rabbits in the stands shaking their paws at you.  Sure, it's no Dead Rising, and it's a bit choppy, but just for the sake of discussion they threw a ton of polys out there shaking their thing.

So far, Zelda and RE4 look better than most games for this generation.  Games made specifically for the Wii platform will look awesome, the same goes for those games made specifically for the 360, PS3, and PS2.  It's a given that ports will blow on the Wii (graphically) no matter what. 

In the end it's about having fun, which is something we all do playing vids.  Have you picked up Gears yet?  I'm thinking you, Shawn, JLH, and I should chainsaw some fools together sometime.

I'm perfectly aware that the 360 is much more powerful than the Wii, and it could do more than just add graphics. The thing is, the last generation of systems were capable of creating so many enemies on screen at once that anything more than that would make the screen too cluttered anyway. I hadn't thought of the per pixel detection, and I'll grant you that, but I don't see it affecting gameplay too much.

The last generation of systems was capable of creating good AI, and although I'm sure the 360 can create better, once again it seems like a moot point. The amount of time it will take developers to make lifelike AI would better be spent perfecting gameplay, and  I'm surethey can make AI as good as in Halo on Wii.

The truth is all of this is a pointless discussion anyway. Are 360 games going to be constantly ported to Wii? No. They're different consoles entirely, and most games developed for Wii will be specifically for the Wii. All I'm saying is that the only major advantage the 360's power gives over the Wii is graphics. Mind you I'm aware that the 360 has other advantages too (hardrive, online); I'm just talking about its harware here, so let's not get too angry please. 

And bluemonkey, I try not to be a grammar nerd, but if you call someone naive you should definitely make sure to spell it right.

m0zart brings up a good point: system power is relative.

Even the very best games for the 360 do not represent a huge leap forward from the original Xbox (I'm gonna get flamed for saying that, no doubt). While they certainly justify having the system, they don't give me the "holy crap" factor that upgrading from a NES to a Genesis or SNES did.

I view graphics advances like this (hang with me on this analogy): If you are obese and very out of shape, small changes in lifestyle can create some very dramatic results. If you are already in great shape, it takes an extreme amount of hard work to improve. What one has to do to go from, say, running a mile in 18 minutes down to 12 (which is what a fit adult should be able to manage) is pretty basic. What an elite athlete has to do to go from a 4.1 minute mile to a 4 minute mile is rather extreme.

In video game terms, the difference between an Atari 2600 and the next generation above that were relatively smallish (compared to the advances we see now), but the Atari graphics were so primitive that small upgrades in hardware equaled dramatic differences in the on screen visuals. Shoot, there was even a dramatic difference between early gen and late gen Atari games on the same system, as more games were developed with hi-res graphics. 

Now that we've come as far as we've come, however, it takes a system that is literally a super computer being sold at a loss to give us what one could say is only a relatively marginal boost in graphics, gameplay, AI, etc. Yep, I'm very happy with Gears, Oblivion, Fight Night etc. but I see where "a" is coming from here. Oblivion isn't really that much different than Morrowind, other than it looks better. Fight Night plays the exact same way as all the other Fight Night games. It just looks awesome. I also didn't notice the better looking character models in Madden 07 act any smarter than they do on any other version of Madden.

Huge technology leap. Small gains in gameplay. Therefore, what the Wii does is very significant: it takes the one aspect of gaming that has been relatively untouched since the NES gamepad: control. Since we haven't fundamentally changed control in the same way we've changed microprocessors and graphics technology, we can have a huge leap in gameplay. This is what makes Wii significant, important, and worth owning.  

Listen, my comparision breaks down because, to people who are a bit myopic in their gaming tastes, yeah, Gears, Resistance etc. are going to seem light years ahead of anything ever put out on Xbox. They will say "that's crap Rob, the difference between what I can play on new gen is so much better than what I can play on an Xbox or PS2!"

And I'm in m0zart's boat, both systems have great value and I'm a happy owner of both. I am just trying to shed some light, or append, a's argument. A is thinking in the macro, when maybe some of you are thinking in the micro.

-Rob

[QUOTE=R. Jones]You will run into limitations with 3D objects.  That's why all of the Total War games are at one tenth scale (100,000 troops in reality=10,000 troops in Total War).  Most games just never have any reason to put 100,000 people on the screen at one time.[/QUOTE]

The hardware difference between the Wii and the 360 is small enough that if the graphics are downgraded for the Wii version of a game it could fit as many enemies as the 360 version because they would take up less space. I'm sure it is possible for a 360 game to be at a point where the number of enemies on the screen isn't possible on Wii, but at that point the screen would be far to hectic for the game to be playable anyway.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, if you what you are saying is true then why is their practically no games coming out that are on the 360, PS3 and the Wii! MOST if not ALL multiplatform games are on the 360 and PS3 for 2007 and 2008. This is a huge reason why the Wii lacks third party support, companies don't want to make exclusive games anymore, it's just too expensive to do so. Listin, I am not knocking the Wii anymore, I could care less but what you are saying isn't true at all. Their are HUGE differences between the Wii and the PS3.

[QUOTE] Even the very best games for the 360 do not represent a huge leap forward from the original Xbox [/QUOTE]

I know I said that in the past as well, but it just isn't true.  Gears of war or mass effects look far, far ebtter than anything on the x box did and run smoother at that.

Thank you feilong80 that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. I thought the analogy was great. Shawn, there are many reasons there aren't too many games that are coming out on all three next gen systems. Part of it is the graphics. Wii visuals would have to be worse than the 360 and PS3 versions, and I'm sure some developers don't want to sacrifice that. The main reason is that the Wii doesn't have a traditional control scheme, so games that are developed specifically for it will be better.

If developers sold three versions of their games then in all likelihood the Wii version would sell the worst. Part of the reason for that is the inferior graphics, but I think it would probably not sell because people are buying Wii to get a unique experience, not the same games other consoles have with motion control thrown in. Before you say that the Wii can't handle traditional games, know that I'm not saying that. Games just have to be built specifically for Wii or else the control seems tacked on instead of intuitive.

Thank you feilong80 that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. I thought the analogy was great. Shawn, there are many reasons there aren't too many games that are coming out on all three next gen systems. Part of it is the graphics. Wii visuals would have to be worse than the 360 and PS3 versions, and I'm sure some developers don't want to sacrifice that. The main reason is that the Wii doesn't have a traditional control scheme, so games that are developed specifically for it will be better.

If developers sold three versions of their games then in all likelihood the Wii version would sell the worst. Part of the reason for that is the inferior graphics, but I think it would probably not sell because people are buying Wii to get a unique experience, not the same games other consoles have with motion control thrown in. Before you say that the Wii can't handle traditional games, know that I'm not saying that. Games just have to be built specifically for Wii or else the control seems tacked on instead of intuitive.

[/QUOTE]

Well then the Wii will be just the GC, very good to great first party titles (usually) and average third party support. I think you make some good points but I think people who buy the Wii want to play more then party games. I haven't seen ANYTHING outside of Madden where the controller actually adds anything better the analog experience. Anyway, I really don't care. If you are having fun with the system and enjoy the games that are out for it that is all that matters. I am going to pass as there isn't anything on the system or due out in the next two years that even peaks my curiosity.

It all comes down to a matter of preference, and like you said all that matter is if I like it. The system does not just have party games; if it did I wouldn't buy it (I know I said I wasn't responding to you on this anymore, but I need to get in one last word). Rayman is the only party game that I have right now, and I have 5 games (Wii Sports is not a party game). I don't plan on buying any party games aside from Wii Play in '07, and I'm only getting that for the controller. Saying the Wii only has party games is the same as saying the 360 only has FPS. Their are a lot of them on the system, but they do not make up the majority of the games, and most reasonable people can see that.

Heh, well, obviously if you think nothing good is coming out in two years, than you should pass.

This is all incredibly subjective. Here is a taste of what's to come on the Wii, and I am going to leave out, on purpose, anything that seems weird or gimmicky or "party game like, AND leave out anything developed by Nintendo:

Dragon Quest Swords: Square

Medal of Honor: Vanguard (March 26th)

Medal of Honor: Airborne (2007

Escape from Bug Island (A survival horror game): Eidos

The Bigs: 2k Sports

Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII: Ubisoft

Blitz: The League: Midway

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers: Square

The Godfather: EA

Harvest Moon Wii: Natsume

Heatseeker: Codemasters

Legend of the Dragon: American Game Factory

Line Rider: inXile

Mercury Meltdown Revolution: Ignition

Mortal Kombat: Armageddon: Midway

Prince of Persia: Rival Swords: Ubisoft

Sonic and the Secret Rings

SSX Blur: EA

Tiger Woods: EA

TMNT: Ubisoft

Transformers, the game (I have excluded what appears to be licensed crap from this list, but this game could be good if done right): Activision

And that's just what we know. There will be other games that will be released in the next two years that are, of course, not on this list at all.

My point in going to all of this trouble is that the notion that the Wii will be just about Nintendo first party titles is silly. Just as there are plenty of interesting non-Nintendo games for the DS, the same will be true here as well.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy a Wii... I'm just trying to be sure that other readers know that the reasoning that you are using is, in my opinion, open to some debate.

-Rob

Sorry for spelling naive wrong in the 30 seconds I had to post that before work.  Though technically you spelt it wrong too as it is naïve.  It's funny that you pick me up on that when you aren't a techy and have no idea what you are saying in those posts though.