Which system won this generation to you?

[Foxi4]

I'm pretty sure the Spider-Man games were the "same" too (downports with worse graphics). Also some games you mentioned, like Sonic Unleashed. The way I see it, if the content is generally the same, it's the same game.

Well, like I said - Call of Duty was from the top of my head and I did say that the earlier mentioned titles still apply.

As for Force Unleashed 2, it has a completely different story on the Wii than on other consoles, so the content is not the same, which is what I'm getting at. Not sure about Force Unleashed 1, but I'd wager that it follows a similar scheme.

 

[JulietStMoon]

Well, like I said - Call of Duty was from the top of my head and I did say that the earlier mentioned titles still apply.

As for Force Unleashed 2, it has a completely different story on the Wii than on other consoles, so the content is not the same, which is what I'm getting at. Not sure about Force Unleashed 1, but I'd wager that it follows a similar scheme.

My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.

 

[Foxi4]

My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.

Entirely possible story-wise, not sure how it looked engine-wise, but I'll bite - so Force Unleashed 1 can be considered multiplat, however, I know for a fact that it's not the case with Force Unleashed 2, as I played it both on the Wii and the 360 and they're completely different games.

 

[Gahars]

Disagreement is the basis of this discussion. I simply stated my opinion on the matter, and for some reason I get bitched at for doing so.

The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that you make posts like this, criticizing others for doing something you later say you agree with.

Almost every other site I've been to regards Xenoblade Chronicles as the best RPG of this generation. Granted, I haven't played more than 10 hours but I enjoyed what I tried (music was amazing too).

And I've never heard that claim being made on any site beyond GBAtemp; I don't think that verdict is quite as popular as you're making it out to be. I've seen generally positive reactions to the game, but that's about the extent of it.

EDIT:

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.

Just a nitpick, but the Wii version had multiplayer; the other versions did not.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Force Unleashed on the Wii was such utter shit. The motion controls were fucking awful, graphics were ugly, and the game itself is just crap.

Also a console with downports is just kinda a bad console. Saying "Oh it has X, just a worse version" feels like your console is just a worse console.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Force Unleashed on the Wii was such utter shit. The motion controls were fucking awful, graphics were ugly, and the game itself is just crap.

Also a console with downports is just kinda a bad console. Saying "Oh it has X, just a worse version" feels like your console is just a worse console.

 

[Lurker2]

I might of messed up a bit on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_3-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_360-only_games
I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I've probably spent more time on my 360 then my Wii.
The honest truth is the Wii had more exclusive games though some of them were games remade for the system as said above.
You might like the 360/PS3 more for the multiplatform games, exclusives, graphics and online features.

All systems have their random exclusive indie and JRPGs on them. Some series have their games ported to PC later. The list below only covers games that may or will have a sequel so that is why Banjo-Kazooie and some others are missing. I might of also missed some games series
Microsoft has Halo, Forza, Gears Of War and Fable series as exclusives.
Playstation has God of War, Gran Turismo, Infamous, Killzone, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Uncharted and Yakuza series as exclusive though Yakuza may go multiplatform.
Nintendo has Animal Crossing, Donkey Kong, Kirby. Mario Kart-Party-Paper-Platformer, Metroid, Pikimin Super Smash, Wario and Zelda series as exclusives

 

[suppow]

My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.

i own both version, i could check it out. havent played it in forver, but from what i remember they had the same basic core gameplay, but were different games.
either way it was a bad game, and it was hyped as the next Jedi Knight Academy or whatever. =/

 

[Foxi4]

The problem with this thread is lack of objective direction - you can't objectively state which console was "the best" without clear direction on what you mean. Do you mean graphics? Do you mean the specs? Do you mean the controllers? Do you mean online features? Without clear gradation, one cannot objectively judge something. There will always be a glimmer of subjectivity in every opinion, but it has to remain a glimmer.

That said, the thread has the "to you" portion, which allows for favourism, so hey!

 

[gamefan5]

The moment I saw the thread's title, I thought it was way to general.
So people are gon' keep bashing to each other about which console is best...
Just for that, I rather not say which one I thought was the best for this generation 'cause no matter which side you're in, you're gonna get bashed at.

 

[suppow]

The moment I saw the thread's title, I thought it was way to general.
So people are gon' keep bashing to each other about which console is best...
Just for that, I rather not say which one I thought was the best for this generation 'cause no matter which side you're in, you're gonna get bashed at.

so much for freedom of speech lol

 

[_acid_]

overall i think the 360 or ps3 or pc take this generation, they had lots of games from respected developers, everyone remembers fondly all the triple a titles that have been released, but the wii just didnt have 3rd party support like the others. all the crap bogged down the system's potential.

 

[gamefan5]

so much for freedom of speech lol

Bitch plz, in GBAtemp, freedom of speech barely exists when it comes to preference over something. XD

 

[Deleted_171835]

And I've never heard that claim being made on any site beyond GBAtemp; I don't think that verdict is quite as popular as you're making it out to be. I've seen generally positive reactions to the game, but that's about the extent of it.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/xenoblade-chronicles (92/100)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=440547
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454123
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/06/xenoblade-chronicles-review-a-cut-above/
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/xenoblade-is-the-best-jrpg-ive-played-this-gen.250144597/


Xenoblade being the best (J)RPG of this generation or in recent years is a claim that has been made a lot.

 

[Clarky]

My understanding is that Force Unleashed 1 was the same storywise (with motion controls added), but I'm not sure. I'll have to check it out....

Just did some reading. Hard to find info, but if what I'm reading is correct, Force unleashed 1 on Wii truly is the same game, just with added motion controls and less horsepower and no multiplayer.

wrong way round mate the Wii version was the only one to have a multiplayer mode, a one on one fighting one. There was one unique level in the game too but I believe it came as DLC to the other formats

 

[Foxi4]

Xenoblade being the best (J)RPG of this generation or in recent years is a claim that has been made a lot.

1. Metacritic Score of Xenoblade Chronicles 91/100, Metacritic Score of Fallout: New Vegas 84/100, Sounds legit.
2. LOL@neogaf.
3. IGN? Really?

Mind you, remember that Xenoblade carries the curse most Wii games have to live with. Reviewers tend to stress it a whole lot... It's a great game... for Wii standards. I'm afraid I could think of numerous games which top Xenoblade without sweat - I dedicated a few hours to it and it was a tad of a borefest, even though I *really* wanted to like it due to the hype. I dig the exploration, the open world, I even dig the battle system... but... the game is just so slow for some reason, at least that's the impression I'm getting. I don't like the pacing and I don't like the fact that the player has very little "direction" - soon after the Monado got passed to Shulk, I embarked on an epic exploration quest, and to be honest, I got lost with no idea what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go, and the amount of time I spent jumping around the map looking for stuff was not rewarded with epic gear - it turned out to be a grind fest of killing rabbits and other assorted woodland critters rather than doing something constructive.

 

[Deleted_171835]

1. Metacritic Score of Xenoblade Chronicles 91/100, Metacritic Score of Fallout: New Vegas 84/100, Sounds legit.
2. LOL@neogaf.
3. IGN? Really?

Mind you, remember that Xenoblade carries the curse most Wii games have to live with. Reviewers tend to stress it a whole lot... It's a great game... for Wii standards. I'm afraid I could think of numerous games which top Xenoblade without sweat - I dedicated a few hours to it and it was a tad of a borefest, even though I *really* wanted to like it due to the hype. I dig the exploration, the open world, I even dig the battle system... but... the game is just so slowfor some reason, at least that's the impression I'm getting. I don't like the pacing and I don't like the fact that the player has very little "direction" - soon after the Monado got passed to Shulk, I embarked on an epic exploration quest, and to be honest, I got lost with no idea what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go, and the amount of time I spent jumping around the map looking for stuff was not rewarded with epic gear - it turned out to be a grind fest of killing rabbits and other assorted woodland critters rather than doing something constructive.

Come the fuck on.

Metacritic is used to indicate that most critics adored the game and I'm not even going to try to argue against your banal disapproval of the other sites, though.

What I have issue with in your post is your use of 'for Wii standards'. No fucking shit, when judging the visuals of the game, you have to consider the limitations of the platform. I'm not going to criticize the PSP God of War games for not looking as good as the PS3 games. Or the DS Assassin's Creed games for not matching the visuals of the console AC games. Xenoblade looks stellar for the Wii and there's nothing wrong with that.

>criticizes a game for being slow
>has only played the first few hours

Okay then.

 

[Foxi4]

Come the fuck on.

The Metacritic is used to indicate that most critics adored the game and I'm not even going to try to argue against your banal disapproval of the other sites, though.

What I have issue with in your post is your use of 'for Wii standards'. No fucking shit, when judging the visuals of the game, you have to consider the limitations of the platform. I'm not going to criticize the PSP God of War games for not looking as good as the PS3 games. Or the DS Assassin's Creed games for not matching the visuals of the console AC games. Xenoblade looks stellar for the Wii and there's nothing wrong with that.

>criticizes a game for being slow
>has only played the first few hours

Okay then.

I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for. As for the pacing, it's incredibly important. A game has to have a firm grip on the player from the very first few minutes, let alone hours. I gave Xenoblade a chance, even more of a chance than I did with a lot of other titles and it failed to impress - liking or disliking it is entirely subjective. If I drop skittles into a bucket and then fill the bucket with black licorice, I'm not going to dig through countless black licorice pieces to get to the skittles - I don't like black licorice. Either the game serves me the experience I want right off the bat or it doesn't - I don't need to finish the entirety of a game to establish that it's boring if I played it one whole day and didn't like it - it's as simple as that.

Metacritic is not a good source of intel in that kind of a debate as it rounds up scores from vastly different platforms with vastly different horizons of expectations of the target audience. You can't simply limit yourself to a two or three digit number in reviewing a game - tastes are subjective and simply cannot be rounded up in such a fashion, at all.

You can use rounded-up scores when talking about games on the same platform, but not when the platform is vastly different. What is acceptable and highly-rated on a Wii may be incredibly average on a PC, and in fact vice-versa.

 

[JulietStMoon]

I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for.

I think it's also fair to note that, at least at the time of the American release, Xenoblade was even MORE of a godsend, since the Wii was basically dead at that point. Before that, the last real noteworthy exclusive games we got were Zelda: Skyward Sword and Kirby's Return to Dream Land.

 

[Deleted_171835]

I didn't mean it that way - I didn't even mention visuals. What I meant was that compared to your usual shovelware title on the Wii, Xenoblade was a much-needed godsend, meaning, an actual game worth spending money for. As for the pacing, it's incredibly important. A game has to have a firm grip on the player from the very first few minutes, let alone hours. I gave Xenoblade a chance, even more of a chance than I did with a lot of other titles and it failed to impress - liking or disliking it is entirely subjective.

Metacritic is not a good source of intel in that kind of a debate as it rounds up scores from vastly different platforms with vastly different horizons of expectations of the target audience. You can't simply limit yourself to a two or three digit number in reviewing a game - tastes are subjective and simply cannot be rounded up in such a fashion, at all.

You can use rounded-up scores when talking about games on the same platform, but not when the platform is vastly different. What is acceptable and highly-rated on a Wii may be incredibly average on a PC, and in fact vice-versa.

So essentially, you think that critics/users gave Xenoblade a pass because it was better than most other Wii games. Well that's a ridiculous stance to hold. A game will be criticized for its faults and praised for what it does right regardless of whether it's on the Wii or another platform. Being on the Wii doesn't make critics or users more lenient.

For an 100 hour game, you gotta play more than an hour or so to get a feel for it. From what you said, you reached the part where you get the Monado meaning that you hardly even progressed far from the intro. You don't have to like the game but to outright dismiss it when you haven't even played a reasonable amount of it is foolish.