Guild McCommunist said:
alunral said:
How is the 360 better than the Wii? It has better games and better graphics and better features. Sorry that my gaming diet isn't bright and cheery platformers or hack and slash Zelda adventures and we're better off not mentioning the glorified and utterly forgettable tech demos of Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, Wii Music, etc etc.
Adding something new to gameplay means all of horse shit when you forget to actually make the system new. When the new generation came forward, at least for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, they offered advanced graphics, a huge basket full of online options and integration, games that, with this new power and such, could actually push gaming to beyond what it was. The Wii just kinda stayed in the past with all that, hell, even took a step backwards with that joke of an online system, and just gave you a control you can swing in your hands. If "innovation" is just having some completely random idea instead of realizing "Hey, we've got really strong concepts that people enjoyed last generation that, if improved upon, can be some of the best in gaming history, but let's fuck that and make a controller you can shake", then fuck innovation in general.
Also, way to demonstrate you're complete and utter ignorance. Criticizing me of "not knowing the Wii library" while you know only what the random fanboy shit is on the Xbox 360 kinda invalidates any opinion you have in the same vein. Glass houses, rocks, etc.
It seems like you're one of those people who care more about your games having "innovation" than actually being fun or being complex, a disease that seems to be corrupting the whole Nintendo community nowadays. Nintendo could tell you to jump off a bridge because it's what they'd do and I'm sure you would do it.
The term "Nintendrones" becomes something I'm more tempted to use time and time again. I just find myself trying to find a few Nintendo fans with an actual sense of logic who realize that Nintendo isn't the bleeding edge of technology, but more like taking one step forward and two steps back. Pulling something new out of its ass but forgetting to keep itself up with the times technologically. And don't say the Wii U is the fixer to all this, it's offering maybe a bit passed current generation graphics all of how many years later? Am I supposed to be impressed? The Wii did the same exact thing. It's offering features and tech similar or close to the current gen without taking any step towards a next gen, just giving us a fancy controller and expecting me to think this is what makes games so much better, not the actual games themselves.
I do believe I said I had fun playing the games I played. I'll say it again. I have fun with them. I'll spell it for you, too.
F. U. N. What features does the 360 bring? Seriously. DVD playback? I'll go ahead and say yeah, the better games part is based purely on opinion. Graphics never made a game, which is why stuff on the NES is still played, as an example. Thus graphics are irrelevant. I've looked at stuff on the 360, and really...there's very little on it that appeals to me. Yeah, it has some games to be interested in, but apart from that, no, nothing really. Fighters, FPSs, War games, shitware, maybe a few RPGs here and there. Oh yes, and has one of the worst controller setups I've ever used.
And what features does the Wii have other then motion controlls? Not much. It can't even play dvds unless you both have a dvd playbak abled wii and hack it. Most people want dvd playback on their consoles, it's been like that for as far back as the PS2. I've heard people just buying consoles for a dvd or even a blueray player. Also, graphics are apart of any game. It's not just gameplay that makes the game, it's also the graphics. I use too say that too, but I'd like to have a good looking game. If graphics don't make a game I could just make stick figures and call it a fighting game.
You call me a "Nintendrone", but what's that make you? As the DS has clearly proven, you don't need the highest-end technology to make something good. The NES certainly didn't. Don't think the SNES did. N64 definitely didn't. Gamecube didn't either. Wii as well. Onto handhelds. Gameboy, GBA, DS, and now 3DS have not had the highest technology they could have. Now look at the PSP. And the PS3. The PSP performed like shit in terms of sales, as was overly expensive compared to the competition. Until recently. The PS3, likewise, followed the same path. $600 for a console? $400? Hell no. The PS3 only started taking off after 4 years, and massive price drop. The 360 suffered as well. It has some massive hardware failure rates,
until recently, related to heating issues. The PS3 also has had a bit of a share of these. Now, correct me if I'm wrong as I could easily be, has the Wii had anything like that? As far as I know, it hasn't.
So. Was the PSP "next-gen"? What did it bring to the table that gave us something new? Nothing. What did the DS bring? It brought touchscreen, which Sony is following. The DS did more then that, though. It accelerated the use of touchscreens in everything. Now the Wii. It brought motion controls. Didn't do much else other then a bit higher graphics output then the Gamecube, but it still brought something new. Something both competitors saw fit to try and replicate. (And consequently failed miserably.) Graphics do not make something next-gen. The PS3 brought nothing special. The 360 brought, arguably, very nice online services. But nothing that can't be replicated/already hasn't been replicated successfully.
Nintendo is
not the cutting-edge of technology. But they certainly influence it drastically. Microsoft does, but not with the 360. Sony I won't comment on, because I'm not really sure. Improving graphics is not cutting-edge. Sorry to have to spill that to you.
