Why the Wii needs to fail!

[Weebull]

No but people do say "I am a book worm!" or "I am a TV addict!"

There's a subtle difference to those terms. The bookworms and the telly addicts aren't trying to make out they're better or more mature than the those who aren't as addicted to their respective arts. Because they have actually grown up and realise it doesn't matter.

You may not give a stuff about how long people play for but some people do, personally I dont think that a casual gamer who only plays for 2-3 hours a week has the same understanding and experience as someone who plays 30+ hours a week.

Nonsense, it's entirely down to taste. A single hour of Deadwood is far better than watching Eastenders and Corrie every day. In my opinion of course, but that's the point.

You could play WoW every waking hour to be a "hardcore" gamer, but that doesn't make you an expert on the new Mario, let alone anything as complex as wherer the industry as a whole should be going next.

If we had been discussing driving who would you listen to more? The person that does a 20 min round trip commute every day or the taxi driver that drives at least 9 hours a day.

Haha. You're comparing a actual skill and a job to that of a relaxing form of entertainment?

Playing lots of games makes you good at playing games. That's it. No more, no less. It doesn't give you better taste. It doesn't make you a better person (which the "serious" and "mature" terms seem to want to indicate). It doesn't mean you neccesarily even know more about games, and it certainly doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anybody else.

Many people on here are serious/hardcore gamers, they have owned several computers and consoles over the years and played many types of games. Their opinion in my eyes means more than someone who thinks his 360 roxors his boxors because it can do pretty gfx.

If the 360 boy likes his 360 games, who the hell cares? If I was a 360 owner, I may well trust his opinions more than some jaded "mature" gamer telling me how everything was better back in the day, because at least he doesn't have a superiority complex over it.

"Serious" gamers are just another form of pathetic fanboyism, with "experience" and oh-so-smart-I've-played-lots-of-games smugness replacing blind loyalty to a brand name.

 

[howdydoody]

There's a subtle difference to those terms. The bookworms and the telly addicts aren't trying to make out they're better or more mature than the those who aren't as addicted to their respective arts. Because they have actually grown up and realise it doesn't matter.

OK, so your sitting on Who Wants to be a Millionare and a book question comes up, you phone a friend. Are you going to phone someone that a) reads casually for maybe a few hours a month or b) the person who has always got a book or two on the go?

Im guessing b. Why? Because if someone has lots of experience in something then they generally know more about it than joe public who just has a passing interest. Saying someone is a serious or a hardcore gamer means nothing more than it is their main hobby and generally have a bit of experience. You may disagree with the term being used but it is here to stay and the only thing worth discussing is what would you constitute a hardcore gamer!

Nonsense, it's entirely down to taste. A single hour of Deadwood is far better than watching Eastenders and Corrie every day. In my opinion of course, but that's the point.

I never even mentioned anything about taste? Some people on here are really fanboys who consider themselves hardcore gamers but think that other gaming platforms are a joke and should be got rid of. All i have said is that for any serious gamer its the game that is important and not the platform its played on.

You could play WoW every waking hour to be a "hardcore" gamer, but that doesn't make you an expert on the new Mario, let alone anything as complex as wherer the industry as a whole should be going next.

Funny enough i nearly mentioned that playing one mmorpg over and over again doesnt constitute a hardcore gamer but as this is the console section and there is a serious lack of MMORPG for consoles i didnt bother. But in general, i agree that playing one game for many hours would not in my book be considered hardcore, just an addiction.

Haha. You're comparing a actual skill and a job to that of a relaxing form of entertainment?

Playing lots of games makes you good at playing games. That's it. No more, no less. It doesn't give you better taste. It doesn't make you a better person (which the "serious" and "mature" terms seem to want to indicate). It doesn't mean you neccesarily even know more about games, and it certainly doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anybody else.

Well if playing games and making a living from it is not classed as a skill and a job then I must be going mad, because I know a few people that do play games for a living and even one or two people who would say that there is indeed a lot of skill involved.

There you go again with the taste thing, who mentioned that being thought of as a serious gamer gavve you better taste? Nor was it said that it makes you a better person. However, I would say that on the majority, for those people who are serious gaming hobbyists (i that makes it easier for you) will know more about games than someone with a passing interest!

If the 360 boy likes his 360 games, who the hell cares? If I was a 360 owner, I may well trust his opinions more than some jaded "mature" gamer telling me how everything was better back in the day, because at least he doesn't have a superiority complex over it.

Obviously the OP does or he wouldn't of started this thread!

"Serious" gamers are just another form of pathetic fanboyism, with "experience" and oh-so-smart-I've-played-lots-of-games smugness replacing blind loyalty to a brand name.

You really have got a rod up your backside over this haven't you? You seem to think that people who consider themselves serious gamers are just pathetic know it alls, however, i think letting it get to you and ranting about it here is even more pathetic.

If the 360 boy likes his 360 games, who the hell cares?

=

If the poster wants to be know as a serious/hardcore/mature gamer, who the hell cares?

 

[Egon]

*yawn*

So... on a more serious matter - anyone found the Wii in stock at a price that I wouldn't have to sell my own corneas for?

 

[howdydoody]

*yawn*

So... on a more serious matter - anyone found the Wii in stock at a price that I wouldn't have to sell my own corneas for?

Seen a few people mention Germany are selling them at RRP and have plenty of stock, I have been on the look out around my local area for a friend but so far I have been unsuccesful.

 

[Weebull]

OK, so your sitting on Who Wants to be a Millionare and a book question comes up, you phone a friend. Are you going to phone someone that a) reads casually for maybe a few hours a month or b) the person who has always got a book or two on the go?

Im guessing b. Why? Because if someone has lots of experience in something then they generally know more about it than joe public who just has a passing interest. Saying someone is a serious or a hardcore gamer means nothing more than it is their main hobby and generally have a bit of experience. You may disagree with the term being used but it is here to stay and the only thing worth discussing is what would you constitute a hardcore gamer!

So what does that prove though? People who play a lot of games know a lot about those games?

Again, as I said, I don't see how that makes their opinions on where the industry should go any more valid. Teenagers and students with tons of spare time probably play ar more games than, say, Will Wright. But I'd trust the latter far more to make me a good game.

I never even mentioned anything about taste? Some people on here are really fanboys who consider themselves hardcore gamers but think that other gaming platforms are a joke and should be got rid of. All i have said is that for any serious gamer its the game that is important and not the platform its played on.

You didn't really say any of that when you replied to me, and I'm not sure why you did if that's what you're saying. I agree with you, but I'd say for ANY gamer it's better to have multiple platforms and competing technologies, not just the "serious" crowd.

Well if playing games and making a living from it is not classed as a skill and a job then I must be going mad, because I know a few people that do play games for a living and even one or two people who would say that there is indeed a lot of skill involved.

Again though, how does being good at a game make your opinion any more valid about the industry as a whole. There's a massive gap between being good at a competition game, and knowing how to program one, or how to run a software company, or how to schedule a console launch, or any number of jobs the higher-ups do.

Obviously the OP does or he wouldn't of started this thread!

Obviously he does, and I'm including him in my dislike of "serious" gamers, as you'd see from my earlier posts in here.

You really have got a rod up your backside over this haven't you? You seem to think that people who consider themselves serious gamers are just pathetic know it alls, however, i think letting it get to you and ranting about it here is even more pathetic.

Meh. I'm ranting on an internet forum, so sue me. I won't be the first or the last. And really, I'm not that angry. Just because I don't post excessive tons of smilies doesn't mean everything I say is deadly serious. I just don't like to use them much. If it helps, just imagine 90% of what I type has a or next to it.

[EDIT: Was going to add before stickykeys came on and broke everything so I had to restart]
I don't see why its a bad thing for me to rail against anyway. There is a superiority complex among people who class themselves as mature/hardcore/serious gamers, because I've seen it time and time again. They're insistent on telling other people what they should and shouldn't like, and it's nonsense. Just because I post a long piece of writing on an internet forum doesn't mean I'm losing sleep over it, but it's still stupid.

 

[Egon]

but it's still stupid.

Yep... but every now and again we just end up getting sucked in and the rants just flow like water off the end of our fingertips, why can't we all just get along

 

[mrbios]

without nintendo inventing all the new ideas in the console market the PS3s and Xboxs of today wouldnt be half of what they are, im not going to argue that fact with anyone because im likely to get into an argument with anyone who says otherwise

ninteno = gameplay

 

[FrankJH]

without nintendo inventing all the new ideas in the console market the PS3s and Xboxs of today wouldnt be half of what they are, im not going to argue that fact with anyone because im likely to get into an argument with anyone who says otherwise

ninteno = gameplay

All 3 present manufacturers have made the market it is today - it isnt just down to one

(it could be suggested that without the PS2 selling 110 million consoles the wii wouldnt have even appeared on average joe / joanne's radar at all )

MS, Sony, Sega and Nintendo should all be thanked for what htey have done in the past, and hpefully do in the future

 

[howdydoody]

You didn't really say any of that when you replied to me, and I'm not sure why you did if that's what you're saying. I agree with you, but I'd say for ANY gamer it's better to have multiple platforms and competing technologies, not just the "serious" crowd.

Obviously he does, and I'm including him in my dislike of "serious" gamers, as you'd see from my earlier posts in here.

I think we are arguing the same point really, although i dont mind the use of "serious gamer", only people who use it and then say things like "consoles shouldnt exist" etc. Obviously they are not a serious gamer at all if they cant enjoy and appreciate what each platform brings to the market.

 

[mrbios]

All 3 present manufacturers have made the market it is today - it isnt just down to one

(it could be suggested that without the PS2 selling 110 million consoles the wii wouldnt have even appeared on average joe / joanne's radar at all )

MS, Sony, Sega and Nintendo should all be thanked for what htey have done in the past, and hpefully do in the future

im not really talking sales though, im talking about the games, the way we use the consoles, the way there designed, nintendo are always the ones coming up with the new ideas and designs, sony just use nintendos ideas and adapt them and always have and nintendo know that

sony and microsoft are out for one thing and thats money, nintendo actually want to entertain people

anyway home time, ive had enough of "work" for today

 

[Kreeeee]

im not really talking sales though, im talking about the games, the way we use the consoles, the way there designed, nintendo are always the ones coming up with the new ideas and designs, sony just use nintendos ideas and adapt them and always have and nintendo know that

sony and microsoft are out for one thing and thats money, nintendo actually want to entertain people

anyway home time, ive had enough of "work" for today

Erm... no.

Nintendo want money as much as the other 2, they're just massively better at it than them.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

to me the wii is a gimmik. the games are fun, but are for shallow players who fancy a quick game after a few cans on a friday night. The console as a console is rubbish, it just happens nintendo has some good games, just imagine zelda on a 360/ps3 would be so much better. bigger worlds, bigger environments, a longer game etc etc.
The wii is doing well, but in a years time it will feel even more dated than it already is. As the console is so poor spec its lifespan is much much shorter than the ps3/360.

i own a ps3 and thick sony are taking the **** not releasing it with a dual shock pad, and the very least they could do is give us a free one when they are out as a way of apologising for this huge cockup.

Overall I think this time sony fail, nintendo fail as they need to replace the wii much sooner than the 360/ps3 will need replacing and microsoft win by miles (and I dont even own a 360).

 

[peetee]

bigger isnt always better.

 

[howdydoody]

to me the wii is a gimmik. the games are fun, but are for shallow players who fancy a quick game after a few cans on a friday night.

I have friends that come home from a night out and just pop the 360 on for a quick game of footy.

The console as a console is rubbish, it just happens nintendo has some good games, just imagine zelda on a 360/ps3 would be so much better. bigger worlds, bigger environments, a longer game etc etc.
The wii is doing well, but in a years time it will feel even more dated than it already is. As the console is so poor spec its lifespan is much much shorter than the ps3/360.

I think the life span will be even longer for the Wii than any of the consoles on the market, purely because of the fact that its already dated. Its main aim is to provide fun games for a large selection of people. Its not heavily gfx dependant like the 360 and the PS3, which means that in 2 years when those consoles are looking dated the Wii fans wont care because it was never about the gfx anyway!

 

[Syph]

to me the wii is a gimmik. the games are fun, but are for shallow players who fancy a quick game after a few cans on a friday night. The console as a console is rubbish, it just happens nintendo has some good games, just imagine zelda on a 360/ps3 would be so much better. bigger worlds, bigger environments, a longer game etc etc.
The wii is doing well, but in a years time it will feel even more dated than it already is.

I think if you ask Nintendo if they think the Wii has 'failed', I think they'd wholeheartedly say no. Insert the 'it prints money' .gif here

Zelda on PS3 or Xbox could be bigger. It would be 'prettier', but it looks damn good anyway (artist direction and all that, and hey, no cling film effects!). It's a big enough game on Wii... took me 46 hours to complete it without getting half of the side quests done!

 

[Wang Computer]

just imagine zelda on a 360/ps3 would be so much better. bigger worlds, bigger environments, a longer game etc etc.

That's patently untrue... It would have superior graphics, granted, but a longer game? How did you work that out?

 

[FrankJH]

Erm... no.

Nintendo want money as much as the other 2, they're just massively better at it than them.

and last generation they failed dismallly - doesnt really mean anything tbh

 

[GarethDW]

I thought that Nintendo still made a considerable amount of money from the Gamecube. According to this site, the total hardware sales for the Gamecube aren't far off the Xbox...

Worldwide Hardware Sales (End of March 2007)
PS2 - 117.89 million
Xbox - 24.5 million (unofficially estimated)
GameCube - 21.59 million

Compared to the PS2 you could say that Nintendo "failed dismally" with the Gamecube, but not if you're comparing it to the Xbox.

 

[Syph]

It was poor by Nintendo's standards also. But they still made an absolute killing. I'd like to know how far behind Nintendo were behind Sony in terms of profit for the GC/PS2. The Xbox didn't make a penny, did it?

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

That's patently untrue... It would have superior graphics, granted, but a longer game? How did you work that out?

arent wii games only single layer dvds? (I may be wrong though) an xbox has 8,5gb and ps3 has up to 100gb per disk so more room for larger environments, so more areas, so a longer game is possible. Just like it was psysically impossible to release gta on a gamecube