|
Post by Gunman_sr5 on Nov 20, 2006 0:26:48 GMT -5
There is a controller for the classic games that will be sold separately. I know that, I just didn't know if it could be used on wii games instead of using the wiimote and nunchuk. I don't think so Tim.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Nov 20, 2006 0:27:57 GMT -5
You seem to contradict yourself ck; first you say the hardware doesn't matter, then it does..like you said, ms and sony went w/ improved graphics and sound, nintendo went w/ a new way to play w/o much improvement to graphics and sound. My point was that graphics and sound by themselves don't make a good game; there are plenty of nes games that have substandard graphics that are still better games than certain ones for ps2, xbox, etc. PS3 and 360 games just don't seem like they're bringing anything new to the table, the wii is.
I think the reason the wii has peaked my interest is bc many of today's games simply don't interest me enough to get me to go out and buy a system to play them. Sure there are good games that don't need a fancy motion-activated controller to play, but that doesn't mean a motion-activated controller isn't a cool idea w/ an enormous number of possibilites for fun gameplay. That's why the wii has me excited about video games again.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Nov 20, 2006 0:35:05 GMT -5
First of all - I never contradict myself.
Second - I think you misread what I wrote or I should have written it in a different way.
Where did I say the hardware doesn't matter....then it does?
I asked why make a new system if you aren't improving the hardware.
I also said that good games should be independent of the hardware.
How is that a contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by ElvisAaronBU on Nov 20, 2006 1:31:46 GMT -5
I think that improved graphics and sound DO allow for better games/new game types. For instance, a game like Oblivion couldn't really be done properly on a PS2 or Xbox. Also, (assuming the Wii controller really works well) the Wii could do all sorts of other cool game types.
However, it seems useless to argue which approach is "better". They offer completely different experiences. 360 and PS3 offer you current "usual" variety of games. The Wii will be great for arcade-ish type games.
On a side note-- IMO, all of these systems are overpriced, with the 360 being to most reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Devastator_2000 on Nov 20, 2006 2:49:55 GMT -5
The one thing that this new generation of game systems does do for me is that I can now find an Xbox and PS2 for a good price. I have most of the older systems: PS1, N64, Saturn, Dreamcast, SNES, NES and Genesis. Now I can add a PS2 and Xbox. I will pass on Gamecube since the Wii can play its games.
Back to the debate. I think that what system you get really depends on the games you play. If you are like me and love the classic Nintendo characters, the the decision is easy, nuy the Wii. If you are big into High Def, then the PS3 is a steal. You are getting a 800 - 1000 $$ Blue Ray drive AND a game system for 600 dollars. If you want a console that is more closley tied to the PC, the the Xbox is your system. If you are a game freak, the you have every system known to man and you will have all 3 of the new ones sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Nov 20, 2006 20:11:33 GMT -5
I don't think it "kills" the family-friendly aspect; you might need to be a bit more careful, but at least the kid'll actually be getting exercise while playing a video game. You want them to exercise while gaming, get DDR (or an old NES with a Power Pad, if I remember the name of the old mat correctly) - at least then they have to move their feet. Just waving your arms around isn't exercise, and with kids is a recipe for injury. Especially when impatience and "It's my turn!" set in ....
|
|