The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Mafia 2
Bad company 2
Alan Wake
Red Dead Redemption
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Black Ops
Anyone got any Idea's?
> Super Mario Galaxy 2 is quite blatently not aimed at young men
> unlike CoD. Yes of course you will get Nintendo fanboys who love
> Mario, or just enjoy playing the game; they're the exception.
> There's a reason why you don't see 6 year olds on Call of Duty
> too often.
I'd say SMG is aimed at everyone. There are plenty of older gamers who enjoy playing it, myself included and I'm in no way a Nintendo fanboy. A game doesn't need to be filled with violence and bad language to appeal to an older audience.
> I own a Wii, and I've played the likes of SMG through to RE4,
> and honestly, I had the worst time ever, because the Wii is not
> built for the 'big boy games' as I'll call them (eg. CoD). IMO,
> the only reason why RE4 was a success on the Wii, despite being a
> 'big boy game', is because of RE's history in arcades; the Wii
Referring to any game as a 'big boy game' is laughable in itself. What defines such a title? Is it simply that the game features plenty of violence and death? It would seem to be. If so, MadWorld is the biggest boy game yet. You also won't be able to play Manhunt 2 on your 360 or PS3, and the body count in No More Heroes is through the roof. To my eyes, though, there is nothing 'adult' or 'mature' about any of those titles. They are all just teenage boy fantasies, the kind of thing that you laugh at with your mates. There is nothing wrong with this kind of escapism, but let's not delude ourselves into believing this is anything like grown-up behaviour.
> All I can say is that when the majority of games for a console
> look better on the box than they actually are, you know the
> console is a no-no.
Not really. The wii has a plethora of great games that don't rely on graphics to attract gamers. I'm also sure that a lot of gamers would agree that games like Madworld and Mario Galaxy are far more beautiful visually than many graphically advanced games (brown and bloom) on the other consoles.
Click here
Click here
Personal taste though I guess.
> I own a Wii, and I've played the likes of SMG through to RE4,
> and honestly, I had the worst time ever, because the Wii is not
> built for the 'big boy games' as I'll call them (eg. CoD). IMO,
> the only reason why RE4 was a success on the Wii, despite being a
> 'big boy game', is because of RE's history in arcades; the Wii
> replicating the old experience for many fans.
I'm pretty sure there was only one RE arcade game, and that's pretty far fetched reasoning for RE4's popularity. Maybe it's because it has controls that put Resident Evil 5 to shame?
I also find it kinda funny that you refer to a game played by obscenity spouting man-children as a "big boy game".
> Wii - Motion Capture = Terrible Console
>
> To explain the above, motion is the only thing that makes the
> Wii unique. I'm willing to listen if anyone can come up with
> something else unique to the Wii in terms of features, I
> certainly can't think of anything else. So for me, the Wii is a
> pointless console, especially with Microsoft and Sony moving in
> on the motion capture market, and with the graphics they'll be
> able to deliver, the Wii is going to be dead before long, apart
> from the many 7 year olds who will be amused by the cartoons.
Oh dear God. It's folly to say a system would be awful without a
defining feature because it wouldn't be the same system. It's like saying imagine the Xbox 360 without HD graphics, let's be honest, it would be very similar to the original Xbox. Whereas without motion controls, the Wii would pretty much be a Gamecube.
Nintendo introduced a console built around the idea of motion control. The system is so popular because it has managed to build a library of games that both take advantage of this and appeal to the general public. Many hardcore gamers may not be thrilled about the motion controls but stick with it, because Nintendo don't mess up their 1st Party belters, and the casual support has increased third party interest in the system.
Sony and Microsoft are trying to jump on this bandwagon but sorry boys, you're four years too late. Nintendo release a new system every 5-6 years, and with 50 millions consoles sold, the Wii will never be classed as a failure, even if the poor motion launch offerings from the other two do take off.
Wii's time is coming to an end, you'd be silly to think Nintendo isn't going to release a new console in the next couple of years
with a new stand out feature, whilst the two muscled catch-up consoles play..... catch-up.
Also, this must sound pretty biased, but I'm a PC gamer myself, and I own consoles from all three manufacturers.
I own a Wii, and I've played the likes of SMG through to RE4, and honestly, I had the worst time ever, because the Wii is not built for the 'big boy games' as I'll call them (eg. CoD). IMO, the only reason why RE4 was a success on the Wii, despite being a 'big boy game', is because of RE's history in arcades; the Wii replicating the old experience for many fans.
The one time when I enjoyed the Wii was in the first month of owning it, when Wii Sports Tennis was the best thing in the world. Once you've played it for a month, the whole motion thing wears off, and you start looking at it as a console. And quite simply:
Wii - Motion Capture = Terrible Console
To explain the above, motion is the only thing that makes the Wii unique. I'm willing to listen if anyone can come up with something else unique to the Wii in terms of features, I certainly can't think of anything else. So for me, the Wii is a pointless console, especially with Microsoft and Sony moving in on the motion capture market, and with the graphics they'll be able to deliver, the Wii is going to be dead before long, apart from the many 7 year olds who will be amused by the cartoons.
You could argue that consoles can't be unique, they have the same function etc etc. but when a console relies on one factor (ie. in this case, motion capture) it's a risky move. At least the likes of the Xbox and PS3 are becoming multifunctional systems (cue the PC fanboys to rush in at this point :P).
2nd Rant Over.
My take is that the Wii is fighting against its reputation at all times. A games reveiwer has to cater to the audience, and when that audience are littering the forum/comments with "WII KIDDY *#£! SUCKS!" then there must be a temptation for said reviewer to mark down accordingly? It seems to be very much that the Wii brings out a hatred in people. This is undeserved, as it is not Nintendo's fault that EA chose to make Carnival Games. (Actually, having seen the trailer for Carnival Games 2, I am tempted to try it. It looks fun!)
This reputation leads to presumption in many cases. If a game is on the Wii, it must be kiddy. It must be minigames. It must be crippled somehow. It must have stupid waggle. It must be less of a game than it could be. We see this all the time, and reviews frequently fall back on the disclaimer " good for a Wii title" as if this is somehow excusing the prejudice. I maintain that Little Kings Story would have been a Game of the Year contender on the PS3, but as it is Wii exclusive it is largely ignored.
Alongside this is the mere fact that graphics are such a big deal. A game like Killzone 2, for example, looks astonishingly good. Such a shame then that it played like any one of a hundred other FPS games. If I were reviewing it, I would have gone with a 7. Many sites went with a 10. Frequently, games that look less than polished are punished for their graphics, and the key component of gameplay is ignored.
I honestly believe it is harder for a Wii game to get a 10, at least online. That Mario Galaxy 2 has gotten such UNIVERSALLY glowing reviews speaks absolute volumes.