The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I am p****d off about how developers treat the Wii like an infant. They just try to dumb their games down and seem to believe that they are obligated to always fit in unnecessary motion control. Why is this, though? Not every developer is implementing the Sixaxis into their PS3 titles just for the hell of it, so why should the Wii be any different?
Another thing I don't get is how the 'Cube had many great games that would eat your life away like Paper Mario: TTYD, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker and even Pikmin 2. So how come the Wii is mainly made up of tired ports and watered down spin-offs (such as Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam)? What has the Gamecube got that the Wii hasn't? Isn't the Wii more powerful than it? Should people have to settle with "Soul Calibur Legends" when Nintendo was capable of Soul Calibur 2 on their previous console?
Don't get me wrong. There are lots of games I am looking forward to on the Wii: Super Paper Mario, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Fire Emblem: Goddess of Dawn, Mario & Sonic at the Olympics and Nights: Journey of Dreams to name a few. However, compare that to the HUGE numbers of games that are being released for the PS3 and Xbox 360 in just this year alone: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway, Assassin's Creed, Naruto: Rise of a Ninja, The Darkness, Grand Theft Auto IV, Alone in the Dark, Alan Wake, etc. The Wii needs more proper games, and not just five-second minigames that the player has to shake the remote and nunchuck like a pair of maracas to.
Looking at Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario Galaxy, these are two fine examples of how a game can be done properly without much unneeded control tweaks (if what we've seen and heard is anything to go by). Why can't we have more stuff like that? Obviously, I don't mind if the game actually works with the controls. Metroid Prime 3 might be just the game to make (near) perfect use of the controls, and not making them feel tacked on. Manhunt 2, which NGamer awarded an astonishing 92%, could've also been one of those games (and perhaps also be able to prove to developers that the Wii is capable of much bigger things), as the controls supposedly work well for that game. Of course, it just had to be (temporarily?) banned until Rockstar could make it more "acceptable", didn't it? This is another thing that just gets underneath my skin.
I suppose it is good to actually see some great online games on the horizon (with Mario Strikers Charged already out). It may not be able to compete with Xbox Live, and waiting times may be agonising, but it still offers plenty of good clean fun. I'm really hoping for the inevitable Mario Kart to be announced soon too.
Oh well, I guess I should end this on a positive note, so I won't say any more than that. We all know Nintendo are the king of party games, and are pretty damn good with games in general (judging from the SNES, N64, Gamecube and various Gameboy iterations), so I am hoping we will see more of what we used to- superb classics that will stay in our memories, in the good way. I guess, for now, all we can do is enjoy some of the Wii, 360 and PS3's back catalogues until we get a few AAA titles that Ninty are famous for. My rant is over (just wanted to get it all off my chest)... for now.
Another thing I don't get is how the 'Cube had many great games that would eat your life away like Paper Mario: TTYD, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker and even Pikmin 2. So how come the Wii is mainly made up of tired ports and watered down spin-offs (such as Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam)? What has the Gamecube got that the Wii hasn't? Isn't the Wii more powerful than it? Should people have to settle with "Soul Calibur Legends" when Nintendo was capable of Soul Calibur 2 on their previous console?
Don't get me wrong. There are lots of games I am looking forward to on the Wii: Super Paper Mario, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Fire Emblem: Goddess of Dawn, Mario & Sonic at the Olympics and Nights: Journey of Dreams to name a few. However, compare that to the HUGE numbers of games that are being released for the PS3 and Xbox 360 in just this year alone: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway, Assassin's Creed, Naruto: Rise of a Ninja, The Darkness, Grand Theft Auto IV, Alone in the Dark, Alan Wake, etc. The Wii needs more proper games, and not just five-second minigames that the player has to shake the remote and nunchuck like a pair of maracas to.
Looking at Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario Galaxy, these are two fine examples of how a game can be done properly without much unneeded control tweaks (if what we've seen and heard is anything to go by). Why can't we have more stuff like that? Obviously, I don't mind if the game actually works with the controls. Metroid Prime 3 might be just the game to make (near) perfect use of the controls, and not making them feel tacked on. Manhunt 2, which NGamer awarded an astonishing 92%, could've also been one of those games (and perhaps also be able to prove to developers that the Wii is capable of much bigger things), as the controls supposedly work well for that game. Of course, it just had to be (temporarily?) banned until Rockstar could make it more "acceptable", didn't it? This is another thing that just gets underneath my skin.
I suppose it is good to actually see some great online games on the horizon (with Mario Strikers Charged already out). It may not be able to compete with Xbox Live, and waiting times may be agonising, but it still offers plenty of good clean fun. I'm really hoping for the inevitable Mario Kart to be announced soon too.
Oh well, I guess I should end this on a positive note, so I won't say any more than that. We all know Nintendo are the king of party games, and are pretty damn good with games in general (judging from the SNES, N64, Gamecube and various Gameboy iterations), so I am hoping we will see more of what we used to- superb classics that will stay in our memories, in the good way. I guess, for now, all we can do is enjoy some of the Wii, 360 and PS3's back catalogues until we get a few AAA titles that Ninty are famous for. My rant is over (just wanted to get it all off my chest)... for now.
Page:
Yep, obviously I meant original in game terms. Otherwise most original games' 'original bits'/story/characterisation/etc can probably be linked to some form of tv/movie origins in some way. :D
Hedfix wrote:
> Condemned is a pretty original concept (or at-least a more
> refined version of Breakdown but everything stems from
> somewhere) and in the first year we also got Dead Rising which
> is rather original too.
Wasn't that the game with a disclaimer on the front stating it is not based on Dawn of the Dead? :D
> Condemned is a pretty original concept (or at-least a more
> refined version of Breakdown but everything stems from
> somewhere) and in the first year we also got Dead Rising which
> is rather original too.
Wasn't that the game with a disclaimer on the front stating it is not based on Dawn of the Dead? :D
I was offering 'decent' titles released within the first 6 months of the 360's lifespan, not necessarily original ones.
But to go off on that tangent:
Condemned is a pretty original concept (or at-least a more refined version of Breakdown but everything stems from somewhere) and in the first year we also got Dead Rising which is rather original too. I'm sure there are others but the originality was there (and on Xbox Live Arcade too) pretty much from the beginning.
But to go off on that tangent:
Condemned is a pretty original concept (or at-least a more refined version of Breakdown but everything stems from somewhere) and in the first year we also got Dead Rising which is rather original too. I'm sure there are others but the originality was there (and on Xbox Live Arcade too) pretty much from the beginning.
Hardly any original games there. They are all just the same old stuff you've seen on previous consoles but with nicer graphics. Im not saying they arent good, but the first batch of games is usually not groundbreaking stuff.
DoomBaboon1982 wrote:
>
> There are never any descent release titles
I'd say Graw's Bafta proves you wrong.
>
> There are never any descent release titles
I'd say Graw's Bafta proves you wrong.
Mav wrote:
>
> The 360 had to wait a year for even a handful of decent titles,
Err no.
Graw, PGR3, COD2, Condemned...
>
> The 360 had to wait a year for even a handful of decent titles,
Err no.
Graw, PGR3, COD2, Condemned...
Got it in one PB. Thats exactly the point i was trying to make. It uses it where it is needed but doesn't use it just for the hell of it.
EDIT. And the point Mav makes about the age of the console is important. The first year is pretty much a tester for all consoles. There are never any descent release titles
EDIT. And the point Mav makes about the age of the console is important. The first year is pretty much a tester for all consoles. There are never any descent release titles
The Wii is still very young, let's not forget.
The 360 had to wait a year for even a handful of decent titles, and PS3 doesn't have any yet either.
Nintendo will make the strides with regards to new, different games, and third parties will follow with their own adaptations.
The 360 had to wait a year for even a handful of decent titles, and PS3 doesn't have any yet either.
Nintendo will make the strides with regards to new, different games, and third parties will follow with their own adaptations.
I think you miss the point a little.
The Wii Remote is used for the majority of games, but where games don't need it (eg most of Strikers Charged) then it isn't used just because it is there. So not all games use it, therefore it doesn't detract from the gameplay where it isn't needed but it enhances it where it is.
Plus, the PS2 doesn't have any Nintendo games, which in my eyes is a weakness already! (the same, of course can be said of the Wii not having certain PS2 games).
At the end of the day, any console lives or dies in the eyes of the owner (or potential owner) by the games it can boast, especially those that are different to other consoles. You only need to look at the PS3 to see this. While Sony seem to have woken up to this idea and are set to release or procure a ton of original games (we hope), the Wii already has a fair share even before the 2nd wave of games appear (the 1st wave being a traditionally difficult time for any console finding its feet).
The Wii Remote is used for the majority of games, but where games don't need it (eg most of Strikers Charged) then it isn't used just because it is there. So not all games use it, therefore it doesn't detract from the gameplay where it isn't needed but it enhances it where it is.
Plus, the PS2 doesn't have any Nintendo games, which in my eyes is a weakness already! (the same, of course can be said of the Wii not having certain PS2 games).
At the end of the day, any console lives or dies in the eyes of the owner (or potential owner) by the games it can boast, especially those that are different to other consoles. You only need to look at the PS3 to see this. While Sony seem to have woken up to this idea and are set to release or procure a ton of original games (we hope), the Wii already has a fair share even before the 2nd wave of games appear (the 1st wave being a traditionally difficult time for any console finding its feet).
If the Wii-mote is barely used in the games, what exactly is the point of me buying a Wii? If gameplay feel like you are using a traditional controller then I might as well stick with my PS2 for now.
Page: