Steaming Wii

[Popcorn]

I got a Wii. I think it sucks. Here's why:

1) Pressing a button to swing a sword is easier, more precise, and more satisfying than waving an object around. In Zelda, at least, the motion you make with the controller has no influence on how Link attacks; you simply wiggle the thing and he does the rest. The argument that this is somehow more immersive is a completely empty one, because shaking the controller to perform an attack is in no way more 'connected' to the on-screen motion than pressing a button; if anything, it's more abstract-- to the point of absurdity. The only difference is that it's more laborious, more ambigous (the shield-stab thing is particularly hard to pull off with any degree of confidence) and, worst of all, requires you to sit up a bit when you do it.

2) To all intents and purposes, I can see no significant way in which the Wii remote will change the way games of any real depth will actually be played. If you're happy to play throw-away mini-games about bowling or shaving Wario's genitals or whatever for the rest of your life then there's an infinite spectrum of controller-waggling excitement awaiting you, but for anything of sterner standing, you're still going to be walking around with the analogue stick and pressing the A button to pull switches. The only difference is that you'll have an additional and largely superfluous layer of controller-waving activity to do as well. Aiming with the bow in Zelda is a hell of a lot easier with the Wiimote, but that's just a feature, not a revolution. And Mario Galaxy is just going to be Mario 64 with a mouse cursor.

3) Having shitty, distracting sound effects piped into the palm of my hand does not help to convince my parents that I am not a grown man playing with a cheap plastic child's toy.

Discuss.

[cjmcray]

I had a huge rant about my opinons on Nintendo, but I felt I went
off-topic, so to make a long post short, I agree with your criticisms.

The Wiimote does hold opprtunities for games like Wario, Secret Rings and the like (A Breakdown sequel MUST be made on this console)

But I can't imagine using the Wiimote for platformers. That sounds incredibly complicated.

[Zeta]

The Wiimote speaker is stupid yes, but Zelda wasn't even developed for the Wii, so your complains are kinda . . .

[Baba O'Reily]

The only thing I liked about Red Steel was the assassin missions that you got in multiplayer from the Wiimote.

But I can see how it will (not could) become gimmicky after a while. Eventually, they'll probably end up scaling back the features and relying upon things like the Classic Controller.

[Zeta]

The Wiimote is really useful for a couple of things. Flight, picking up objects and manipulating them, steering vehicles, swordfighting, and shooting. The controls will obviously excel in games that employ these heavily. Thus far, aside from Elebits and maybe Call of Duty 3 however, I haven't really heard of any that have pulled that off right. Dragon Quest Swords might do one of them good, though.

[Popcorn]

The Wiimote speaker is stupid yes, but Zelda wasn't even developed for the Wii, so your complains are kinda . . .

Maybe it's just my stunted imagination, but I can't conceive of a game of comparable depth that could make much more use of the Wii controller than Zelda does. In real terms, the remote seems only to make some activities previously performed with the analogue stick easier and other activities previously performed with a button press harder.

I think real revolution needs to take place within the design of games themselves, not the way you interract with them. Perhaps I'm being shortsighted, but the Wii thus far seems to have demonstrated to me that the slow evolution of the game controller has only slightly adjusted the way we interact with games themselves, mostly by adding more buttons and in different places. Real innovation, profoundly, has only ever come from within.

[Segaholic2]

I pretty much agree exactly with your two first points. In fact, I complained about those as fears before the system ever came out and nobody really listened to me.

[Green Gibbon!]

The Zelda point is a bit unfair since that was designed as a GameCube game - and though an unrelated point, I do agree that the Wii port was contrived - but that aside, I feel more or less the same way. Of the 5 or 6 Wii games I've played the only one that makes interesting use of the wand is Elebits, and even that lacks the depth and creativity of something like Katamari. These are minigames. This is just a different way of doing the same stuff we've already been doing for the past two decades. It's a novelty more than a revolution.

Also, the Virtual Console is stupid and the games are overpriced.

[Locit]

Toe Jam and Earl was worth every penny.

That said, general agreement, etc., etc. I am curious how they'll implement the controls in Super Mario Galaxy, though. Out of everything I've seen, it has my interest most genuinely piqued.

[Shadow Hog]

I'm more piqued for <i>Super Paper Mario</i> on the grounds that I actually know when <i>that</i> is getting released, but yeah, excluding that and other Nintendo big names like <i>Metroid</i> and <i>Smash Bros.</i>, same.

Still, it's not like it's impossible for a third-party company to come up with something I'd be interested in taking a look at... I've already purchased two Sega titles (<i>Monkey Ball</i> and <i>Sonic</i>), and I'm willing to purchase more if they're any good.

[Esrever]

In real terms, the remote seems only to make some activities previously performed with the analogue stick easier and other activities previously performed with a button press harder.

All any controller can do is allow you to manipulate images on your TV screen. So yes, all an "innovative" controller can do is make a particular kind of manipulation easier for you to do. Does it really surprise you that all the Wii controller lets you do is... control some things better? I mean... what ELSE would it do?

The Wiimote makes some activities easier and more intuitive to do, so games that are structured around those activities will be better on the system than they would be elsewhere. And yar, I think it does show a bit of a lack of imagination if you can't think of any deep concepts that it opens up.

I mean come on, we all know the analog stick always has been and always will be an incredibly shitty way to precision aim a cursor. It's the reason Lemmings and Sim City and real-time-strategy games always suck on consoles, and it's the reason that even the best console first-person-shooters have to have their entire design concepts constructed around the fact that you can't really aim especially quickly or accurately. The pointer alone opens up tremendous opportunities for console game concepts that were either too annoying or outright impossible before.

Of course, it remains to be seen if Nintendo actually bothers to explore these opportunities. I don't blame anyone for thinking the Wii titles so far -- even the fun ones -- have not been very "revolutionary." But to argue that the Wiimote's unique features have no potential for deep game designs is kind of ridiculous. Even a developer with no imagination could make a deep game that's "new" to consoles just by pilfering existing game designs that, until now, were incompatible with console controllers.

[Segaholic2]

The Wii's ability to function as a cursor manipulator is fine, but I'd wager that most people would still prefer a mouse. This is also not a revolutionary implementation.

I haven't heard of any major strategy or FPS games for the Wii, aside from Metroid Prime. Fire Emblem doesn't even use the Wii remote as a pointer, last I heard.

I don't think arguing that the Wii's "unique" features have no potential for deep game design is ridiculous at all - if anything, it's the only valid conclusion thus far. Show me something on the Wii that couldn't be done using a traditional controller (and in most cases better, for the reasons Popcorn mentioned), and doesn't rely on fleeting gimmicks or "innovative" mini-games. Looking at the Wii's current and upcoming games, I see none.

Nintendo hasn't proven that the Wii's controller is the revolution they claimed, and it seems they're not even trying. Whether they should be or not is a different argument altogether.

EDIT: Super Mario Galaxy looks terrible, by the way.

[Hybrid]

1) Pressing a button to swing a sword is easier, more precise, and more satisfying than waving an object around. In Zelda, at least, the motion you make with the controller has no influence on how Link attacks; you simply wiggle the thing and he does the rest. The argument that this is somehow more immersive is a completely empty one, because shaking the controller to perform an attack is in no way more 'connected' to the on-screen motion than pressing a button

In Zelda's defense, I disagree with you on this point. I got the chance to play the GCN version yesterday and it really did seem lame in comparison. Waving the wiimote might not be any more precise or revolutionary than pressing a button, but it is definitely a hell of a lot more fun. It just wasn't as good to be tapping B a whole lot than it was to be swinging my arms around in a frenzy as I fought the final boss.

I'll agree the Wii hasn't delivered its revolution just yet, but I can see the potential there for it in little things from lots of these early games, such as aiming in Zelda, tennis and bowling in Wii Sports, etc. Its doubtful that any of these games so far will really bring anything new to the table, and I think it is somewhat unfair to expect a complete overhaul so early on. The DS was in the same position early on in its life and look where we're at now.

Potential revolutions aside, I personally prefer the much more animated control methods the Wii offers. Even if it isn't ground-breaking, it is still more fun than pressing a button which is really what playing games is meant to be about, right?

[Esrever]

Show me something on the Wii that couldn't be done using a traditional controller.

But that's exactly what I'm saying... I can't show you something that "couldn't" be done using a traditional controller. Anything that can be done by a Wii remote COULD be done with a dual shock, or a NES pad, or a keyboard, or a steering wheel, or a pair of DK bongos. It's a controller. All it can do is control things. And the video game market has a decades-old history of forcing ANY game design to work with whatever controlling device is available at the time, no matter how appropriate that device actually is. You can play Lemmings with a D-Pad. You can play Samba de Amigo with a joystick.

The question isn't, "What can the Wii do that nothing else can?" The question is "What can it do better than anything else can?" One thing the pointer can do better than the joystick is aiming. So, why wouldn't you want one in your controller when you're playing Zelda? Because you like to aim poorly?

I'm disappointed in what the Wii has been used for so far. But I'm not disappointed in the controller. There are so many neat things it could be used for, and it amazes me that developers aren't realizing what they are. But then again, maybe it's just hard to think outside the limits of the "traditional" controller when you have been using one for so long.

[Segaholic2]

In Zelda's defense, I disagree with you on this point. I got the chance to play the GCN version yesterday and it really did seem lame in comparison. Waving the wiimote might not be any more precise or revolutionary than pressing a button, but it is definitely a hell of a lot more fun. It just wasn't as good to be tapping B a whole lot than it was to be swinging my arms around in a frenzy as I fought the final boss.

In this case, the Wii controls are actually <i>less</i> featured than the traditional ones. In the GameCube version of the game, you can control what types of sword swings you perform by holding directions on the joystick and hitting the button. Wagging the remote around on the Wii version causes Link to perform a seemingly random one, with no direct control over swing types.

"Fun" is subjective. "Features" are objective.

The DS was in the same position early on in its life and look where we're at now.

Where exactly are we at now? It could be argued that the DS suffers from similar problems.

The question isn't, "What can the Wii do that nothing else can?" The question is "What can it do better than anything else can?" One thing the pointer can do better than the joystick is aiming. So, why wouldn't you want one in your controller when you're playing Zelda? Because you like to aim poorly?

Okay, so I worded my question wrong. That still doesn't answer all my other points.

Maybe someone would prefer a regular controller because they don't like the other sacrifices that were made, like the sword swing control I mentioned above.

[Zeta]

It sounds like Popcorn wanted playing the Wii to feel like having the games magically beamed into your head so that you can realistically and physically experience every aspect of the game SIMULATED IN YOUR BRAIN.

[Segaholic2]

It sounds like Popcorn wanted playing the Wii to feel like having the games magically beamed into your head so that you can realistically and physically experience every aspect of the game SIMULATED IN YOUR BRAIN.

When someone promises a revolution, I guess some people actually expect one!

[Esrever]

Well 'holic, the thing is that the sword swing "sacrifice" didn't HAVE to be made. The Wii has a joystick and an A button. The sword control could have worked exactly the same way that it did on the Cube. That's a game design decision that has absolutely nothing to do with the potential or limitations of the controller.

As for Nintendo's PR department promising a "revolution," it is ridiculous, but no more so than the nonsense that's spouted out by the other console manufacturers. I'll get upset about the Wii not reinventing the entire gaming paradigm right about when I get upset about the Xbox 1 not offering me graphics so real that it's like playing a movie! Xbox games still looked good, and the Wii still has potential, even if neither of them are the second coming of digital Christ.

[Segaholic2]

Then it sure is a good thing Nintendo is going out of their way to disprove their controller's lack of potential.

[Esrever]

Whether or not Nintendo knows what the hell they're doing with their own software has nothing to do with the potential of their controller or any of the things I've said about it.

I'm arguing about whether original, deep game designs CAN be made for the Wiimote, in response to Pop's suggestion that they probably can't. If you want to argue with me about whether or not they ARE being made, you can't because they're not.

[Hybrid]

In this case, the Wii controls are actually <i>less</i> featured than the traditional ones. In the GameCube version of the game, you can control what types of sword swings you perform by holding directions on the joystick and hitting the button. Wagging the remote around on the Wii version causes Link to perform a seemingly random one, with no direct control over swing types.

Er, yes you can. Have you actually tried it? L-Target, press right, swing the wiimote. Link will swipe to the right. Hold forward while swinging, Link will stab.

There's no loss of "features" at all.

[Green Gibbon!]

No, the sword swinging in Zelda was really the lamest use of the wand I've seen yet. Plus it hurt my wrist. It got the point that I'd refrain from swinging at all when I could. Like, "ugh, I don't really need to slash through that grass", which kind of goes against the Zelda dynamic.

[James McGeachie]

And Mario Galaxy is just going to be Mario 64 with a mouse cursor.

And a space setting, gravity based gameplay, the ability to completely run around objects upside down (I'd have worded this better but I can't recall how you'd describe running around a sphere in degrees), entirely different level types focusing on smaller more refined areas connected through warp points instead or large open areas... and then yes, a pointer, the use of which we really don't know about yet but I assume you can imagine the possibilities of being able to directly interact with the environment in a 3d game in that manner.

I can't take someone's opinion seriously if they either think this looks "terrible" or that it's "just going to be Mario 64" again, I hate to sound like a ridiculous fanboy but this game seems incredibly "innovative" to me and like nothing I've seen before. As of right now I don't know for sure if it needs motion controls, that much is true but I'm pretty confident the cursor will be used for some features that are genuinely fresh and exciting.

[Green Gibbon!]

Is there any video of Mario floating around yet? All I've seen are a scant handfull of screenshots and it looks decent to me, but everyone I talk to says it looks like ass.

[Delphine]

It sounds like Popcorn wanted playing the Wii to feel like having the games magically beamed into your head so that you can realistically and physically experience every aspect of the game SIMULATED IN YOUR BRAIN.

This is what Popcorn has always wanted. Everytime it doesn't happen he becomes sad and angry. All these years of sadness and anger are turning him into a bitter shell of a man. On his bad days he gets drunk off Drano and carouses about town, breaking into people's houses to see if they own a PS3 yet. On his better days he comes here and yells at us. :/

I like the Wii because it's fun. That's the whole point of gaming. I'm not going to go into a long debate about it, because there's no need. I like it. If you don't, that's okay. Don't bother with it. When Sony finally knocks down the price of the PS3 to something that won't cost me two full paychecks, or when a game comes out that I really want and I go into zombie consumer mode and buy it anyway, we can play together.