Support NeoGAF

[Masklinn]

I shouldn't have to prove my Wii credentials just because YOU disagree with me and attempt to label me a troll.

It's not about my disagreement, it's about your tag. Also, about you being wrong.

The competitiveness remains the same.

The goalposts, they are a'moving.

 

[Opiate]

Only if you're talking about single player. In multiplayer, everyone is using the same system. The competitiveness remains the same.

Ugh, the cycle continues. I just got finished having this conversation with Matt. Can you just look up four or five posts to see my response to this please? I'm not getting caught up in a conversation where people keep switching the argument on me.

Me: KB/M is the superior control method.
Opposition: No, they're all equal. As long as everyone uses the same input, it's fair.
Me: That's like justifying playing with controllers that have one button. It's fair, right? So why not?
Opposition: I don't really feel that controllers are worse than KB/M.
Me: While there is no strict measurement, the general consensus is that KB/M is indeed superior. The abundance of auto aim in console shooters supports this.
Opposition: As long as everyone uses the same input, it's fair.

And around and around we go! It's very frustrating to have the argument shift over and over.

 

[dammitmattt]

Now you're switching the argument, Matt. First, you argued that it's fair as long as everyone uses the same control method; now, you're arguing that maybe controllers are as effective as KB/M after all.

Regarding your new argument, there is no measurement to point to; nothing concrete that "proves" one control method better than another. For example, how would I "prove" that one handed volleyball is less effective and precise than two handed volleyball? There is no measurement of "effectiveness." All we can use is common sense. Obviously, common sense dictates that using two hands is more effective.

Thus, I think it's sufficient to say that I don't agree that controllers are as effective as KB/M -- after significant time with both control methods -- and it seems like the majority of those who try both don't agree, either. In addition, the fact that most shooters on consoles have ample auto aim while PC shooters do not is strong evidence of my position.

I do agree that analog sticks are better for movement, but that hardly makes up for the lack of a mouse. Again, that's the general opinion. Although interestingly, what you're suggesting (pointer control + analog movement) seems dangerously close to suggesting that the true control champion is the Wii, since that is the precise set up it has.

I'm simply arguing your point that it is a POOR control input method. Not as good as mouse/keyboard != poor.

And you're right that the Wii has the potential to have the best controls, but there are still issues with getting the bounding box stuff right. Plus it requires a bit more effort.

First, I was talking about auto aim requiring less skill, since the post you quoted dealt with Killzone 2 AA. Yes, a game with significant auto aim takes less skill. Games with significant auto aim include: Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Call of Duty 5, and virtually all of the major shooters on the PS3/360. Second, it's less skill, not no skill. As a person primarily concerned with the skill curve, this matters a lot to me. Would anyone really deny that auto aim reduces the skill quotient of a game? I wouldn't think so, but I'm willing to listen.

It's just a different set of skills, but it's still entirely skill-based. The better player will always have a huge leg up over the lesser player, regardless of what control input they are using. A small bit of auto aim that lets you get in a few shots into the chest doesn't matter when a skilled player is sniping you in the head

It's not about my disagreement, it's about your tag. Also, about you being wrong.

What about my tag? It was a joke. There was never a ban bet and a mod was just playing around. I was wrong about GTA4 sales and dead-on about Mario Kart that month.

So what about a wrong prediction makes me a troll?

 

[justchris]

And these millions of people go out and make the Wii the number one seller of third party games every month. I think its just people on the message boards that have a problem with the games releasing on Wii. These people clearly know what they want. People make all types of claims on why core games don't sell but taking a look at the top 20 you will see that a golds gym exercise game made the top 20(never even heard of it, no advertising).

Any game can sell. Every game sells at least a few copies, because someone picks it up at random, that's the entire point of shovelware. The thing is, when you compare something like The Conduit to Halo; Conduit is a well designed, if generic game in a popular genre. Halo is an event no one would dare miss.

From the standpoint of ability to sell, Wii Fit is more like Halo than The Conduit is. If the Conduit had the same marketing blitz that Halo, or Wii Fit, or RE5 or GTA4 had, and it still turned out to be a good game, it would sell similarly. Human beings are by nature communal animals, its the reason Xbox Live is so effective at selling the "game of the month". If you convince people that everyone is playing it, a number will pick it up out of curiosity, others will pick it up because its something they like that they might not have known was coming otherwise, and if its a good game, it will then sell on word of mouth. People like to tout word of mouth as the best advertising, but its advertising that is only possible if someone, you know, actually ever buys your game.

You keep saying that, but the key difference is that the 360/PS3 market has been proven multiple times over, whereas Wii is still a relatively unproven market for these product. Publishers still don't know whether to rest on their loins and release namebrands that sell well (RE:UC) or if it's the genre of these games that are capturing gamers (Dead Space: Extraction). Wii has changed the market, but, given Nintendo's aversion for mature products, HVS is the only studio that has stepped up and said "Whatever, we're going to dive into the the violent/mature market even though it's got its fair share of failures and successes." However, given HVS's pedigree and funding, it might not push that many units, which would, yet again, be seen as a failure for the mature Wii space.

Its a good thing developers didn't take that stance on the Xbox 360 back in 2005, otherwise Microsoft would be in trouble. I mean, who knew Gears of War would sell? I'm not saying that your point is wrong, its quite correct, I'm just saying that thinking leads to stagnation of the market.

You keep saying that, but the key difference is that the 360/PS3 market has been proven multiple times over, whereas Wii is still a relatively unproven market for these product. Publishers still don't know whether to rest on their loins and release namebrands that sell well (RE:UC) or if it's the genre of these games that are capturing gamers (Dead Space: Extraction). Wii has changed the market, but, given Nintendo's aversion for mature products, HVS is the only studio that has stepped up and said "Whatever, we're going to dive into the the violent/mature market even though it's got its fair share of failures and successes." However, given HVS's pedigree and funding, it might not push that many units, which would, yet again, be seen as a failure for the mature Wii space.

Like I said earlier, there are a lot of variables, the main one being the ability to reuse assets/tools/engines. A new Dead Space on Wii is going to cost comparable to the original Dead Space, because it has to use all new stuff. A sequel to GTA:VC on Wii could have reused the PS2 assets & engine, and would have just needed new tools, making it automatically significantly cheaper than GTA4. If publishers are so risk averse, why do they fund these massively expensive games unless they're going to spend the marketing money to make them successful (not GTA in this instance, but lots of HD games are sent to die, even pretty expensive ones).

 

[pakkit]

It's too late. Too bad for Nintendo. The end.

It absolutely isn't Nintendo's problem, though. Reggie's quote, however delicious, was just a crowd-pleaser for the board readers. If Nintendo wanted to, they could easily just step up and announced Eternal Darkness 2, or a new IP placed in the mature market (they owe us as much, their promises for original IPs in the early Wii days included Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Disaster). Those releases, if pushed well, would absolutely demand the attention of it's gamer market. The problem is, Nintendo has released games like that, namely Metroid Prime 3, but they did it in such a stealth manner, with the only advertising that I saw being limited to tech-savvy Wii owners, that it's consumer data was inconsequential to third-parties. Third-parties, with very little exceptions, are afraid to venture into untested waters on Nintendo platforms. The last Nintendo console to get a good amount of FPS games was the Nintendo64, and that was because 3rd parties had Rare's GoldenEye and Perfect Dark to follow.

Also, I'm willing to bet that Super Smash Bros. Brawl cost more than the majority of its HD counterparts. I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate here, though, as it is most certainly the exception, not the rule.

 

[SuperBonk]

Ugh, the cycle continues. I just got finished having this conversation with Matt. Can you just look up four or five posts to see my response to this please? I'm not getting caught up in a conversation where people keep switching the argument on me.

Me: KB/M is the superior control method.
Opposition: No, they're all equal. As long as everyone uses the same input, it's fair.
Me: That's like justifying playing with controllers that have one button. It's fair, right? So why not?
Opposition: I don't really feel that controllers are worse than KB/M.
Me: While there is no strict measurement, the general consensus is that KB/M is indeed superior. The abundance of auto aim in console shooters supports this.
Opposition: As long as everyone uses the same input, it's fair.

And around and around we go! It's very frustrating to have the argument shift over and over.

Uhh, poor controller method has nothing to do with my answer. Do you know what skill means? Because that's what you were talking about.

Your argument implies that you would somehow be better at Halo or Call of Duty because auto-aim makes killing people easier. I said, yeah, it probably does. But it also makes killing you easier. To say that you could compete with the best Halo players simply because you are used to no auto-aim doesn't make any sense.

I am in no way arguing that dual analog is a better control method for shooters. Please understand what the words you are typing mean before you type them. I do not like it when I'm attacked for something I didn't even say.

 

[Opiate]

I'm simply arguing your point that it is a POOR control input method. Not as good as mouse/keyboard != poor.

Sure, I'm willing to agree to that. To someone like me -- to whom skill is paramount -- less skill dramatically reduces the appeal of a game. But again, not everyone plays for skill as exclusively as I do: many people care a lot about community, or just play to relax, or for a variety of other reasons.

And you're right that the Wii has the potential to have the best controls, but there are still issues with getting the bounding box stuff right. Plus it requires a bit more effort.

If you remember where this discussion started, someone asked why anyone would buy shooters on the Wii. Here is the answer.

It's just a different set of skills, but it's still entirely skill-based. The better player will always have a huge leg up over the lesser player, regardless of what control input they are using. A small bit of auto aim that lets you get in a few shots into the chest doesn't matter when a skilled player is sniping you in the head

I definitely disagree. Let's imagine absolute auto aim for a moment, just to make my position more clear. That is, you will always shoot an opponent, no matter how far off your aim is, as long as there is at least one opponent within visual range.

You'd have a hard time arguing, I think, that this setup takes as much skill as no auto aim. A new player could come in and do very well under those conditions.

The same basic principle applies to moderate auto aim, just to a much smaller degree. From years of experience, there is no question in my mind that new players have an easier time jumping in to games with auto aim. The reason for this is that they do decently right off the bat, and this suggests that the skill curve is shallower.

 

[Rolf NB]

uhhhh duh???

Of course Wii games can be more expensive if your going to compare 360/PS3 shovelware to the highest funded third party Wii title to date.

And in many other, markedly less contrived cases too.

Things that go into making a game, in hand-waving terms:
*program
*level design/layout
*level geometry #
*models #
*textures #
*shading model #
*animation model #
*motion capture
*sound effects
*voice
*writing
*translations
*marketing
*legal/corporate overheads
*replication
*distribution

Marked with # are the items that can be made more expensive for an "equivalent game" on an HD console, or likewise items that can be made less expensive when you go the other direction.

Let's pretend for a while that Dead Space: The Actual Real Thing was a Wii game, it had all the same levels, the same campaign, the same enemies and weapons, the same audio etc, with the only difference being texture resolution and polygon counts for the characters.

How much less would it have cost to make? What's the proportion of modeling and texturing to the overall cost of making a game "with a serious effort"?

 

[pakkit]

Its a good thing developers didn't take that stance on the Xbox 360 back in 2005, otherwise Microsoft would be in trouble. I mean, who knew Gears of War would sell? I'm not saying that your point is wrong, its quite correct, I'm just saying that thinking leads to stagnation of the market.

Each console has their assumed market. 3rd-parties assume that kiddy games will sell well on Nintendo platforms, so you'll be much harder pressed to find those types of games on HD platforms.

3rd-parties also correctly assumed that the Halo crowd would follow the 360, and we see plenty of (too many, actually) FPS and action titles on Microsoft's console.

The only misstep this generation was 3rd-parties assuming that PS2 owners would take up the PS3, which turned out to be untrue and led to (in addition to quite a few exclusive-game misfires for the platform early on) a pretty stagnant PS3 market for the first 2 years.

 

[SuperBonk]

It's not about my disagreement, it's about your tag. Also, about you being wrong.

The goalposts, they are a'moving.

Do you know what that goalposts sentence means or are you just using it because you've seen others use it? I ask because that response really doesn't make any sense. At all.

It's ok, you can admit it. Tons of people have poor debating skills. I'm just trying to help you get better.

 

[ghst]

Your argument implies that you would somehow be better at Halo or Call of Duty because auto-aim makes killing people easier. I said, yeah, it probably does. But it also makes killing you easier. To say that you could compete with the best Halo players simply because you are used to no auto-aim doesn't make any sense.

you allow an automated set of undefined variables to fill in where your ability ends to make the experience more enjoyable.

halo is the mario kart of fps, and for that, it's fine.

Everyone is playing with the same rules, so it's all a matter of skill. It's not like you're taking a controller against a guy with mouse/keyboard. It's much more fun for me to sit back on my couch and play shooters on my 55" TV

oh wow. if only you knew how to use the search function, you'd realize your argument was dead in the water before you even typed it.

 

[SuperBonk]

you allow an automated set of undefined variables to fill in where your ability ends to make the experience more enjoyable.

halo is the mario kart of fps, and for that, it's fine.

No argument there. Unless you're implying that being a good Mario Kart player takes no skill, which it seems like you aren't.

 

[Opiate]

Uhh, poor controller method has nothing to do with my answer. Do you know what skill means? Because that's what you were talking about.

I am in no way arguing that dual analog is a better control method for shooters. Please understand what the words you are typing mean before you type them. I do not like it when I'm attacked for something I didn't even say.

Are you suggesting that all games takes exactly equal skill to master, no matter the control method, as long as everyone uses the same controller?

Assuming you do agree that different games do indeed have different skill curves (is this concept even really in question?) then I submit the obvious conclusion that auto aim reduces the skill curve of any given game, making it easier for new players to do well from the get go.

 

[SuperBonk]

The same basic principle applies to moderate auto aim, just to a much smaller degree. From years of experience, there is no question in my mind that new players have an easier time jumping in to games with auto aim. The reason for this is that they do decently right off the bat, and this suggests that the skill curve is shallower.

If you're talking about skill curve (you weren't in the response I quoted) then yeah, I'd agree with you. It's much easier for people to jump in and play a game with auto-aim. Now I just don't understand why that's a bad thing.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Eternal Darkness 2

For!

 

[Chumly]

And in many other, markedly less contrived cases too.

Things that go into making a game, in hand-waving terms:
*program
*level design/layout
*level geometry #
*models #
*textures #
*shading model #
*animation model #
*motion capture
*sound effects
*voice
*writing
*translations
*marketing
*legal/corporate overheads
*replication
*distribution

Marked with # are the items that can be made more expensive for an "equivalent game" on an HD console, or likewise items that can be made less expensive when you go the other direction.

Let's pretend for a while that Dead Space: The Actual Real Thing was a Wii game, it had all the same levels, the same campaign, the same enemies and weapons, the same audio etc, with the only difference being texture resolution and polygon counts for the characters.

How much less would it have cost to make? What's the proportion of modeling and texturing to the overall cost of making a game "with a serious effort"?

Well you can start from a Wii game costing 1/4 of an HD game and work your way up from there from what EA said.

 

[Opiate]

No argument there. Unless you're implying that being a good Mario Kart player takes no skill, which it seems like you aren't.

I think he's arguing it takes less skill. That's all. For people like me (and I believe ghst, based on his post history), who want to maximize the skill curve, this matters a great deal.

For people who care less about the skill curve, this is absolutely fine.

 

[Opiate]

If you're talking about skill curve (you weren't in the response I quoted) then yeah, I'd agree with you. It's much easier for people to jump in and play a game with auto-aim. Now I just don't understand why that's a bad thing.

It's not for some people. It is for me, because I like complex games that prove challenging to master. Those are preferences.

And I believe that's all we're saying, Superbonk. The mouse and keyboard provide a control method which allows more precise aiming and through that a steeper learning curve. For people who care a great deal about precision and skill, then the KB/M are superior.

Looking back to where this conversation started, Bonk (this was on the last page), this came up in reference to the Wii Mote and FPS. Someone asked why anyone would want to play FPS on Wii. I responded, in essence, that some people prefer the control method because it offers more precision than the PS3/360 controller.

That's it.

 

[SuperBonk]

Are you suggesting that all games takes exactly equal skill to master, no matter the control method, as long as everyone uses the same controller?

Assuming you do agree that different games do indeed have different skill curves (is this concept even really in question?) then I submit the obvious conclusion that auto aim reduces the skill curve of any given game, making it easier for new players to do well from the get go.

Ok, so you've changed the argument to skill curve, that's fine. But there are still some problems.

First, "equal skill to master" is a nonsense statement. Those are two subjective things that there's no way to quantify. What do you mean by master? As in learn all of the mechanics? Then what is this besides an argument for increased complexity and/or difficulty?

Second, your argument is that Mouse and Keyboard is the superior input. Once again, I'm not refuting this argument, only your points for this argument. You are saying mouse and keyboard is better because the learning curve is steeper. This is because there's no auto-aim while dual analog shooters do have auto-aim. But isn't the reason for this because mouse and keyboard make it easier to aim? Following logically from this, your ideal shooter would be a dual analog shooter with no auto-aim. After all, wouldn't it take a great deal of "skill" (over a million skill-watts!) to "master" it?

 

[Opiate]

Matt: I can see now what started this conversation: the post you initially responded to was very denigrating towards PS3/360 controllers. I didn't just suggest that it took less skill, but I stated that I "couldn't imagine" why anyone would want to play with them. That was the fault, and I agree that was unfair. I apologize.

SuperBonk: I'm sorry for being dismissive. I just have a personal peeve of shifting arguments (i.e. people changing the discussion slightly to suit their argument), and that topic happened to be what Matt and I had just discussed. I apologize for seeming so mean.

 

[SuperBonk]

SuperBonk: I'm sorry for being dismissive. I just have a personal peeve of shifting arguments (i.e. people changing the discussion slightly to suit their argument), and that topic happened to be what Matt and I had just discussed. I apologize for seeming so mean.

Don't worry about it. Apologies if I came off harsh. NPD brings out the worse in us.

 

[Opiate]

Ok, so you've changed the argument to skill curve, that's fine. But there are still some problems.

First, "equal skill to master" is a nonsense statement. Those are two subjective things that there's no way to quantify. What do you mean by master? As in learn all of the mechanics? Then what is this besides an argument for increased complexity and/or difficulty?

Second, your argument is that Mouse and Keyboard is the superior input. Once again, I'm not refuting this argument, only your points for this argument. You are saying mouse and keyboard is better because the learning curve is steeper. This is because there's no auto-aim while dual analog shooters do have auto-aim. But isn't the reason for this because mouse and keyboard make it easier to aim? Following logically from this, your ideal shooter would be a dual analog shooter with no auto-aim. After all, wouldn't it take a great deal of "skill" (over a million skill-watts!) to "master" it?

No, although this is an interesting discussion.

Without further stipulation (Which I will get to), my ideal wouldn't even be dual analog -- you haven't taken this far enough -- it would be a controller with exactly one button. You could do everything through a series of morse code, e.g. Dot-Dash-Dot would be "fire," or "move forward." Think how challenging that would be!

And now for the stipulation: I would argue that it is not the game taking more skill with such a controller, it is the input method which is now more challenging. The former is satisfying to master, while the latter is not.

Here's a real world example: I control a baseball bat with both my hands when I play baseball. Would it be more challenging to control the bat with just one hand? Yes. But it isn't as if the game of baseball just became more challenging, it's that I increased the challenge by playing with a frustrating, comparatively ineffective control method.

Increasing challenge by increasing the skill curve of the actual game is something I find satisfying. Increasing the difficulty by insisting on a less effective control method is not satisfying. These are personal preferences again, SuperBonk, but in this instance I think you'll find most people agree with my viewpoint, even if they aren't all skill obsessed like me.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Any numbers for Raiden Fighters Aces?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Is someone actually arguing that console controls are actually "good"? :lol

The shit people settle for is amazing.

And in many other, markedly less contrived cases too.

Things that go into making a game, in hand-waving terms:
*program
*level design/layout
*level geometry #
*models #
*textures #
*shading model #
*animation model #
*motion capture
*sound effects
*voice
*writing
*translations
*marketing
*legal/corporate overheads
*replication
*distribution

Marked with # are the items that can be made more expensive for an "equivalent game" on an HD console, or likewise items that can be made less expensive when you go the other direction.

Let's pretend for a while that Dead Space: The Actual Real Thing was a Wii game, it had all the same levels, the same campaign, the same enemies and weapons, the same audio etc, with the only difference being texture resolution and polygon counts for the characters.

How much less would it have cost to make? What's the proportion of modeling and texturing to the overall cost of making a game "with a serious effort"?

Pretty graphics don't make a game that much more expensive. Just look at the small developer PC scene (Zeno Clash comes to mind). What makes games more expensive are things like presentation, intense geometry and detailed environments, increase in staff in order to meet strict deadlines, features (such as single player and multiplayer modes), etc.

It's one thing if you just merely update the textures and add a bit more polygons. But it's completely another if you completely overhaul everything.

 

[Opiate]

Is someone actually arguing that console controls are actually "good"? :lol

The shit people settle for is amazing.

I think Matt is right on this one.

If you call KB/M "Exceptional," then I think "Good" is a reasonable descriptor for a PS3/360 controller.

No one seems to be arguing that the Console controller is as effective as the KB/M combo. But many would argue (and I would agree) that it isn't so much worse that it's unplayable for most people. It's noticeably less effective, but not so much less effective that the difference is prohibitive for many people.

 

[B-Rad Lascelle]

This doesn't look like a Sales Age conversation.
For what it's worth, look for The Conduit to follow in the footsteps of MadWorld.

At least Sega has another Mario & Sonic go to the Olympics title on tap for the fall to sell several million copies and refuel their coffers.

 

[SuperBonk]

No, although this is an interesting discussion.

Without further stipulation (Which I will get to), my ideal wouldn't even be dual analog -- you haven't taken this far enough -- it would be a controller with exactly one button. You could do everything through a series of morse code, e.g. Dot-Dash-Dot would be "fire," or "move forward." Think how challenging that would be!

And now for the stipulation: I would argue that it is not the game taking more skill with such a controller, it is the input method which is now more challenging. The former is satisfying to master, while the latter is not.

Here's a real world example: I control a baseball bat with both my hands when I play baseball. Would it be more challenging to control the bat with just one hand? Yes. But it isn't as if the game of baseball just became more challenging, it's that I increased the challenge by playing with a frustrating, comparatively ineffective control method.

Increasing challenge by increasing the skill curve of the actual game is something I find satisfying. Increasing the difficulty by insisting on a less effective control method is not satisfying. These are personal preferences again, SuperBonk, but in this instance I think you'll find most people agree with my viewpoint, even if they aren't all skill obsessed like me.

Fair enough. The added stipulations of game vs. input challenge, which increase and decrease satisfaction respectively, make your argument flow logically. This is the argument I was expecting (though not in the same words) and is a large part of the reason that keyboard and mouse is regarded as the superior control method by any "sane" individual. As for myself, I'm looking forward to Nunchuck + Wiimote with Wii motion plus.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I think Matt is right on this one.

If you call KB/M "Exceptional," then I think "Good" is a reasonable descriptor for a PS3/360 controller.

No one seems to be arguing that the Console controller is as effective as the KB/M combo. But many would argue (and I would agree) that it isn't so much worse that it's unplayable for most people. It's noticeably less effective, but not so much less effective that the difference is prohibitive for many people.

Not to come off as a PC elitist or as a troll but to me "Good" means something that is preferable above being significantly satisfied. I'll call console controllers "Passable" for FPS controls but not really much else. Just my opinion though.

This doesn't look like a Sales Age conversation.
For what it's worth, look for The Conduit to follow in the footsteps of MadWorld.

It probably will because SEGA has terrible marketing.

 

[ghst]

I think Matt is right on this one.

If you call KB/M "Exceptional," then I think "Good" is a reasonable descriptor for a PS3/360 controller.

let's not go crazy here.

 

[pakkit]

If you call KB/M "Exceptional," then I think "Good" is a reasonable descriptor for a PS3/360 controller.

Are we only talking about FPS games? Because then, I'd agree.

3rd person games, or games centered around exploration or platforming, tend to work better on gamepads. You have more precision for player control (WASD is archaic, at best), and precision with mouselook becomes secondary.

This is why I think Wii control offers a great compromise, with the superior analog control for movement, and a mouselike method for precision aiming.

Also, there has been the argument that bad controls, or imprecise controls need to be mastered, making the game more for gamers. We have Monster Hunter, or survival horror games, that have often relied on much more imprecise movement compared to their more action oriented counterparts. I reject that idea though. I'm interested in Monster Hunter because it's still a great game, but there would be no danger in making it's controls better (the Wii version offers analog camera control, at last). And horror games shouldn't be horrific because you're fighting the controller. If you want to scare someone, give them as much control as possible, and STILL scare them by making enemies unpredictable, intelligent, and hard to avoid. Tank controls are on the way out.

 

[Jocchan]

Count me in between those who can't stand precision aiming with the dual analog setup. Okay, I still do use it because I hate the keyboard part of keyboard+mouse even more (I know I'm pretty hard to satisfy), but I'd really love some IR pointer on PS360 action/shooters :/

This is why I think Wii control offers a great compromise, with the superior analog control for movement, and a mouselike method for precision aiming.

Two days ago I was playing through chapter 4 of Dead Space. During the

Spoiler

asteroid shooting

sequence, I kept moaning about how imprecise and frustrating aiming felt (might have been my lack of skill, I don't know and I don't care that much), to the point I even thought about how I wished I could simply hook a Wiimote + nunchuk to my ps3, or at least have a similar peripheral with the same capability. I'm waiting for Sony's wands and Microsoft's Natal to fully reveal their potential, but I'm not that hopeful about their usage in action games honestly :/
By the way, Dead Space is excellent. If you haven't played it yet... do it.

 

[donny2112]

Why?

The gamers who want GTA and Halo already buy Xbox 360s and PlayStation 3s.

And everyone who wanted shooters last gen had an Xbox, but stupid companies put FPSs on the PS2, too. Go figure.

The entire success of the Wii is that it has had such success with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo.

I just don't know what to say. This is so obviously wrong that I'm literally floored that you would even say this. GTA is way down from last generation. Do you think those buyers disappeared? The PS2 audience that bought over 100 million-sellers in the U.S. (most of which traditional core games) just up and vanished? I seriously suggest you take some time out to review what happened last generation, think about what's happening this generation, and rethink your position on who the Wii audience is in the U.S.

Please. I'm serious. Please.

 

[pakkit]

By the way, Dead Space is excellent. If you haven't played it yet... do it.

My second favorite game of last year right behind World of Goo.

 

[dammitmattt]

I just don't know what to say. This is so obviously wrong that I'm literally floored that you would even say this. GTA is way down from last generation. Do you think those buyers disappeared? The PS2 audience that bought over 100 million-sellers in the U.S. (most of which traditional core games) just up and vanished? I seriously suggest you take some time out to review what happened last generation, think about what's happening this generation, and rethink your position on who the Wii audience is in the U.S.

GTA is way down? Why do people keep saying this? Here are some rough numbers:

GTA3 - 15+ million
GTA: VC - 18+ million
GTA: SA - 22+ million

GTA4 - 13+ million

If it continues to sell at the pace of the previous games, it will end up in the 15-18 million range when it's all said and done with. And that doesn't even include the additional content like The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony. That's pretty damn good, especially considering that it's not leading on the most successful platform this time around.

 

[AniHawk]

By the way, Dead Space is excellent. If you haven't played it yet... do it.

On that note, the Wii prequel was surprisingly awesome and got unfairly shat upon in the reveal thread.

 

[boiled goose]

Are we only talking about FPS games? Because then, I'd agree.

3rd person games, or games centered around exploration or platforming, tend to work better on gamepads. You have more precision for player control (WASD is archaic, at best), and precision with mouselook becomes secondary.

This is why I think Wii control offers a great compromise, with the superior analog control for movement, and a mouselike method for precision aiming.

I really felt like using a wiimote when playing gears of war 2....

the wii's lack of third perosn shooters is disturbing......

is there any way to play nunchuck + mouse

or half gamepad half mouse on a pc?

 

[cr_blah_blah]

GTA is way down? Why do people keep saying this? Here are some rough numbers:

GTA3 - 15+ million
GTA: VC - 18+ million
GTA: SA - 22+ million

GTA4 - 13+ million

If it continues to sell at the pace of the previous games, it will end up in the 15-18 million range when it's all said and done with. And that doesn't even include the additional content like The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony. That's pretty damn good, especially considering that it's not leading on the most successful platform this time around.

And GTA:SA was sold to an audience of 90+ million for the last 5 years. GTA4 is at 1 year of sales to an audience of around like 54 million? I wouldn't harp on GTA sales being so way down in that crazy dramatic, awkward 'please. I'm serious. please' kind of way based on that. Wii is great, we all get it.

 

[donny2112]

GTA is way down? Why do people keep saying this?

Having looked at the actual numbers, I think "way" may have been too strong. "Significantly down" would probably be a better term.

PS2 San Andreas through 10 months: 5.79m
XBX San Andreas through 10 months: 0.81m

Total: 6.60m


360 GTAIV through 10 months: 3.31m
PS3 GTAIV through 10 months: 1.92m

Total: 5.23m

especially considering that it's not leading on the most successful platform this time around.

And that's exactly my point. There is an audience that would buy GTA on Wii. The "entire success" of the Wii is not "with people who aren't interested in GTA and Halo."

I wouldn't harp on GTA sales being so way down in that crazy dramatic, awkward 'please. I'm serious. please' kind of way based on that.

The "Please. I'm serious. Please" was for him to reevaluate what happened last gen (> 100 million-sellers on PS2, most of which were traditional games, and the PS2 didn't have the best-selling FPSs), what's happening this gen, and who the audience on the Wii actually is. It was not specifically about GTA sales, and, no, I wasn't comparing the LTD of GTA:SA to the first year of GTAIV on PS360, as shown by the above numbers.

 

[Jocchan]

On that note, the Wii prequel was surprisingly awesome and got unfairly shat upon in the reveal thread.

It got shat all over because everyone (me included) wanted it to be something it couldn't be (aka Dead Space with a control scheme the original couldn't have, despite heavily downgraded graphics), and because shoehorning it into a lightgun game looked like a cheap cash-in (back then, I also wondered how much business sense it did make, with the lightgun genre already having quite a few notable entries and the 3rd person action genre being about as empty as the mall in Dead Rising Wii).
After finally playing Dead Space (I bought it ~3 months ago but only started it last week), I changed my mind about Extraction: the original has a pretty linear structure (you basically follow a path and sometimes explore the few nearby rooms that aren't locked), surprisingly similar to what a lightgun game would be. So, if it turns out as good as it seems from E3 impressions, I might end up picking it up too.
I still hope it does sell well: with the original game underperforming, what would a spinoff do on another platform that most DS players don't own?

 

[charlequin]

with the only difference being texture resolution and polygon counts for the characters.

That's where your example falls down, though. The difference between Wii assets and PS360 assets isn't tweaking a setting downwards on the resolution meter; it's the difference of a much longer pipeline, with a range of content like normal maps, additional animations, etc. being created for Dead Space: HD that wouldn't exist for Dead Space: SD.

Is someone actually arguing that console controls are actually "good"? :lol

I don't think it's particularly difficult to argue that there's a subgenre of shooters, say, which are particularly suited to the dual-analog controller step. KB/M leans strongly towards full, quick control -- nimble characters who can completely pivot on a dime and aim at many dissimilar locations in quick succession. But if one accepts that certain games might benefit from slower, more methodical control, they would fit well to dual-analog's limitations -- and might even "feel" better on dual-analog since players wouldn't be "used" to being able to move arbitrarily fast.

 

[AniHawk]

It got shat all over because everyone (me included) wanted it to be something it couldn't be (aka Dead Space with a control scheme the original couldn't have), and because shoehorning it into a lightgun game looked like a cheap cash-in (back then, I also wondered how much business sense it did make, with the lightgun genre already having quite a few notable entries and the 3rd person action genre being about as empty as the mall in Dead Rising Wii).
After finally playing Dead Space (I bought it ~3 months ago but only started it last week), I changed my mind about Extraction: the original has a pretty linear structure (you basically follow a path and sometimes explore the few nearby rooms that aren't locked), surprisingly similar to what a lightgun game would be. So, if it turns out as good as it seems from E3 impressions, I might end up picking it up too.

Well yeah, I think everyone had the expectation of a very basic, RE:UC-type game. The little I played offered branching paths and more control over your character than arcadey lightgun games (which means you can be attacked from the left or right too). It was pretty intense (especially one fight in the dark). I saw someone else fighting off enemies while he was trying to solve a puzzle that would get the elevator working again and it looked cool.

I have to get the 360 game, but my backlog is pretty huge.

 

[Jocchan]

Well yeah, I think everyone had the expectation of a very basic, RE:UC-type game.

This is exactly what I was expecting, and UC bored me to death (I beat the RE0 part, but never bothered to pick the game up again).

The little I played offered branching paths and more control over your character than arcadey lightgun games (which means you can be attacked from the left or right too). It was pretty intense (especially one fight in the dark). I saw someone else fighting off enemies while he was trying to solve a puzzle that would get the elevator working again and it looked cool.

Sounds good, thanks for sharing this.

I have to get the 360 game, but my backlog is pretty huge.

So is mine, damn. This is why I'm trying to keep my purchases to a minimum... but offers showing up here and there always end up tempting me and making me bite.
However, I strongly suggest to play it. It's a really good game, and you can find it for cheap about everywhere (actually, this is true in Europe, I have no idea about the US).

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I don't think it's particularly difficult to argue that there's a subgenre of shooters, say, which are particularly suited to the dual-analog controller step. KB/M leans strongly towards full, quick control -- nimble characters who can completely pivot on a dime and aim at many dissimilar locations in quick succession. But if one accepts that certain games might benefit from slower, more methodical control, they would fit well to dual-analog's limitations -- and might even "feel" better on dual-analog since players wouldn't be "used" to being able to move arbitrarily fast.

I agree if you were talking about games with shooter elements that would be superior (Metal Gear comes to mind) then I agree with you. But I'm strictly talking about traditional shooters.

 

[Randy Lanzarote]

Having looked at the actual numbers, I think "way" may have been too strong. "Significantly down" would probably be a better term.

PS2 San Andreas through 10 months: 5.79m
XBX San Andreas through 10 months: 0.81m

Total: 6.60m


360 GTAIV through 10 months: 3.31m
PS3 GTAIV through 10 months: 1.92m

Total: 5.23m

Do you not think that comparing to GTAIII would've been a better comparison? After all by the time the GTA:SA came out the PS2s LTD was significantly higher than the PS360 was when GTA4 came out.

 

[dammitmattt]

Having looked at the actual numbers, I think "way" may have been too strong. "Significantly down" would probably be a better term.

PS2 San Andreas through 10 months: 5.79m
XBX San Andreas through 10 months: 0.81m

Total: 6.60m

360 GTAIV through 10 months: 3.31m
PS3 GTAIV through 10 months: 1.92m

Total: 5.23m

So given the userbase differences, GTA4 is actually selling to a much larger percentage of the user base. Are you sure that you still want to say it's "significantly" down?

 

[Opiate]

I think the more worrying thing about GTA4, in comparison to GTA:SA, is just how it has sold. The shape of the curve, if you will.

It isn't just that it has sold less overall than GTA:SA did in the same time frame. We also know that GTA4 sold more up front, which means (because it has sold less overall) that its legs have been significantly shorter.

 

[vanguardian1]

Some of the GTA/Sandbox games and Wii comments have made me realize something odd. The only upcoming "sandbox" game for Wii I'm aware of happens to have the name "Final Fantasy" in the title.


Is it me, or does that feel very, very wierd?

 

[AniHawk]

So given the userbase differences, GTA4 is actually selling to a much larger percentage of the user base. Are you sure that you still want to say it's "significantly" down?

I'm sure Take Two's happy that sales are on a much larger percent of the userbase than before. I think they mentioned it somewhere in their most recent quarterly financial statements.

 

[Starchasing]

I'm sure Take Two's happy that sales are on a much larger percent of the userbase than before. I think they mentioned it somewhere in their most recent quarterly financial statements.

no... you dont look at sales from a relative perspective.... it doesnt matter if you sold to 2% or 10% of the installed base... that might be ok in a secondary analysis...

the main thing is

i spent x millon dollars

i got back y million dollars

 

[Jocchan]

no... you dont look at sales from a relative perspective.... it doesnt matter if you sold to 2% or 10% of the installed base... that might be ok in a secondary analysis...

the main thing is

i spent x millon dollars

i got back y million dollars

sar⋅casm
  /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.