Wii not present at E3.

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Where did he say graphics are more important than gameplay? He simply said everyone is ignorant (i added the ignorant part) for believing there is tons of room for the Wii to improve. It's been said before, and this makes it all the more evident, but you guys seem to think Nintendo can do no wrong.

If you read more carefully, and weren't so intent on hopping on his ass and riding him, you'd have seen that he simply said Nintendo is using tricks to distract the consumer. I mean, they used a friggin gamecube with wiimote support because they aren't even done with the wii. It isn't even like it was a well known fact. They actually tried to pass it off as a Wii, but since the Wii isn't finished, everyone believes it's going to be a gazillion times better than what they showed thus generating more interest in the Wii (not because of what it really is, but because of what people want it to be).

Theres nothing wrong with optimism, but when you get tricked time and time again and fail to see the dark side of things, theres something wrong with you.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
SaiyanPrideXIX said:
I'm the only person here with an enlightened perspective on the media and public relations as a whole, as well as marketing development and demographics--so while you may think I am just blindly prejudiced, you fail to acknowledge the point that I am also vastly more qualified then anyone else on this board to call bull**** on this type of PR stuff.
While I agree (to an extent) about Nintendo's actions, you can't just assume that you know everything about marketing and everybody else knows nothing. We've all grown up in a capitalist society, being bombarded by advertisements and marketing campaigns 24/7/365 since birth.

I don't know about other universities, but most of the degrees offered by my school, George Mason, have statistics and marketing classes as part of the general education requirements.

I'm not making any judgment about you from what you're saying, but I'll give you a warning that professors that teach basic psychology always admonish their students with:

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
I understand, Alea. I didn't mean to come off as too much of a know it all, though. All I was really trying to say is that my opinion of what they are doing is going to be different because I've been trained in similar smoke-and-mirrors-when-you've-got-no-substance tactics. In any case I think Zeonix more succinctly illustrates my points in a more tactful manner; I never said graphics or machine power is important. What is important is the fact that Nintendo doesn't think they need to bother including a two year old technology (shaders) being used in even the most run of the mill games today. The reason is because they don't want to spend the money and effort to include it. Because they don't think you all are worth that effort, or are going to care. Which apparently is true. Graphics aren't important, all that et cetera. It's true. But you can already see the beginnings of the implications of such a blatantly stupid and self-servient decision. It'll be plenty evident when you have to wait years for ports to have all their lighting removed, or when the game mags start doing side-by-sides of multi-platform releases and show you all that's missing. But don't worry. I'm sure they'll put out a mid-priced addon, or re-release a Wii with shader support somewhere down the line.

My point might not have been well illustrated but it is that simple--you lump me in with people who want graphics flash and glamour, people who don't care about gameplay, are prejudiced, etc. But the truth of it is, I am in agreement with most on what makes a good game--a combination of graphics, compelling motivation (aka a good story or good premise), and of course gameplay.

I don't hate Nintendo because it is insuperior. I hate Nintendo because it doesn't care about you and it puts out crap because its cheap, easy, and it knows you will buy it anyway. This whole E3 thing is just another example of how Nintendo fans get taken for a ride all the time. The company treats you and me like garbage; THAT's where my problem with it has always been.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
SaiyanPrideXIX said:
I understand, Alea. I didn't mean to come off as too much of a know it all, though. All I was really trying to say is that my opinion of what they are doing is going to be different because I've been trained in similar smoke-and-mirrors-when-you've-got-no-substance tactics.
I understand what you're saying. It just came off a little funny.

SaiyanPrideXIX said:
In any case I think Zeonix more succinctly illustrates my points in a more tactful manner; I never said graphics or machine power is important. What is important is the fact that Nintendo doesn't think they need to bother including a two year old technology (shaders) being used in even the most run of the mill games today. The reason is because they don't want to spend the money and effort to include it. Because they don't think you all are worth that effort, or are going to care. Which apparently is true. Graphics aren't important, all that et cetera. It's true. But you can already see the beginnings of the implications of such a blatantly stupid and self-servient decision. It'll be plenty evident when you have to wait years for ports to have all their lighting removed, or when the game mags start doing side-by-sides of multi-platform releases and show you all that's missing. But don't worry. I'm sure they'll put out a mid-priced addon, or re-release a Wii with shader support somewhere down the line.

My point might not have been well illustrated but it is that simple--you lump me in with people who want graphics flash and glamour, people who don't care about gameplay, are prejudiced, etc. But the truth of it is, I am in agreement with most on what makes a good game--a combination of graphics, compelling motivation (aka a good story or good premise), and of course gameplay.

I don't hate Nintendo because it is insuperior. I hate Nintendo because it doesn't care about you and it puts out crap because its cheap, easy, and it knows you will buy it anyway. This whole E3 thing is just another example of how Nintendo fans get taken for a ride all the time. The company treats you and me like garbage; THAT's where my problem with it has always been.
I agree. And what's more, I think it's funny that people are automatically assuming that the "Wiimote" will be "fun and innovative." Perhaps it will be, when done by the people who truly understand it's capability--Nintendo. But while Nintendo's first-party games may be slow-to-release-yet-high-quality, the most popular multi-platform game developers have a few choices they can make:

1) Design the game identically for all systems, requiring a GameCube controller (or limited functionality using the 'Wii' controller)

2) Make the Wii version different by remaking parts of the game to be compatible with the gyroscopic control (most costly option)

3) Make the game partially and superficially compatible with the Wii, like Zelda: Twilight Princess.

Which is more likely? Two identical versions for PS3 and 360, and one massively reconstructed game for Wii? No.

There likely outcome is either:

1) Multiplatform games will simply be restricted to 360 and PS3, or

2) Former options 1 and 3--partially and superficial compatibility with the Wii, offering little to absolutely no "innovation" on the Wii's part.

---------------------------------------

In any case, back onto the "topic," the fact that the games can be played on the GameCube is discouraging. If they can be technically played on a GameCube, why exactly are we going to have to shell out $200 to get a virtually identical (technologically) machine when a simple add-on could accomplish the same thing?
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
Soul Punisher said:
This is great-- there's still hope. Nintendo better damn well add shader abilities...i really hope they do. There's no way they should go into next-gen gaming without it. They might not make or break games, but it would still make for some great eye-candy.

As i said once before, if the Wii has atleast half the specs of the XBOX 360 (as in 1.6 Ghz processor, 24 Pixel and Vertex Shaders and 256 Mb of total RAM) it would in most instances look better than XBOX 360 because it would be tuned for efficiency and taking out all latency. But i doubt Nintendo cares that much anyway.
Look at the super mario galaxy clips very carefully...

edit: wait up, I swear those clips have some shaders going, (when light hit's the black stuff on the planet with the fire squid, and on the bullet bill things)

Have a look guys, im confuzzeled.
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
423
Best answers
0
wheres_warren said:
Look at the super mario galaxy clips very carefully...
Well i'll do that-- but the HD-version of the clips dont seem to run on my pc, so i can't really look at them carefully when it's bad on the eyes. So just to make note of it, i'll be watching them in pretty low-quality, and i already looked at them before, but i'll check again and maybe check some HQ images. But even so, why should i do that, did i miss something ?
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
Oh look at the clips that have the "actors" in them "playing" the games. Then look at the clips that have the e3 show floor games being played. In the super mario galaxy clip I swear there are pixel shaders on some textures. I'll take some screen shots.

EDIT:


What could it mean?! Is that even a shader?
 

L

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,069
Best answers
0
Uh..
If you played Super Mario Sunshine you would know GCN was capable of that.
Edit:

Also, look at the .gif you posted. See the awsome shader FX on the 'grainy' looking ground on the bottom left?
Edit:
Lawl, removed the "ok now I'm confuzziled" eh?
Edit: Lawl, jokes on me, I looked at two different posts.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
Shiyojin Rommyu said:
You're blinded by your own negative bias towards Nintendo. You have no factual base upon which your argument rests. You have no proof that Nintendo did this just to try and compete with the other two consoles, graphics-wise.

Nintendo has said time and time again that the Revolution isn't meant to be a powerhouse, and instead focusses on new control mechanics. When will you learn?
and at the same time, your blinded by your positive bias.

i love being a fan of nothing.

and warren, that looks more like a surface shader rather than a pixel shader (if i remember the difference properly).
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
937
Best answers
0
E3 is just an interactive gaming internet site.

Full of pop ups with useless/false information and video and screenshots of games before they come out, that wont look anything like that when completed.

E3 is a joke.
 
The Sinister Minister
Retired Forum Staff
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
3,637
Best answers
0
SailorAlea said:
In any case, back onto the "topic," the fact that the games can be played on the GameCube is discouraging. If they can be technically played on a GameCube, why exactly are we going to have to shell out $200 to get a virtually identical (technologically) machine when a simple add-on could accomplish the same thing?
A very valid concern. To be frank, while I like to promote myself as an optimistic person in this case, I do have my doubts about some of the more "simple" inclusions that Nintendo is overlooking. However, I think it might be too early to assume that what we saw at E3 is exactly what we can expect when the Wii is finally released. The demos designed for E3 were made to work in a GCN, yes; likely (more so obviously) because the Wii, itself, is not complete. Does this mean that all Wii launch titles and beyond will be restricted to, basically, the same quality as what the GCN puts out? I sincerely doubt that. For their conference, they chose to demonstrate, strictly, the only "different" feature they could offer; that's the controller. I would have preferred to see a more complete demonstration, but if I were gunning for that, I wouldn't be watching an E3 webcast - I'd be renting the system when it hits my local Blockbuster.

What I'm getting at, though, is that I believe it's way too early to be drawing the conclusion that they used a GCN with a modified control system because the Wii would perform identically, if not undistinguishably better. We haven't been given enough, from E3, to draw that conclusion. Quoting specs won't change my opinion of that, either.

Am I cheerfully optimistic? Yes. BUT, in so far as I'm not going to kill my interest in the system because of an assumption based on cynicism and/or skepticism. Will said optimism land a Wii in my living room during launch week? No, I sincerely doubt that. There is a difference between having faith in so far as you're going to keep up on the info and the faith that causes one to say "Screw everything else, I'm getting a Wii, no matter what!" No, I likely won't see any of the next-gen consoles in my home until several months, maybe a year, after their launch.

...so, don't lump people who are being optimistic into one category (re: "ignorant"; particularly since nobody outwardly stated that there'd be room for MASSIVE improvement; just that we'd likely see some sort of noticeable step-up in the final system's performance). After all, if you can only see the dark side of something without considering the up side, then there's something wrong with you.

EDIT - And remember - that's my opinion. I do not fault anyone for choosing to believe that what we saw at E3 will be what you'd get on your TV screen in late 2006. However, I do not care to see people being shot down for choosing to believe something to the contrary. Nobody has stated any unrealistic hopes for the system, so I think that some folks are choosing to be undeservingly hard against the positive statements made, thus far. Don't try to shed pity on me or others because we haven't condemned Nintendo's most recent project before it's even had the opportunity to leave the ground. That's both disrespectful and asinine. If you truly believe that I'm ignorant because I still anticipate info about the system and what it's complete form will be capable of, then you're welcome to do so; however, it'll make painfully clear the notion that there are people markedly more ignorant than me around. That's right - I went there.

EDIT 2 - And I'm going to state, for the record, that I don't like what's going on here. People are, clearly, attacking the opinions that are different than their own. I'm going to make one notion very clear, here. If this kind of discussion is going to carry on through all threads of this nature, there simply won't be threads like this. I, for one, am getting sick of having to state, re-state, and re-state again, the fact that one's opinion is not a subject for debate. Pride's opinion was attacked almost immediately after it was posted. What the hell is up with that? While I do think that it was inappropriate to start pitying people who still have faith in this console, the post was perfectly valid. Almost immediately after that, there were attacks made against people who believed that there'd be some noticeable improvement in the performance of the complete Wii. Again, I ask: what the hell is up with that? It's a damned gaming console, for crying out loud! We're not talking about the pros and cons of emancipating slaves in an impoverished country, we're talking about GAMES. What the hell made it appropriate for people to shoot down others' personal preferences? I don't even feel comfortable posting the fact that I bought a DS, because I know that people are going to immediately leap on me and tell me that I wasted my money. There is something incredibly wrong with that fact.

I'm going to state this for the last time, and the discussion will continue in light of this: One's choice in gaming/games is based on personal preference. Not everybody is going to give a damn about marketing practices when they opt to purchase a console - they'll decide based on what they enjoy, and that is not a point to be criticized or picked apart.

Oh, and if certain people want to back-talk my mandate (as I know some people are going to claim there's nothing else to discuss if they can't shoot down opinions that differ from their's), you can do so via PM's. This thread is not about my mandate, so discussion of it will be considered off-topic and will be treated accordingly.

Now, prove me wrong; be mature, guys. For the love of the nation, accept other people's opinions, for once, instead of running to battle them. When I'm convinced that you're all civil enough to start some legitimate discussion between conflicting views, I'll loosen up the choke chain.
 
Super Moderator
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
3,125
Best answers
0
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high yet guys.

What's to say Nintendo didn't make use of the billions of undersold GameCube shells for the Wii dev-kits? That's at least one way to save money.

For all you know, that's a Wii in a GCN shell.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
That's another thought that had crossed my mind also.

I mean, most games I saw on E3 (Red Steel, Super Mario Galaxy, among others) were looking quite good. Better than most things I've seen on the Gamecube. In one Super Mario Galaxy clip, this Nintendo guy who stood next to the demo setup was explaining to this E3 visitor how the game works. He also mentioned how the graphics were more advanced and pointed out the lighting effects in the game. To me they too looked more advanced than what I'd seen on the Gamecube, for the most part.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top