StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CaptainZoidberg wrote:I can't say that much about Bioshock...

And? Did you forget that Bioshock was awful? Maybe you can tell us how great Nintendo is by comparing Zelda to Daikatana.

Also, for those critisizing the Wii on technical merits: what would be the advantage for games like Smash Brothers or Wind Waker. How much better does Mario really look on more advanced hardware? What's the advantage to giving him a few million more polygons?

You're right, for those games there is no need for improved graphics. Of course then you look at all the third party games on the Wii which look like total ass. Or the games that just plain don't make it there because it simply can't run even scaled down versions.

There's a damn good reason that the Wii version of Rock Band is a port of the gimped PS2 version, and it has everything to do with the Wii's hardware.

Yeah, they couldn't look any better.

Except, y'know, if they had modern graphics hardware so they could clean up the jaggies everywhere. Whoops!

Uraniun235 wrote:also jesus christ VGcats keeps getting worse

On the bright side, it only updates once every few months these days, so at least the wounds have time to heal.

Losonti Tokash wrote: And? Did you forget that Bioshock was awful? Maybe you can tell us how great Nintendo is by comparing Zelda to Daikatana.

You didn't like Bioshock? I played the demo and it looked pretty darn good.

And yes, Nintendo does rock. There is no better game for playing with friends than Super Smash Brothers. Even Halo is left in the dust (although I admit Halo's online is pretty good).

You're right, for those games there is no need for improved graphics. Of course then you look at all the third party games on the Wii which look like total ass. Or the games that just plain don't make it there because it simply can't run even scaled down versions.

So. The Wii is designed for gamers who play certain types of games. Games that need lots of power will do well on the 360 or PS3, while games that don't need so much power will do well on the Wii.

I've played a Wii, and an Xbox 360 (on an HDTV), and honestly the difference in graphics is too subtle for me to notice. I mean, GTA would probably look bad on the Wii, but people don't buy a Wii to play GTA.

There's a damn good reason that the Wii version of Rock Band is a port of the gimped PS2 version, and it has everything to do with the Wii's hardware.

Meh, Brawl is better.

I completely understand the comic's viewpoint, but I'm quite satisfied with my Wii.

My life has been absorbed into the Smash Bros competitive scene, however. Brawl is amazing, and I'm carving out something of a name for myself with it as the best Peach in WA.

Those darn California guys though. The best Snake player in the state crushed me when I went to a SoCal tournament in round 1 :'(

CaptainZoidberg wrote:You didn't like Bioshock? I played the demo and it looked pretty darn good.

You either have no taste or have never played a shooter before.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:And yes, Nintendo does rock. There is no better game for playing with friends than Super Smash Brothers. Even Halo is left in the dust (although I admit Halo's online is pretty good).

Yet more evidence you've never played a shooter before.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:So. The Wii is designed for gamers who play certain types of games. Games that need lots of power will do well on the 360 or PS3, while games that don't need so much power will do well on the Wii.

You may also be blind. Even the fucking weather channel has jaggies EVERYWHERE. Fuckign WII FIT with TWO MODELS ONSCREEN has jaggies. Whether it has any impact on the game is arguable, but the whole point is that better graphics hardware is still hell cheap - you don't have to go to 360 level to get anti-aliasing.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:I've played a Wii, and an Xbox 360 (on an HDTV), and honestly the difference in graphics is too subtle for me to notice. I mean, GTA would probably look bad on the Wii, but people don't buy a Wii to play GTA.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you're so blind that you can't look at Twilight Princess and GTA4 and see the literally four/five years of differnce, you're crazy. Hint - look at the bland, smudged textures, and the constant staircasing on the edges of models. A $50 6600 doesn't do that. 4mb of texture memory does that. Anyone can live without the fancy bloom and post-processing effects modern games are built around, but the fact the Wii can't even run the fucking Mii Plaza without looking like a PS2 game is ridiculous.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:Meh, Brawl is better.

They're not even remotely comparable games. Is Cooking Mama better than Madden 09? lol!

CaptainZoidberg wrote: And yes, Nintendo does rock. There is no better game for playing with friends than Super Smash Brothers. Even Halo is left in the dust (although I admit Halo's online is pretty good).

Unlike Halo, SSMB requires you to spend hours by yourself unlocking half the characters before you can play with your friends.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

CaptainZoidberg wrote: And yes, Nintendo does rock. There is no better game for playing with friends than Super Smash Brothers. Even Halo is left in the dust (although I admit Halo's online is pretty good).

Unlike Halo, SSMB requires you to spend hours by yourself unlocking half the characters before you can play with your friends.

I think this is a case of "You Can't Win" for game designers. Put in content for single players to unlock and feel rewarded by everyone will moan that they can't use it in multiplayer from the off, and make all the content unlocked from the start (like the Live Arcade rerelease of Soul Calibur) and everyone moans that there's nothing to unlock.

Well, Halo 3 gives you more multiplayer armor permutations as you earn achievements, in both the single player campaign and playing online multiplayer matches. Full functionality of the game, but you do have extras to unlock as you play.

SSBB has a bunch of unlockables as well, in forms of stickers and trophies and music and levels... plenty of stuff OTHER than half the playable characters that they could have had from the start and the player would still have felt like "hey there's a lot of stuff to unlock here".

They could have at least had the decency to have the two guests available from the start, seeing how heavily they advertised the fact that they were in the game in the first place.

Stark wrote:You either have no taste or have never played a shooter before.

Bioshock was well received by all but the lunatic fringe of gamers. That you didn't personally like it doesn't make the vast majority of everyone else wrong.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:Yet more evidence you've never played a shooter before.

Shooters are quite possibly one of the worst possible types of games to play with other people who are sitting in the same room on the same tv.

You may also be blind. Even the fucking weather channel has jaggies EVERYWHERE.

So what? The graphics are well beyond SVGA quality, which is really all you need for playable games.

They're not even remotely comparable games. Is Cooking Mama better than Madden 09? lol!

It certainly is for a large proportion of the population. There are probably far more people in the world who would enjoy Cooking Mama than Madden 09.

Graeme Dice wrote:Bioshock was well received by all but the lunatic fringe of gamers. That you didn't personally like it doesn't make the vast majority of everyone else wrong.

It was not "well received," it received a slew of perfect scores from tons of gaming magazines and websites, despite clearly not deserving such praise. The hype machine blew it so out of proportion until it was to the point where it received such high scores simply because it was Bioshock.

Shooters are quite possibly one of the worst possible types of games to play with other people who are sitting in the same room on the same tv.

what's coop lol

So what? The graphics are well beyond SVGA quality, which is really all you need for playable games.

What's your point? You don't see the problem with a console that has worse graphics than one from the previous generation?

It certainly is for a large proportion of the population. There are probably far more people in the world who would enjoy Cooking Mama than Madden 09.

I don't even know what the hell Cooking Mama is, but it's blatantly obvious you missed the point. You know, the part where he said they're not remotely comparable. Maybe if I point out the bit where Rock Band and Brawl have virtually no similarities in overall goal or game mechanics, it will become more clear to you.

Stark wrote: You either have no taste or have never played a shooter before.

The shooters I have played are: Half Life 1 and 2, and 3 Halos, and the beginning of Bioshock.

Of course Bioshock didn't have the plot of Half Life, or the fun-arcady style action of Halo, but it developed good atmosphere, and the game was fun.

Yet more evidence you've never played a shooter before.

I played Halo 3 at a friend's house, and I personally thought Brawl was more fun with 3-4 people. It was easy enough that anyone could get started in a few seconds (a person can play Brawl by moving around with the control stick and mashing A). Compare that to Halo where you have to master two control sticks, a reload button, a melee button, a jump button, firing, grenades, dual wielding - before you can even play the game proficiently.

Although I do admit Halo co-op can be very fun.

You may also be blind. Even the fucking weather channel has jaggies EVERYWHERE. Fuckign WII FIT with TWO MODELS ONSCREEN has jaggies. Whether it has any impact on the game is arguable, but the whole point is that better graphics hardware is still hell cheap - you don't have to go to 360 level to get anti-aliasing.

Heh, I notice jaggies on a few gamecube games, but I don't really see them on melee - or on any Wii games.

Honestly, for the games that it's designed for (that involve huge cartoony characters in non-photorealistic fantasy worlds) Wii's graphics suffice. And Twilight Princess is gorgeous. (Yes as you may already see I am a Nintendo fanboy).

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you're so blind that you can't look at Twilight Princess and GTA4 and see the literally four/five years of differnce, you're crazy. Hint - look at the bland, smudged textures, and the constant staircasing on the edges of models. A $50 6600 doesn't do that. 4mb of texture memory does that. Anyone can live without the fancy bloom and post-processing effects modern games are built around, but the fact the Wii can't even run the fucking Mii Plaza without looking like a PS2 game is ridiculous.

The graphics always looked pretty good to me when I played it, although I guess they could be better. But to be honest I LOVED the graphics from the Wind Waker. I wish Twilight Princess would've looked like that.

But I've seen GTA4, and I must admit that it looked very expansive, and the graphics were smooth to say the least.

They're not even remotely comparable games. Is Cooking Mama better than Madden 09? lol!

Now that's hitting below the belt. Does this look like "Cooking Mama" to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbF4bR7YdrQ

CaptainZoidberg wrote: Now that's hitting below the belt. Does this look like "Cooking Mama" to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbF4bR7YdrQ

You appear to have missed the point and hit your foot. He's saying that two such radically different games cannot be directly compared.

I'd add the corollary that your preference for Smash Bros over Rock Band does not invalidate the point that the Wii version of Rock Band is significantly inferior to all the other versions of Rock Band.

Of course Bioshock didn't have the plot of Half Life, or the fun-arcady style action of Halo, but it developed good atmosphere, and the game was fun.

So you mean to tell me that the game was fun simply because it knew where to place lighting effects and scripted dialouge?

Losonti Tokash wrote: It was not "well received," it received a slew of perfect scores from tons of gaming magazines and websites, despite clearly not deserving such praise. The hype machine blew it so out of proportion until it was to the point where it received such high scores simply because it was Bioshock.

Even the most critical reviews didn't drop below "very good" territory. (the lowest was 8/10, from Edge, which I think is about right).

Bioshock was extremely well recieved, critically and at retail, your attempts to claim that this was not so do not hold true.

Vendetta wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote: It was not "well received," it received a slew of perfect scores from tons of gaming magazines and websites, despite clearly not deserving such praise. The hype machine blew it so out of proportion until it was to the point where it received such high scores simply because it was Bioshock.

Even the most critical reviews didn't drop below "very good" territory. (the lowest was 8/10, from Edge, which I think is about right).

Bioshock was extremely well recieved, critically and at retail, your attempts to claim that this was not so do not hold true.

Perhaps I should explain to you the concept of an "understatement."

How about "To categorise your statement that Bioshock was not well recieved as slightly incorrect would be an understatement."

Vendetta wrote:How about "To categorise your statement that Bioshock was not well recieved as slightly incorrect would be an understatement."

A: Bioshock was well received.
B: It wasn't well-received, the gaming press were fighting over who could give it the best blowjob.
C: Yeah, well Bioshock got awesome reviews so it actually was well received!

Maybe it's your definition of "Well recieved" that needs work. For the rest of the english speaking world, it means "people liked it and said they liked it". Extremely good reviews, a number of game of the year awards, and very high sales for everyone except you, means "well recieved".

But apparently you're seeing a vast media conspiracy to give good reviews to a game that everyone secretly hated.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:I've played a Wii, and an Xbox 360 (on an HDTV), and honestly the difference in graphics is too subtle for me to notice. I mean, GTA would probably look bad on the Wii, but people don't buy a Wii to play GTA.

Are you serious? Was the HDTV you were using made out of donkey ass or something? I'm not knocking the Wii, but to even try to insinuate that the graphics are on par to the 360 means you're either dishonest or blind.

Losonti Tokash wrote:It was not "well received," it received a slew of perfect scores from tons of gaming magazines and websites, despite clearly not deserving such praise. The hype machine blew it so out of proportion until it was to the point where it received such high scores simply because it was Bioshock.

Oh yes. The fact that it received rave reviews and sold over 1.5 million copies means that it was a terrible game. You're nothing more than a fanrat if you think that it wasn't a successful, well-received game.

Shooters are quite possibly one of the worst possible types of games to play with other people who are sitting in the same room on the same tv.

what's coop lol

"What's co-op?" Is that what you were trying to write in your broken English? What about co-op? It's presence doesn't make a TV screen that's split into four parts any more bearable or a better experience. Nor is it a particularly common feature.

Edit: Added Quotes around "What's co-op?" to make it more clear that I'm committing a spelling flame.

What's your point? You don't see the problem with a console that has worse graphics than one from the previous generation?

No, I don't. Why on Earth should I see a problem with that? I'm no graphics whore who requires my games to waste huge amounts of resources developing graphics.

I don't even know what the hell Cooking Mama is, but it's blatantly obvious you missed the point. You know, the part where he said they're not remotely comparable.

No, I simply pointed out that even though he'd like to pretend that you can't compare popularity across genres, that his favourite types of games are not nearly as popular as he'd like to think they are. I'm also not so sure that you should be bragging that you are willfully ignorant.

Graeme Dice wrote: What's co-op? You mean? Is that what you were trying to write in your broken English? What about co-op? It's presence doesn't make a TV screen that's split into four parts any more bearable or a better experience. Nor is it a particularly common feature.

Whilst the first part of this is true, splitscreen co-op is not as good as online co-op where everyone can have their own full screen, the second is less so. Co-op play is increasingly a standard feature of shooters, especially on the Xbox. It's one of the key selling points to me now, given that I have a regular co-op buddy.

Vendetta wrote: You appear to have missed the point and hit your foot. He's saying that two such radically different games cannot be directly compared.

I'd add the corollary that your preference for Smash Bros over Rock Band does not invalidate the point that the Wii version of Rock Band is significantly inferior to all the other versions of Rock Band.

Right, but he implied that Madden was somehow superior, or more "serious" then Smash Brothers.

CaptainZoidberg wrote:Right, but he implied that Madden was somehow superior, or more "serious" then Smash Brothers.

No, he didn't. In fact, as far as I know, Stark hates Madden. The idea was to show the absurdity of comparing two things that are so different from one another.