It was just an iconic example.I mean I won't pay a lot of money to have the weakest console and see other people get much more powerful consoles for only some bucks more.sergiomonty wrote:I don't care about the people mocking at me, I play videogames for fun, not to make other people notice how "cool" I am. However, Haruka is right, I hope the price is accessible, if not, then Wii U is gonna wait for a loooong time.
Bad graphics are only the tip of the iceberg. Every single aspect of a game depends totally on what the hardware can and can’t do. Don’t let Nintendo trick you into thinking that graphics are the only difference between their consoles and their competitors’ ones.TeensieKing wrote:If I was to buy a Wii U,I wouldn't pay 300€,that's for sure.I don't really get why Nintendo is that shitty at graphics,but me doesn't like :/
I happen to like Nintendo's games.Only issue I have with their games are graphics.That,and that I'd like the characters in Nintendo games to actually talk,not only written dialog,but I can deal with that I guess.spiraldoor wrote:Bad graphics are only the tip of the iceberg. Every single aspect of a game depends totally on what the hardware can and can’t do. Don’t let Nintendo trick you into thinking that graphics are the only difference between their consoles and their competitors’ ones.TeensieKing wrote:If I was to buy a Wii U,I wouldn't pay 300€,that's for sure.I don't really get why Nintendo is that shitty at graphics,but me doesn't like :/
Don't forget about people with disabilities.sergiomonty wrote:Reasons why Wii was weak in comparison to other consoles:
[/i]
Oh god, that's hilarious.sergiomonty wrote:Fan Asks: Michel, please, can you stop playing with your stupid "Ubiart framework" thingy and make a new Rayman game with 3d engine?!
Michel's Answer:
AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW COME OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!! BUT I DON'T WAAANNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
)
I don't have anything against the Wii. It's neutral for me. But I own one, and I can safely tell you I don't really know any games that are SOLELY waving your arms like a high clown, except for... exceptions. I think one of the Donkey Kong games was all that, but most games I know are just pressing the buttons like a regular game, with maybe some motion controls involved. Rayman Origins has no motion controls.The Edditaur wrote: but a console based solely on waving your arms around like a inane prat doesn't really seem fun to me,
If you're referring to Kinekt, no they haven't. That's only a neat thing you can buy to play games like various Dance Dance Revolutions, or other games that might use it. It's like a better and much more advanced version of the Wii motion controls (I have it by the way), and it can actually interface with your computer, allowing you to even motion capture to an extent. Unlike the Wii though, it isn't anywhere close to a necessity, it's just a cool thing you can buy. I think that depending on what you want to use it for will decide whether it's worth your money or not.The Edditaur wrote:though Microsoft's gone down the "Make everything just motion controlled" route,
That's how every standard 3D engine in existence works my friend.The Edditaur wrote:Anyway, I thought UbiArt would be capable of making 3D environments, you just need to make a 3D surface and paste the texture onto it. Perhaps Ancel's preparing it as the new engine to make Rayman 4 on?
I don't think they've been doing either of those well recently to be honest. I think it's sort of because if you look at more modern games that appear on the other consoles and PC, some of their soundtracks and artwork are just beyond compare, and can totally eclipse Nintendo's quite easily. Games like Super Mario Galaxy will always remembered as some of the most artistic games of all time with one of the best soundtracks of all time, but how often does Nintendo pull a stunt like that? Once every... five years or so?sergiomonty wrote:I know all of the weak points that wii has, so I know what I risk. It doesn't really matter to me, I'm not picky about the games that I buy if they have good art direction and a great soundtrack (something in which nintendo is usually successful),
Huh. I was under the impression from various mediastuffs that Microsoft was trying to puzh the Kinect as much as humanely possible, though I guess I should listen to the one which actually has an X360, rather than the one who tries to steer clear of the console altogether.RayFan9876 wrote:If you're referring to Kinekt, no they haven't. That's only a neat thing you can buy to play games like various Dance Dance Revolutions, or other games that might use it. It's like a better and much more advanced version of the Wii motion controls (I have it by the way), and it can actually interface with your computer, allowing you to even motion capture to an extent. Unlike the Wii though, it isn't anywhere close to a necessity, it's just a cool thing you can buy. I think that depending on what you want to use it for will decide whether it's worth your money or not.The Edditaur wrote:though Microsoft's gone down the "Make everything just motion controlled" route,
That's how every standard 3D engine in existence works my friend.The Edditaur wrote:Anyway, I thought UbiArt would be capable of making 3D environments, you just need to make a 3D surface and paste the texture onto it. Perhaps Ancel's preparing it as the new engine to make Rayman 4 on?
I don't think they've been doing either of those well recently to be honest. I think it's sort of because if you look at more modern games that appear on the other consoles and PC, some of their soundtracks and artwork are just beyond compare, and can totally eclipse Nintendo's quite easily. Games like Super Mario Galaxy will always remembered as some of the most artistic games of all time with one of the best soundtracks of all time, but how often does Nintendo pull a stunt like that? Once every... five years or so?sergiomonty wrote:I know all of the weak points that wii has, so I know what I risk. It doesn't really matter to me, I'm not picky about the games that I buy if they have good art direction and a great soundtrack (something in which nintendo is usually successful),
I'm not obsessed with guns and blood; you seem to have this "generalising about the other party" thing going on, and it's a little bit iffy. I was going to add Brawl in there, but I forgot. I would have added Skyward Sword, but that did in fact come out about five years now after Galaxy, therefore it didn't need to be mentioned. As someone who has played through every one of those games you mentioned, I'll say this:sergiomonty wrote:Twilight Princess?
Punch-Out?
Super Smash Bros Brawl?
Donkey Kong Country Returns?
Super Mario Galaxy 2?
Metroid Other M?
Kirby's Epic Yarn?
Skyward Sword?
Sorry, Rayfan, but I have to disagree with you there. Maybe those games don't have guns or blood, but they have pretty cool music and artwork.
At first (2008), I found it to be a little underwhelming considering it wasn't nearly as big a jump as the first was to Melee, but when I play it nowadays (with others of course), there's little that can match its awesome multiplayer action.El Dango wrote:Brawl is pretty meh imo. Nice concept, but it could have been done way better.
I agree about it being insanely overrated and "level-packish." Everyone I heard from thought it was the greatest thing ever, but I was expecting far more from it. I think it would have been far better if it had been its own game, but it really felt more like a less-structured, slightly enhanced Galaxy that had a lot of hit-and miss parts.El Dango wrote:And don't even get me started on that boring, insanely overrated level pack that is Super Mario Galaxy 2.
I'm just not feeling it. I don't find it pleasant to look at, the controls are weird and uncomfortable, it has too many pointless extra features, and it's pretty messy overall.RayFan9876 wrote:At first (2008), I found it to be a little underwhelming considering it wasn't nearly as big a jump as the first was to Melee, but when I play it nowadays (with others of course), there's little that can match its awesome multiplayer action.El Dango wrote:Brawl is pretty meh imo. Nice concept, but it could have been done way better.
It had some cool ideas (some of the new power-ups were nice), but it also had several missions that took place in a small room, having you skate around and hit stuff, which really seems pretty desperate to me. Many missions were clearly just filler between the good stuff, and that isn't good design at all. The first Super Mario Galaxy had so much more to offer, with tons of original ideas that kept the game fun all the way through. SMG2 just feels like a few extra ideas that didn't make the first cut, spread out between repetitive filler in an attempt to really cash in by making a full sequel out it.RayFan9876 wrote:I agree about it being insanely overrated and "level-packish." Everyone I heard from thought it was the greatest thing ever, but I was expecting far more from it. I think it would have been far better if it had been its own game, but it really felt more like a less-structured, slightly enhanced Galaxy that had a lot of hit-and miss parts.El Dango wrote:And don't even get me started on that boring, insanely overrated level pack that is Super Mario Galaxy 2.
I think I see where you're coming from.El Dango wrote:I'm just not feeling it. I don't find it pleasant to look at, the controls are weird and uncomfortable, it has too many pointless extra features, and it's pretty messy overall.
Nice attempt to cash in a connection to Legends to stay "on topic."El Dango wrote:This is why Legends has had me worried, since I don't want this to be the same kind of game.
