No more good games for Wii now?

[SuperRacoon]

Please don't call Super Paper Mario a good game, It was a good idea, but it fails so badly as a platformer and a roleplaying game.

As a platformer,

1. You can't freakin' run, Wow, impressive, you managed to take everything good about other Mario Platformers and break it right there.
2. Thanks to all those hit points there's no threat or danger, fall down a hole? take 1 damage and reappear right next to the hole, an enemy bumps you? take 1 damage then stomp him and claim the item that restores 5 hp.
3. It's understandable because paper has low mass, but momentum feels a little weak in SPM, you slow down as a result of jumping, this only makes the no running thing worse.

As a roleplaying game, It's even more pathetic.

1. Only 2 stats, HP and AP. Good Job Nintendo, make a roleplaying game that is only that way in the sense you are playing the role of Mario. To top it off, you don't even chose which stat to increase when you level up, yeah that's not a big deal when there are complex sets of stats, and different roles to play, but Paper Mario, a game that only ever had 3 stats that lvl up in it's previous games, it is.
2. No badges, honestly, do I have to explain this? Other Role Playing games offer equipment and customizations to your character. Badge Points were arguably the best stat in the previous Paper Mario's. Because that's what made Mario uniquely fit different styles.
3. Damage take is universal for your whole party of characters.
4. Items are lacking in variety because, 'surprise' of point 1.

Anyway my point is SPM was a good idea that was very poorly executed. Compared to Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros. (two contemporary titles) you realize that SPM is Mario's great failure in platforming, roleplaying, and life in general.

 

[derek.haines]

1. You can't freakin' run, Wow, impressive, you managed to take everything good about other Mario Platformers and break it right there.

The only good thing about other Mario platformers was that you could run? Seriously? The only good thing?

2. Thanks to all those hit points there's no threat or danger, fall down a hole? take 1 damage and reappear right next to the hole, an enemy bumps you? take 1 damage then stomp him and claim the item that restores 5 hp.

It's more of a platformer in the Metroidvania-style, with heavier action and RPG elements, therefore you simply shouldn't have to worry about death coming from anywhere but your enemies or conveniently placed spikes.

3. It's understandable because paper has low mass, but momentum feels a little weak in SPM, you slow down as a result of jumping, this only makes the no running thing worse.

Seems like grasping at straws to me, but I'd agree that I would've had Mario run faster. Still wouldn't call it a bad game simply for that reason...

1. Only 2 stats, HP and AP. Good Job Nintendo, make a roleplaying game that is only that way in the sense you are playing the role of Mario. To top it off, you don't even chose which stat to increase when you level up, yeah that's not a big deal when there are complex sets of stats, and different roles to play, but Paper Mario, a game that only ever had 3 stats that lvl up in it's previous games, it is.

I wouldn't have wanted to choose between leveling my AP or my HP anyway, I'd rather they just go up on their own--it leaves me free to just play the game.

2. No badges, honestly, do I have to explain this? Other Role Playing games offer equipment and customizations to your character. Badge Points were arguably the best stat in the previous Paper Mario's. Because that's what made Mario uniquely fit different styles.

I agree with you to an extent on this one, but badges wouldn't have served much of a logical purpose inside of the framework of the game, and probably would've felt more clumsy than anything.

3. Damage take is universal for your whole party of characters.

Another good thing. The game tends to be fairly specific about what character you need to use where, therefore if one of your party members goes down you'd likely be unable to continue anyway. Live as a team, die as a team.

4. Items are lacking in variety because, 'surprise' of point 1.

Maybe so, but cool special abilities are not lacking in the least bit. I'd say that makes up for it.


Super Paper Mario was exactly the game that it should've been. It was long, fun, and filled with interesting and engaging characters. It was well-written and it introduced a whole lot of neat gameplay mechanics (like flipping). Plus, it proved that a Wii game doesn't necessarily need a buttload of Waggle moves to be great by making it all controlled by the Wiimote on it's side.

 

[Darkslash]

Uh-oh....I feel a fire a coming....

 

[derek.haines]

Uh-oh....I feel a fire a coming....

LOL, just presenting an opposing viewpoint. I really enjoyed the game, so I thought I'd defend it.

 

[SuperRacoon]

I was presenting my opinion as well, and reason why I really dislike the game.

Nothing Derek says is gonna stop me from thinking that SPM is the ******* offspring of Super Mario RPG and and Super Mario World, that got hit on the head at birth.
Nothing I say will stop him from enjoying the game.

I'll attack a game, but I'm not gonna waste my time attacking an opinion.

 

[NeBz]

The Wii is changing the way we play games.

How? Give me examples(other than FPSs).

They're just not all shooters (thank God).

There's not enough shooters on Wii to begin with.


I agree wih Racoon. Paper Mario and Paper Mario TTYD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPM

I loved the old ones. Loved 'em.

 

[BentoBox]

By simulating an arcade machine and pushing forward depth-lacking games as the future of videogames.

fun ._.

 

[sakuraZaKi]

Conduit for the Wii seems sweet

 

[Darkslash]

How? Give me examples(other than FPSs).

Super Mario Galaxy had you doing 2 things at the same time. Using the Pointer to collect Star bits while Jumping. Some star bits are in places that you couldn't reach and using the pointer helps alot. Also using the pointer In some boss battles.

Metroid Prime 3 had you swinging and grappling with the Nunchuck as you shoot at the same time. I would call Metroid Prime a FPA than a FPS.

Force Unleashed has you using the force with the nun chuck while you cut people.

Blazing Angels,HeatSeeker Wii and possibly Sky Crawlers Wii have the Nunchuck as the Plane Joystick and the Wiimote as throttle.

 

[NeBz]

Super Mario Galaxy had you doing 2 things at the same time. Using the Pointer to collect Star bits while Jumping. Some star bits are in places that you couldn't reach and using the pointer helps alot. Also using the pointer In some boss battles.

Metroid Prime 3 had you swinging and grappling with the Nunchuck as you shoot at the same time. I would call Metroid Prime a FPA than a FPS.

Force Unleashed has you using the force with the nun chuck while you cut people.

Blazing Angels,HeatSeeker Wii and possibly Sky Crawlers Wii have the Nunchuck as the Plane Joystick and the Wiimote as throttle.

*pwned*



I still think that The Wiimotes only advantage over ordinary controllers is Pointing.

 

[derek.haines]

The tilt sensor in the Wiimote was also used in Super Monkey Ball Banana Blitz and Mercury Meltdown Revolution to tilt the entire world while your character/glob of goo rolled around.

By simulating an arcade machine and pushing forward depth-lacking games as the future of videogames.

fun ._.

The depth lacking ones are among the only ones we've seen so far because they take so little time and effort to make. Because developers have only been actually working with the Wii for a year and half or so, we haven't seen the big titles they started to make after the system's launch. Good games take time, we only need to be patient.

Until then I HIGHLY recommend No More Heroes. I picked it up last night and I bloody looooooove it. The open world portions bite the big one, but the work minigames and the actual combat segments are a blast. I hope Ubisoft's satisfied enough with the sales figures to greenlight a sequel...

 

[Firus]

Wow, where to begin... There was almost nothing in Firusthehedgehog's post that I agreed with. Fun times.

Good. I enjoy a good video game debate.

Those aren't all the AAA titles by any means, those just happened to be the ones currently sitting on my shelf. Galaxy was a blast, and it'll be remembered as the game that changed the platforming genre forever--plus, it was just **** beautiful. Brawl is just as much fun of a party game as Melee was--probably moreso. Super Paper Mario was a genius fusion of traditional Mario action and RPG elements--nothing I could even start to call bad there.

I didn't say "Those are ALL of them?" I asked if you were actually calling all of them AAA.
Galaxy changed...what? That planetary thing has never been done before? Heck, that was done in Sonic Adventure 2. Only one level, but still. It's not like that was created with Galaxy. Plus, I hate that. The camera goes all wiggy and you press left and you go diagonal! What the heck? It's just annoying. It better not have changed it forever, because if it did then platforming is ****ed.
Brawl is great for doing a bunch of outlandish crap. That kind of stuff is hilarious and fun for about 10 minutes before you're like, "Okay...that was fun, now it's just boring." Any other potential the game has is bad. I don't play my games as party games either. I enjoyed Melee fine without anyone else to play it with (I normally don't have anyone to play it with). Brawl is fairly enjoyable with others, but lacking if you're by yourself. And before anyone tells me to get friends, I have them. I just can't be hanging out with them 24/7. Brawl got boring because I couldn't improve. After years of playing Melee, I was better. After even a while of practicing I was better. With Brawl I stayed on the same field the whole time. Super Paper Mario killed Paper Mario. I don't normally like Mario, but I really loved TTYD. Super Paper Mario took away the RPG and made it another Mario game except even worse. Hardly AAA.

It's called innovation. The Wii is changing the way we play games--I honestly cannot see how that's a bad thing. And, how is the balance board any different than a Guitar Hero guitar? Plus, it's going to be used for more than just one series of games. The Zapper is far from necessary, as is the Classic Controller--these are all optional, giving players ways options that suit them best.

You're right, the Wii is changing the way we play games. It took the good type of games out back and shot them.
How are a bunch of crap controllers innovation? It's not. This is more of no actual game innovation and base "innovation" that's crammed into everything so you get the same thing over and over. I never said it was different than a Guitar Hero Guitar either. Then again, for the other systems, that's what, one other controller? I don't condone Guitar Hero anyways. If you want to play guitar, play guitar, not that piece of crap.
They may just be options (for some, the Classic Controller is actually necessary on occasion) but it's still just an excuse for innovation in the Zapper's case.

How about No More Heroes? Or Pro Evolution Soccer? There's also Scarface and The Godfather, not to mention Trauma Center. Guitar Hero III sold better on the Wii than on any other console. Then, the Wii did get Geometry Wars: Galaxies and Blastworks. There're hardcore games on the Wii, they're just not all shooters (thank God).

Oh yeah, you're right. No More Heroes gets some bad*** character, a lot of gore and it gets an M rating and all of a sudden it's hardcore and a good game. My bad.
Guitar Hero sold better on the Wii because...guess what? It's a casual game. Not hardcore. Hardcore gamers play it, but it's not a real video game. And casual gamers are the majority of Wii owners.
I don't know what your definition of "hardcore" is. I really don't.

And, I'm not going to quote you, but you've called the DS casual... Yes, there are casual games for the DS (they sold the system), but it has one of the most fantastic libraries of hardcore games of any system ever. It would simply take far too long to list all of them.

The DS is very casual. It used to be better and once the Wii came out with the casual stuff, the DS followed suit. Actually, it's not that great of a system at all if you ask me. I have like, 30 GBA games. I have 9 for DS, only a few being games I replay.

Still doesn't explain how you think the PS3 or 360 is better. I'm sure they never change much in their gameplay or controls as well.

I never said they were better...I feel about this generation's console pretty much the same way as the presidential race. The systems all suck, so I pretty much have to choose the lesser of 3 evils. In this case, sadly, it's the Wii. So yeah, I didn't explain why I think they're better because I don't.

You think Barney's Hide and Seek, E.T., and Pong are good? There's more bad games in the old school than people expect you know. But people only think about the Marios, Sonics, and MegaMans back then. >_>

Pong was the very first game. If you call Pong bad, you fail at life.
When I say old school is good, I'm talking about franchises. Sonic, Metroid, Mario, Zelda...yeah. Those.

 

[NeBz]

Good. I enjoy a good video game debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenKirby
Still doesn't explain how you think the PS3 or 360 is better. I'm sure they never change much in their gameplay or controls as well.

I never said they were better...I feel about this generation's console pretty much the same way as the presidential race. The systems all suck, so I pretty much have to choose the lesser of 3 evils. In this case, sadly, it's the Wii. So yeah, I didn't explain why I think they're better because I don't.

xD
Why do you game if you think they suck so much?

And to GreenKirby:

The PS3 and 360 changed/will change a lot in the Gameplay. Since their more powerful and can handle bigger Ideas for games. They have Bigger storage(more content, more depth, DLC) and More realistic gameplay(Physics/AI). Online. These elements could combine to make great multiplayer and great singleplayer. The controls stay the same though.

 

[Darkslash]

xD
Why do you game if you think they suck so much?

And to GreenKirby:

The PS3 and 360 changed/will change a lot in the Gameplay. Since their more powerful and can handle bigger Ideas for games. They have Bigger storage(more content, more depth, DLC) and More realistic gameplay(Physics/AI). Online. These elements could combine to make great multiplayer and great singleplayer. The controls stay the same though.

If controls stay the same how will it change the gameplay? MP1 and MP2 FEEL A HELL OF A LOT different from MP3. Call of Duty 4 DS has WAY better controls the Xbox360 and PS3 versions. Of course they will never have them.

And the Wii will get DLC
http://www.nintendowiifanboy.com/2008/06/21/guitar-hero-world-tour-can-save-dlc-to-an-sd-card/
don't worry about the Web site name.... its all that for the other consoles.

 

[derek.haines]

I didn't say "Those are ALL of them?" I asked if you were actually calling all of them AAA.
Galaxy changed...what? That planetary thing has never been done before? Heck, that was done in Sonic Adventure 2. Only one level, but still. It's not like that was created with Galaxy. Plus, I hate that. The camera goes all wiggy and you press left and you go diagonal! What the heck? It's just annoying. It better not have changed it forever, because if it did then platforming is ****ed.

Lol, opinions. I guess there really is no "correct" response one way or another, but I can state that Galaxy has made an impact, both as a critically acclaimed title and as a financial success. It took platforming, a genre that had up until that point been limited to a single, flat dimension as far as the platforms went, and threw it on it's head. It made gamers think laterally and in different ways then they had ever really been made to before. For that, it shall forever have an impact.

Brawl is great for doing a bunch of outlandish crap. That kind of stuff is hilarious and fun for about 10 minutes before you're like, "Okay...that was fun, now it's just boring." Any other potential the game has is bad. I don't play my games as party games either. I enjoyed Melee fine without anyone else to play it with (I normally don't have anyone to play it with). Brawl is fairly enjoyable with others, but lacking if you're by yourself. And before anyone tells me to get friends, I have them. I just can't be hanging out with them 24/7. Brawl got boring because I couldn't improve. After years of playing Melee, I was better. After even a while of practicing I was better. With Brawl I stayed on the same field the whole time.

I think the keyword there is "after years". Brawl has only been out for months, so who's to say that after years of playing it you really won't be better? Besides, it's so much the same experience as Melee that most of that improvement you'd made in the first game would've carried over to second, and you might've hit the point where the CPU-controlled opponents wouldn't have presented a real challenge under any circumstances. I'm just speculating, however.

Super Paper Mario killed Paper Mario. I don't normally like Mario, but I really loved TTYD. Super Paper Mario took away the RPG and made it another Mario game except even worse. Hardly AAA.

Very AAA. If we would've gotten another game just slightly more different than TTYD, it would've likely flopped critically. The third game simply had to do something different or else it would've been met with cries of "more of the same". I think the reception it did get speaks volumes about how good the game ultimately turned out.

You're right, the Wii is changing the way we play games. It took the good type of games out back and shot them.
How are a bunch of crap controllers innovation? It's not. This is more of no actual game innovation and base "innovation" that's crammed into everything so you get the same thing over and over. I never said it was different than a Guitar Hero Guitar either. Then again, for the other systems, that's what, one other controller? I don't condone Guitar Hero anyways. If you want to play guitar, play guitar, not that piece of crap.
They may just be options (for some, the Classic Controller is actually necessary on occasion) but it's still just an excuse for innovation in the Zapper's case.

I really seems to me like you're simply not the type of gamer who's going to enjoy what the Wii has to offer, and that's fine. Some people are simply more suited to pressing buttons. The Wii is the only system whose controllers did something different this generation, however. The N64/PS1 generation introduced analog control, and last-gen introduced pressure sensitive buttons. These both changed the way games were developed and played. The 360 and PS3 just pulled over virtually the same controllers from last time (except the Sixaxis, which if I understand correctly is regarded as a bit of a joke), whereas the Wii brought both motion and pointer controls, as well as increased versatility with the box-in controller.

Oh yeah, you're right. No More Heroes gets some bad*** character, a lot of gore and it gets an M rating and all of a sudden it's hardcore and a good game. My bad.
Guitar Hero sold better on the Wii because...guess what? It's a casual game. Not hardcore. Hardcore gamers play it, but it's not a real video game. And casual gamers are the majority of Wii owners.
I don't know what your definition of "hardcore" is. I really don't.

My definition of hardcore is this: Any game in which successful completion or demonstration of skill requires a significant investment of both time and effort on the part of the player.

No More Heroes is a hardcore game by that definition. There are boss battles in that game that you will get by only just barely. It will at times chew you up and spit you out. It's got nothing to do with characters or gore, it's the game itself. And it's a bloody good one. Games like Guitar Hero blur the line between casual and hardcore (as will many titles) because it is simple and intuitive enough for a non-gamer to jump into directly but difficult enough that beating the songs on Expert will require both skill and practice.

The DS is very casual. It used to be better and once the Wii came out with the casual stuff, the DS followed suit. Actually, it's not that great of a system at all if you ask me. I have like, 30 GBA games. I have 9 for DS, only a few being games I replay.

Sure, if you're only focusing on the Nintendo offerings, the DS might well appear rather casual. But for every Nintendogs and Training game, there's an Izuna or Shiren the Wanderer or Eterian Oddessy to test even the most hardcore gamer's skills. Third party titles are where the DS has really shined, and there's a lot of love to go around if you're willing to give it a chance. Most of the Square Enix and Atlus games cannot be beat for quality, and the best Ninja Gaiden game in recent memory appeared on the system. Castlevania simply cannot be forgotten (Dawn of Sorrow was a masterpiece). Hell, Space Invaders Extreme was even magnificent. And if you want a good new Sonic game there's no other system to turn to than the DS.

 

[SuperRacoon]

The Wiimote and Nunchuck are great. But the Wii wheel and the Wii Zapper are just insulting. Honestly look at the wheel, it doesn't add anything at all, you can play it just fine with out it.
Same with the Zapper, it's just a plastic case that adds nothing to the games controllers

having an intense (often excessive) interest in or enthusiasm for some particular activity, pastime or hobby
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hard+Core
So for a game to be considered hard core. It must stimulate the above attitude among enough persons for them to consider it hard core.

It's the first and best rated definition in the online slang dictionary. Because meaning of words is determined by the generally accepted use of the word. This is the definition we should go by for hard core.

And by this definition Hard Core would actually be an attitude among players, not the game itself.

So by this definition which is the one i use for hard core, you must first prove to me that a title as substantial following among people.

The problem with the titles you presented, is general interest died a while ago among most of them, there may be hard core fans of those games, like yourself, but among most people, these games are most certainly not hard core.

Now that I've take the time to examine the word "Hard Core". You must realize that is awfully opinionated when referring to objects. And can only be stated as fact when referring to people.

 

[Spire]

Despite everything that you guys have been arguing over, I'd like to briefly answer the main topic, "no more good games for Wii?"

There are bountiful good games for Wii coming out soon, and continuing into the depths of the year. We're about to be bombarded with many great games:

• Wario Land: Shake It!
• Fatal Frame: The Mask of the Lunar Eclipse
• Mushroom Men
• Star Wars The Clone Wars: Lightsaber Duels
• Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers
• The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon
• Crash: Mind over Mutant
• Castlevania Judgement
• Tomb Raider: Underworld
• Sonic Unleashed
• Guitar Hero World Tour
• Mad World
• Spyborgs
• Rune Factory Frontiers
• and many, many more...

No more good games, my ***... Oh, and for the record, the DS is pretty much a stripped down, handheld Wii. It's built for gamers of all sorts. Look at Final Fantasy III, IV, and Tactics Advance 2. Are those really casual-gamer titles? Hell no.

 

[derek.haines]

The Wiimote and Nunchuck are great. But the Wii wheel and the Wii Zapper are just insulting. Honestly look at the wheel, it doesn't add anything at all, you can play it just fine with out it.
Same with the Zapper, it's just a plastic case that adds nothing to the games controllers

I agree 100% about the Zapper, it's a piece of crap. There are much better gun rigs if somebody really wants one. Luckily neither are required in the least.

having an intense (often excessive) interest in or enthusiasm for some particular activity, pastime or hobby
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hard+Core
So for a game to be considered hard core. It must stimulate the above attitude among enough persons for them to consider it hard core.

It's the first and best rated definition in the online slang dictionary. Because meaning of words is determined by the generally accepted use of the word. This is the definition we should go by for hard core.

And by this definition Hard Core would actually be an attitude among players, not the game itself.

So by this definition which is the one i use for hard core, you must first prove to me that a title as substantial following among people.

The problem with the titles you presented, is general interest died a while ago among most of them, there may be hard core fans of those games, like yourself, but among most people, these games are most certainly not hard core.

Now that I've take the time to examine the word "Hard Core". You must realize that is awfully opinionated when referring to objects. And can only be stated as fact when referring to people.

I can't say that I much like that way of defining a hardcore game. You're not defining the game itself, but the people that play it--in effect, you've defined a hardcore gamer: One with above average dedication to the skill and completion of games. Now we just need a matching definition to fit the games, and I think mine works pretty well.

I can't see calling an obsessive following hardcore, because that would make the likes of Gaia Online, Maplestory, and, hell, even Wii Sports hardcore. I (and most other gamers, as far as I'm aware) believe that it is on the game itself to be defined as hardcore, and not on the community of gamers that play it, because hardcore gamers don't necessarily play only hardcore games and hardcore games are not only played by hardcore gamers. I know plenty of sometimes-gamers who play Gears of War and dabble in a bit of Counter Strike now and then, but nobody (including themselves) would even come close to calling them hardcore gamers.

We're not using "hardcore" in the sense of the word as you've used it. We're not defining people, but games. It takes on a completely different connotation when used in that sense, and that's why it's been so hard as a gaming community to reach a consensus about what it really means for a game to be "hardcore". Your definition has games that fall out of favor suddenly becoming un-hardcore, as though it were a season that comes and goes. It's a more concrete idea than that.

....besides, it's hard to call that the "definitive" definition of hardcore, as it's been voted on by just over 100 members of just one website. That's pretty far from a consensus.

 

[Darkslash]

TO the OP.


Wait till E3. WE ALL hopefully know how secretive they are. We might as well hopefully get games that make Hardcore gamers Swear for 5 minutes and trust me that aint a pretty sight.

 

[Cubemario]

The definition hardcore is an opinion. In my opinion a hardcore game is a game that has a lot of depth to it. Something like an RTS game for example or the metal gear solid series. Those games are hardcore. Not exactly games you can pick up and play or have a learning curve of an hour.

That's why I don't like the wii or DS, those type of games are lacking in my opinion. If other people like those games, hooray for you. I'll even admit I enjoy a few casual games every now and then. The problem is the wii is overwhelmed with those titles and the 'hardcore' titles just aren't there.

Man, i've played metal gear solid 4 several times over and i'm STILL learning stuff. With mario galaxy... I learned everything in ten minutes. So I guess what i'm saying is simple games aren't often fun for me. They need to be complicated in some way or they aren't worth my time.

 

[Firus]

xD
Why do you game if you think they suck so much?

Believe it or not, video games didn't start with this generation.

Lol, opinions. I guess there really is no "correct" response one way or another, but I can state that Galaxy has made an impact, both as a critically acclaimed title and as a financial success. It took platforming, a genre that had up until that point been limited to a single, flat dimension as far as the platforms went, and threw it on it's head. It made gamers think laterally and in different ways then they had ever really been made to before. For that, it shall forever have an impact.

No it won't. Galaxy did not "invent" this concept, it didn't bring anything new to the table, it just took things that have been done before in platforming and forced the whole game to be like that. As I said, Mad Space in Sonic Adventure 2 is just one example of where this has been done before. This is NOT a new concept.

I think the keyword there is "after years". Brawl has only been out for months, so who's to say that after years of playing it you really won't be better? Besides, it's so much the same experience as Melee that most of that improvement you'd made in the first game would've carried over to second, and you might've hit the point where the CPU-controlled opponents wouldn't have presented a real challenge under any circumstances. I'm just speculating, however.

Okay, let's do this. I got my GameCube at the end of 2003. After only a while of pitting myself against level 9s after I became friendly with someone who was absolutely AWESOME at the game, and playing against them, I improved. Initially I ran away from him in battles and if it was a "Oh, it's just him and me now." situation, I might as well have given up. After not a whole lot of time passed, I was at the point where that same situation turned out to be an even match. Didn't take years, took a month. You know where I was in a same situation with Brawl? At the beginning, I didn't stand a chance. Further on, I still didn't stand a chance. It's possible that I just suck at video games, but I've heard the same complaint from others, so I'm less inclined to believe it's just me. It's great as a screw around party game, but that's the kind of stuff that's on Addicting Games. $50 games shouldn't be like that, because you get bored of them. Brawl had so much potential and didn't live up to it.

Very AAA. If we would've gotten another game just slightly more different than TTYD, it would've likely flopped critically. The third game simply had to do something different or else it would've been met with cries of "more of the same". I think the reception it did get speaks volumes about how good the game ultimately turned out.

I have heard nothing good about it except from Nintendo Power, whom I no longer trust for anything, especially considering the directiong they've gone in. In any case, do you hear yourself? You're basically saying that if the series hadn't stopped being the way it was (the first two games were RPGs) then it would've been horrible. That's like saying "Metroid has to change to being a puzzle game right now or it's going to flop the next game!". It's stupid. Changing the entire game wasn't necessary, it was a great game before. Did you play the previous two?

I really seems to me like you're simply not the type of gamer who's going to enjoy what the Wii has to offer, and that's fine. Some people are simply more suited to pressing buttons. The Wii is the only system whose controllers did something different this generation, however. The N64/PS1 generation introduced analog control, and last-gen introduced pressure sensitive buttons. These both changed the way games were developed and played. The 360 and PS3 just pulled over virtually the same controllers from last time (except the Sixaxis, which if I understand correctly is regarded as a bit of a joke), whereas the Wii brought both motion and pointer controls, as well as increased versatility with the box-in controller.

It's not that I don't enjoy what the Wii has to offer. It's that, in order for Nintendo to implement this "innovation", it turns into a going-out-of-business sale for everything else--everything must go. The great things about last generation have been ditched, any REAL innovation is gone because we've got motion sensor. That's my problem. Also, in an age where good graphics are demanded, Nintendo doesn't follow. That's fine, I love that. Graphics are a nice add-on, nothing more, so when someone says "ZOMG NINTENDO HAS BAD GRAPHICS!" I'm not even inclined to address such a poor argument. But if they're so inclined to be non-conformist, why do they insist on transitioning to 3D for everything as it is expected? Super Metroid is widely considered the best Metroid game, and it was a 2D game. Yet, the FIRST METROID GAME on the DS is 3D, setting a precedent. How likely is it that they'll be able to go backwards? They'll get criticized for it. I have no problem, but now even if they wanted to go back to 2D they'll be determined to stay on the same track. Not even considering how much Metroid Prime Hunters failed as a Metroid game, or just in general, but I love 2D Metroid games. The first two were kind of meh, but Super Metroid is awesome as well as Fusion--I've played it through at least 30 times. Why can't we return to that?

My definition of hardcore is this: Any game in which successful completion or demonstration of skill requires a significant investment of both time and effort on the part of the player.

So basically, any game that's challenging is hardcore. No. Maybe that's your definition, but that's not what I'd consider at all. In any case, that'd rule out Galaxy, a title you seem to think was pretty great, as well as Brawl. It's specifically built so a noob can come in and, considering you play on 35/41 of the stages, win. Especially Spear Pillar.

No More Heroes is a hardcore game by that definition. There are boss battles in that game that you will get by only just barely. It will at times chew you up and spit you out. It's got nothing to do with characters or gore, it's the game itself. And it's a bloody good one. Games like Guitar Hero blur the line between casual and hardcore (as will many titles) because it is simple and intuitive enough for a non-gamer to jump into directly but difficult enough that beating the songs on Expert will require both skill and practice.

Okay, whether or not it's a hardcore title I can't necessarily decide, as I've not played the game.
But to go off-topic for a bit, just as to the greatness of the game which seems to be raved about all over, other than being difficult, what does it have? Maybe I've just heard from poor sources, but all Nintendo Power gave was "It's M Rated!", "It has gore!", and "You're no longer a hero!" That whole "not being the good guy" thing--been done before. What substance is there to the game that should convince me to buy it? Also, what the heck is with the title? Not entirely creative, if you ask me.

Sure, if you're only focusing on the Nintendo offerings, the DS might well appear rather casual. But for every Nintendogs and Training game, there's an Izuna or Shiren the Wanderer or Eterian Oddessy to test even the most hardcore gamer's skills. Third party titles are where the DS has really shined, and there's a lot of love to go around if you're willing to give it a chance. Most of the Square Enix and Atlus games cannot be beat for quality, and the best Ninja Gaiden game in recent memory appeared on the system. Castlevania simply cannot be forgotten (Dawn of Sorrow was a masterpiece). Hell, Space Invaders Extreme was even magnificent. And if you want a good new Sonic game there's no other system to turn to than the DS.

Well I do focus on Nintendo titles. If I want third party titles I can buy Xbox/Playstation. Everything has third party titles. I buy the Nintendo systems for their titles. Will I pick up a third party title if it looks really good? Of course. But nothing on the DS thus far has made me say "Gotta buy it!" Maybe I don't belong in this discussion because I focus on first party titles, the main franchises, but that's what I'm focusing on. And as far as I'm concerned, those titles have been nerfed as badly as Samus was in Brawl. Mario turned into casual-mania, Pokemon is going downhill, Metroid is being taken away from what made it good...etc. Don't even get me STARTED on DK. That has to be the worst franchise Nintendo has these days, but the Country games and 64 were GREAT. (By the way, there's more of your controller innovation. All 3 titles for GameCube had those stupid bongos, and all of those games were bad. Surprise, surprise.)
Don't get me started on Sonic either. The phrase "good new Sonic game" is the biggest oxymoron ever. Compared to other new games, good, maybe. Good in general, kind of. In any case, not that many systems have Sonic games anymore.

My biggest problem with the Wii/DS is that they ruin franchises and games because they're so desperate to put in that base innovation. Every 3rd party game the Wii gets has to be different for the Wii if it's for other systems as well. We don't even get a real Soul Calibur, We got a different Sonic game (Sonic 2006 may not have been stellar, but Secret Rings was simply awful thanks to constant movement so that motion sensor could be implemented.)...it's getting ridiculous. We get special treatment, but special has different meanings. In this case, special is bad.

Despite everything that you guys have been arguing over, I'd like to briefly answer the main topic, "no more good games for Wii?"

There are bountiful good games for Wii coming out soon, and continuing into the depths of the year. We're about to be bombarded with many great games:
Wario Land: Shake It!
Fatal Frame: The Mask of the Lunar Eclipse
Mushroom Men
Star Wars The Clone Wars: Lightsaber Duels
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers
The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon
Crash: Mind over Mutant
Castlevania Judgement
Tomb Raider: Underworld
Sonic Unleashed
Guitar Hero World Tour
Mad World
Spyborgs
Rune Factory Frontiers
and many, many more...
No more good games, my ***... Oh, and for the record, the DS is pretty much a stripped down, handheld Wii. It's built for gamers of all sorts. Look at Final Fantasy III, IV, and Tactics Advance 2. Are those really casual-gamer titles? Hell no.

The topic is mainly referring to first party games. For first party games, yeah, the Wii is pretty much done.

As for being built for gamers of all sorts...yeah, by gamers of all sorts, it's meant that gamers have to adjust and casual gamers get what they want. In any case, you couldn't say that all of those are good. If there's one thing we should've learned from Brawl, it's that you can never assume any game is good until you've played it. I can say right now with full confidence that Sonic Unleashed is going to be bad. I may be proven wrong, but I'll stand by that statement until I'm convinced otherwise. The previous new Sonic games have been bad, and it sounds once again like they're trying too hard to bring him back to his roots.

 

[WoapGang]

Well lets see what 1st Party Games are left....

StarFox...
possibly another Metroid Prime (GCN had 1 & 2)
EarthBound Revival if possible
Ice Climbers Revival
Kid Icarus Revival

 

[Cubemario]

Nope. Metroid prime series is done. They were only doing three from what I heard.

 

[antimatter]

Nope. Metroid prime series is done. They were only doing three from what I heard.

PRIME is done, not the whole FPA style of gameplay. The Wii may get more Metroid games. Also, we may get a new Zelda. The N64 got both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, after all. Kid Icarus is almost certainly coming. Star Fox has yet to come to the Wii. There is also Pikmin 3 and Animal Crossing Wii to wait for. Wario Land Shake, as pointed out before. There is still hope yet, we shouldn't jump the Nintendo ship until it is clear that they won't improve. There's still four more years to the Wii's shelf life.

 

[Samochan]

I shall be happy if they make a 3D metroid game that rivals super and prime 1. MP3 was simply gimmicky in many ways. After a while the wiimote swinging leaves a shallow feeling, while on prime 1 it's the other way around, often times I find myself reminiscing about the glorious moments on mp1. Just that nothing in my eyes seems to rival the masterpiece that was MP1, anything that tries gets the unfortunate treatment of getting compared to MP1.

I shall also be happy if I ever get PS2 and FFX on it <3

 

[Firus]

possibly another Metroid Prime (GCN had 1 & 2)

PRIME is done, not the whole FPA style of gameplay. The Wii may get more Metroid games.

No one said Metroid won't get another game, but people keep saying we'll get another Prime. PRIME is over. That's all we're saying.

But yeah, the FPA games are doubtless still going to come. Also, another question; why was Hunters even called Prime? Prime has to do with Phazon and that whole thing. Hunters didn't. Metroid: Hunters would've been a more appropriate title.

In any case, yeah. I'd be surprised if the FPA style ever ends for Metroid now. We probably won't even see a 2D on a handheld.

I'd do anything for Sylux to not return, though. Nothing from Hunters should get anywhere near Metroid again. Hunters shouldn't even be called Metroid. But as your sig points out...yeah, Sylux is probably back. Poor Metroid...

 

[Cubemario]

Personally, the FPA gameplay style needs some new ideas. It was too much of the same in the 2nd one, let alone the third.

The first was always the best because it started it. In my opinion it also did it the best way. The other two installments focused too much on killing and not enough adventure.

 

[Darkslash]

Personally, the FPA gameplay style needs some new ideas. It was too much of the same in the 2nd one, let alone the third.

The first was always the best because it started it. In my opinion it also did it the best way. The other two installments focused too much on killing and not enough adventure.

Well MP3 is sorta excusable because this time its a War and not one planet. But enough killing in MP3 though.

 

[Firus]

Well MP3 is sorta excusable because this time its a War and not one planet. But enough killing in MP3 though.

Why does it get a pass just because it was on more than one planet?

 

[derek.haines]

No it won't. Galaxy did not "invent" this concept, it didn't bring anything new to the table, it just took things that have been done before in platforming and forced the whole game to be like that. As I said, Mad Space in Sonic Adventure 2 is just one example of where this has been done before. This is NOT a new concept.

You don't have to invent a concept to make an impact, just perfect it (which I think it did). Suddenly after having played Galaxy, normal platformers aren't going to feel quite as neat.

I have heard nothing good about it except from Nintendo Power, whom I no longer trust for anything, especially considering the directiong they've gone in. In any case, do you hear yourself? You're basically saying that if the series hadn't stopped being the way it was (the first two games were RPGs) then it would've been horrible. That's like saying "Metroid has to change to being a puzzle game right now or it's going to flop the next game!". It's stupid. Changing the entire game wasn't necessary, it was a great game before. Did you play the previous two?

Super Paper Mario has an aggregate score of 88% on Gamerankings.com, with not a single score below a 70%--not exactly a flop. I played and loved the first two, yes, and I don't think the change between TTYD and SPM is quite as drastic as Metroid becoming a puzzle game (maybe a pinball game, lol). Between the first two Paper Mario titles and the two handheld games, the "Mario in an RPG" collection of games hadn't really changed much. If SPM had just been exactly what TTYD was, it wouldn't have stood out in the least, and worse yet it might've risked being regarded as what the Megaman Battle Network franchise has become, "Another one? Really? Didn't I JUST play this last year?"

It's not that I don't enjoy what the Wii has to offer. It's that, in order for Nintendo to implement this "innovation", it turns into a going-out-of-business sale for everything else--everything must go. The great things about last generation have been ditched, any REAL innovation is gone because we've got motion sensor. That's my problem. Also, in an age where good graphics are demanded, Nintendo doesn't follow. That's fine, I love that. Graphics are a nice add-on, nothing more, so when someone says "ZOMG NINTENDO HAS BAD GRAPHICS!" I'm not even inclined to address such a poor argument. But if they're so inclined to be non-conformist, why do they insist on transitioning to 3D for everything as it is expected? Super Metroid is widely considered the best Metroid game, and it was a 2D game. Yet, the FIRST METROID GAME on the DS is 3D, setting a precedent. How likely is it that they'll be able to go backwards? They'll get criticized for it. I have no problem, but now even if they wanted to go back to 2D they'll be determined to stay on the same track. Not even considering how much Metroid Prime Hunters failed as a Metroid game, or just in general, but I love 2D Metroid games. The first two were kind of meh, but Super Metroid is awesome as well as Fusion--I've played it through at least 30 times. Why can't we return to that?

Who's to say that we can't? Look at MegaMan 9. I also have to wonder just what sort of "REAL" innovation you're looking for, because besides the motion sensor we've seen an online store, multiplayer online gameplay, DLC, and custom soundtracks--maybe not as well implemented as on certain other systems, but the inclusion alone is notable. What other innovations were you really holding out for?

So basically, any game that's challenging is hardcore. No. Maybe that's your definition, but that's not what I'd consider at all. In any case, that'd rule out Galaxy, a title you seem to think was pretty great, as well as Brawl. It's specifically built so a noob can come in and, considering you play on 35/41 of the stages, win. Especially Spear Pillar.

How is a game that requires a gamer to be really good at it to beat it not hardcore? Does a game somehow require a million online clans that play for 50 hours per week to be hardcore? Or is it "A mature experience", because I don't think that mature=hardcore necessarily. And, did you even take Galaxy past the 60 star mark? If not, you've really not experienced what the game really had to throw at you--after that point, it starts kicking your ***.

Okay, whether or not it's a hardcore title I can't necessarily decide, as I've not played the game.
But to go off-topic for a bit, just as to the greatness of the game which seems to be raved about all over, other than being difficult, what does it have? Maybe I've just heard from poor sources, but all Nintendo Power gave was "It's M Rated!", "It has gore!", and "You're no longer a hero!" That whole "not being the good guy" thing--been done before. What substance is there to the game that should convince me to buy it? Also, what the heck is with the title? Not entirely creative, if you ask me.

It oozes style, has a fun and rewarding as hell combat system, has great, fun characters, and a ton of collectibles to keep hoarders interested. It's not perfect--far from it--but it's a hell of alot of fun and few would call it anything but a hardcore title.

Well I do focus on Nintendo titles. If I want third party titles I can buy Xbox/Playstation. Everything has third party titles. I buy the Nintendo systems for their titles. Will I pick up a third party title if it looks really good? Of course. But nothing on the DS thus far has made me say "Gotta buy it!" Maybe I don't belong in this discussion because I focus on first party titles, the main franchises, but that's what I'm focusing on. And as far as I'm concerned, those titles have been nerfed as badly as Samus was in Brawl. Mario turned into casual-mania, Pokemon is going downhill, Metroid is being taken away from what made it good...etc. Don't even get me STARTED on DK. That has to be the worst franchise Nintendo has these days, but the Country games and 64 were GREAT. (By the way, there's more of your controller innovation. All 3 titles for GameCube had those stupid bongos, and all of those games were bad. Surprise, surprise.)
Don't get me started on Sonic either. The phrase "good new Sonic game" is the biggest oxymoron ever. Compared to other new games, good, maybe. Good in general, kind of. In any case, not that many systems have Sonic games anymore.

DK Jungle Beat had an aggregate score of 82% from Gamerankings.com. Hard to call that one bad.

It's easy to get stuck on the main franchises and first-party games when you're dealing with a Nintendo platform, I understand. Nintendo has a long and proud history as a developer and a publisher and so any perceived "weakness" from them is regarded as a terrible thing. Well, it just has to be known that an owner of a Nintendo console has a lot more to enjoy than just Nintendo games--there really are reasons to own a Wii without having to play a Nintendo game. It helps, it really does, but it's not required. Honestly, you could take away all of the first-party titles I own right now and I'd still be overjoyed with the Wii.

My biggest problem with the Wii/DS is that they ruin franchises and games because they're so desperate to put in that base innovation. Every 3rd party game the Wii gets has to be different for the Wii if it's for other systems as well. We don't even get a real Soul Calibur, We got a different Sonic game (Sonic 2006 may not have been stellar, but Secret Rings was simply awful thanks to constant movement so that motion sensor could be implemented.)...it's getting ridiculous. We get special treatment, but special has different meanings. In this case, special is bad.

I can only thank some great higher power that the Wii is getting more than just the same games the 360 and PS3 are getting. Alot of those games are built around graphics and extensive online modes, with single-player and local multiplayer taking a back seat. Many Wii-ports are just ports of the already shoddy PS2 experiences, because developers are too lazy to build new engines. With the other systems, if you have an engine built for one then you've already got it built for the other, so it's easy to port it over. Since the Wii lacks a lot of the graphical shine that the other consoles get, developers have to give the Wii version something that makes it stand out, a reason justifying it's existence beyond being an effort at money-grubbing. They take this as the point at which you insert motion controls (waggle, **** you!). Alot of these fail, to be sure, but some of these "Wii-makes" have really turned out fantastic (read: Resident Evil 4).

Luckily, now Wii owners are getting a reason to own the Wii version of the game rather than the 360 or PS3 version. Motion controls continue to be refined, and many developers have started taking advantage of the pointer controls to really revolutionize tired genres. Just check out Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, the Wii is probably getting the best version of that game.

And, Sonic and the Secret Rings was terrible across the board, not just on Wii. Nintendo's console didn't make it bad, Sega did. I don't much care for Sonic games generally though, so it's not much of an issue for me.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Why does it get a pass just because it was on more than one planet?

Because it's a good game.

Look, your a cool guy, but you slam new games just because they try to do something different. It pisses me off. Bringing Metroid into the FPA genre was a logical step for Metroid. And they were good games (except for Hunters. That one was mediocre at best). But who knows, you may get your wish of a 2-D Metroid with WiiWare. Nintendo may follow in Capcom's footsteps with the new 8-Bit Megaman.

Mario Galaxy? Fantastic game. It introduced a revival in the platformer franchise. We had a few Kirby games, Ratchet and Clank, and... nothing else. Then Galaxy comes along, a fantastic game that did innovate (yes, I dare say it did have some fresh and original ideas in it. The gravity system, for starters), and it's starting to revitalize interest in the Platformer genre, which is my favorite genre in general.

Hardcore games are hard games. It can't mean anything else. I can tell that you consider Super Metroid hardcore. Well, it's a hard game. Matter of fact, give me the names of your favorite games. I guaruntee you they will be hard.

Definition of hardcore from dictionary.com:
unswervingly committed; uncompromising. Yeah. You have to be committed to a hardcore game to beat it. Why?

It's hard.

But your problem is innovation. Yeah. Twilight Princess? No innovation. Still an excellent game. It isn't as easy to innovate as it was 20 years ago, because not as much was done. In today's age, it's hard because we've done so much with gaming.

You shouldn't expect something new every time. The same old may not be as exciting, but if you came back to it, it's probably good.

 

[NeBz]

If controls stay the same how will it change the gameplay? MP1 and MP2 FEEL A HELL OF A LOT different from MP3. Call of Duty 4 DS has WAY better controls the Xbox360 and PS3 versions. Of course they will never have them.

The DS one sucks compared to the PS3/360 version. The DS version was extremly dumbed down and was stripped down of what made COD4 so great just so it could fit. DS COD4 is better on controlls but the 360/PS3 version is better in everything else(gameplay, multiplayer. The things that really matter)

And the Wii will get DLC
http://www.nintendowiifanboy.com/2008/06/21/guitar-hero-world-tour-can-save-dlc-to-an-sd-card/
don't worry about the Web site name.... its all that for the other consoles.[/QUOTE]
The Wii doesn't have a HD. Add that to Nintendos additude on online and you'll have an idea of the quility o DLC you'll be getting.

Very AAA. If we would've gotten another game just slightly more different than TTYD, it would've likely flopped critically. The third game simply had to do something different or else it would've been met with cries of "more of the same". I think the reception it did get speaks volumes about how good the game ultimately turned out.

They could twist the formula and add to it without pulling an 180 on the series. They have to be different no doubt about that. They shouldn't just be slightly different, I agree. But they CHANGED the Paper Mario COMPLETELY. They took almost everything that made Paper Mario so great in the first place(It's unique Turn based RPG, for starters).

Despite everything that you guys have been arguing over, I'd like to briefly answer the main topic, "no more good games for Wii?"

There are bountiful good games for Wii coming out soon, and continuing into the depths of the year. We're about to be bombarded with many great games:
Wario Land: Shake It! (Shake it? No thanks)
Fatal Frame: The Mask of the Lunar Eclipse
Mushroom Men (SRSLY)
Star Wars The Clone Wars: Lightsaber Duels
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers
The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon (Meh)
Crash: Mind over Mutant (Eww)
Castlevania Judgement (Wiis answer to SC IV? Have a bad feeling about this)
Tomb Raider: Underworld (Not too sure how this is going to turn out. Probably sucky)
Sonic Unleashed (Nuff said)
Guitar Hero World Tour
Mad World
Spyborgs
Rune Factory Frontiers

Edited.

Believe it or not, video games didn't start with this generation.

Okay, why do you play Video games THIS generation? You seem forced and you said it sucked.

Personally, the FPA gameplay style needs some new ideas. It was too much of the same in the 2nd one, let alone the third.

The first was always the best because it started it. In my opinion it also did it the best way. The other two installments focused too much on killing and not enough adventure.

Agree'd.

 

[derek.haines]

The Wii doesn't have a HD. Add that to Nintendos additude on online and you'll have an idea of the quility o DLC you'll be getting.

Nah, Vicarious Visions has been working very closely with Nintendo to make sure that the experience is no different than on the other consoles. Basically, it means opening up the SD card slot to be able to play songs saved on it--an absolute blessing. Plus, you might see the Wii with updated firmware allowing SDHC cards, which means you could hypothetically have up to a 32 GB harddrive.


EDIT:

Hardcore games are hard games. It can't mean anything else. I can tell that you consider Super Metroid hardcore. Well, it's a hard game. Matter of fact, give me the names of your favorite games. I guaruntee you they will be hard.

Definition of hardcore from dictionary.com:
unswervingly committed; uncompromising. Yeah. You have to be committed to a hardcore game to beat it. Why?

It's hard.

Quoted for great justice.

 

[SuperRacoon]

I wouldn't call anything the Wii has to offer hard core, not by either definition.
Some of it may fit using definition that requires that a game has a following.
1. Most games that the Wii won't generate a following that will last more than a few months, weather they're hard or not they're just not deep enough to generate a hard core crowd.
Games like Super Mario 64 can still be considered hard core, because at it's height, it was a best seller, AND still has a people who play it often to break speed runs and stuff like that.
Super Mario RPG is hard core, because clearly after 16 years or so, we've got people clamoring for "geno for smash bros."
Super Mario Bros. 2 (usa)is not hard core because it fell out of favour rather quickly and regarded as the odd one out among the old SMB.
2. Hard Core meaning Hard Games, This definition coincides very well, because Hard Games are usually the ones that generate a fan base that remains dedicated to it for a long time.
Honestly though, I wouldn't call anything the Wii has to offer hard.

Super Mario Galaxy, beat it in a week (was fun though).

Super Paper Mario, takes no skill, got boring really fast.

Brawl. was dumbed down majorly so that it's all luck, no skill.

Metroid Prime 3, (only played on a friends Wii)once you learn the control scheme the challenge dissipates, multi player may still have some potential. (even though it's multi player sux compared to Halo)

Zelda Twilight Princess, beat it in a week

Wii Sports and related titles are not hard.

But yeah, Wii games are not hard,
(this statement i really want someone to prove me wrong, every freakin' Wii game i've played so far was to easy, can someone other than Derek.Haines recommend a Challenging title)

 

[lonejedi]

Brawl. was dumbed down majorly so that it's all luck, no skill.

ROFL. You obviously haven't played much brawl then.

 

[SuperRacoon]

Everyone on the Melee boards will tell you otherwise. Furthermore, I have played Brawl, I beat all the challenges, and for 4 months I lied to myself saying Brawl and everyone around me saying Brawl was better than Melee. But Melee is way better than Brawl that's all there is too it.

I finally realized this when i was over at a friends place, He doesn't own a Wii he's an Xbox fan, and doesn't play is gamecube that much, but he has Melee, because everyone has melee, He told me I should bring brawl to the party, but hey, I figured Melee was just the same, and it didn't take long before i knew why Brawl was unfulfilling. There was no tripping, there were offensive options to shut down the campiest of campers, and spammiest of spammers. Combo's of respectable length could be pulled off, and gravity actually threatened to pull you to your doom.
So be careful what you wish for. Be Careful, what you wish for.

Brawl is a Camptastic-Trip-Fest that really lacks the lasting appeal of Melee.

 

[lonejedi]

Everyone on the Melee boards will tell you otherwise. Furthermore, I have played Brawl, I beat all the challenges, and for 4 months I lied to myself saying Brawl and everyone around me saying Brawl was better than Melee. But Melee is way better than Brawl that's all there is too it.

I finally realized this when i was over at a friends place, He doesn't own a Wii he's an Xbox fan, and doesn't play is gamecube that much, but he has Melee, because everyone has melee, He told me I should bring brawl to the party, but hey, I figured Melee was just the same, and it didn't take long before i knew why Brawl was unfulfilling. There was no tripping, there were offensive options to shut down the campiest of campers, and spammiest of spammers. Combo's of respectable length could be pulled off, and gravity actually threatened to pull you to your doom.
So be careful what you wish for. Be Careful, what you wish for.

Brawl is a Camptastic-Trip-Fest that really lacks the lasting appeal of Melee.

I've played melee competatively in tournaments for a very long time. Melee is of course better than brawl in technicality. But saying Brawl is not competative is not true. As someone who plays both games competatively, brawl will still have tournaments.

 

[derek.haines]

I wouldn't call anything the Wii has to offer hard core, not by either definition.
Some of it may fit using definition that requires that a game has a following.
1. Most games that the Wii won't generate a following that will last more than a few months, weather they're hard or not they're just not deep enough to generate a hard core crowd.
Games like Super Mario 64 can still be considered hard core, because at it's height, it was a best seller, AND still has a people who play it often to break speed runs and stuff like that.
Super Mario RPG is hard core, because clearly after 16 years or so, we've got people clamoring for "geno for smash bros."
Super Mario Bros. 2 (usa)is not hard core because it fell out of favour rather quickly and regarded as the odd one out among the old SMB.
2. Hard Core meaning Hard Games, This definition coincides very well, because Hard Games are usually the ones that generate a fan base that remains dedicated to it for a long time.
Honestly though, I wouldn't call anything the Wii has to offer hard.

You're still trying to define hardcore games as "having a following", but I just don't think that's it. Take old NES games. There are plenty of those games that are going to require patience, dedication, and a great amount of skill to beat, but that just aren't popular in the mainstream gaming forum anymore (Ghosts and Ghouls, Mega Man 1 [not nearly as popular or fondly remembered as 2]). Even trying to define "having a following" is a messy situation, because I doubt one Japanese guy sitting in his apartment doing speed runs on Gradius MAKES the game hardcore, it simply is. Okami for the Wii certainly has a following, because it was only under heavy community pressure that they even ported it in the first place.

Hardcore games take an investment of both time and effort on the part of the gamer to demonstrate skill or completion, whereas casual games require little or no skill for maximum enjoyment and can be played at length without the definitive goal of completion or the demonstration of skill.

Metroid Prime 3, (only played on a friends Wii)once you learn the control scheme the challenge dissipates, multi player may still have some potential. (even though it's multi player sux compared to Halo)

There, um, was no multiplayer on Metroid Prime 3. So, yeah, I guess it would suck in comparison to Halo's multiplayer mode.

Wii Sports and related titles are not hard.

But the game is only a tech demo and over a year and a half after it's release people are still forming and competing in leagues.

But yeah, Wii games are not hard,
(this statement i really want someone to prove me wrong, every freakin' Wii game i've played so far was to easy, can someone other than Derek.Haines recommend a Challenging title)

I'm not somebody other than myself, but perhaps Geometry Wars: Galaxies? Old school gaming for the new millennium at it's best.

 

[SuperRacoon]

You understand though why I wont take a recommendation from you at least. With our bitterly opposing views on Super Paper Mario, I kinda of doubt I'd find a commendation from you entertaining.
I'll look up Geometry Wars at least, see what game reviews say.

 

[Speedsk8er]

I'm not somebody other than myself, but perhaps Geometry Wars: Galaxies? Old school gaming for the new millennium at it's best.

Castle Shikigami 3 is a better shooter.