Wii-X360-PS3

Originally Posted by Zeldafan1

Before I waste 2 hours of my time responding again, (despite the fact that I promised I wouldn't replay again) do this just mean you give up?

Yeah, it's pointless to keep this going, and it's sort of derailing this thread into an off-topic argument about Halo, which is far from the meaning of the thread.

I was expecting more people than just 4 people (including me) to own all 3. I'm quite surprised.

Jesus Christ. I actually think we may we have to make a rule for extremely long posts. No one should have to read all of that.

And yeah, don't derail this.

But feel free to make a new thread about Halo's multiplayer, I for one wouldn't mind discussing that.

To end this one a good note, I've decided to just rebut a little bit to Andross.

Originally Posted by Andross

Of course I have quality expectations for Party Games. They rarely live up to them, and the best examples are only "good", and maybe "great", if it is original, but never as a masterpiece.

The long-term goal of any game (including party games) is to be great. Just because party games usually aren't great, doesn't excuse you from having the same expectations that you have for Halo to a party game. After all you are comparing the 2 games as 'simplistic'.

Halo, overall, has as much simplicity and as many cliches as party games. Sure, there may be some in different sections, but they even out.

They barely even out at all. Halo has much more complicated gameplay mechanics and overall is much less simplistic than a party game. Just because a game doesn't offer rewards after beating a level, doesn't signify 'simplistic' at all.

I'm just saying that you can't argue that the Wii's big titles are simplistic and not think that the Xbox's are simplistic. Both are simplistic, and that is the problem.

So the Wii's big titles are mini-game compilations?

I was never defending party games, though, now was I? Truthfully, what I was saying was more an attack on both party games and Halo.

It's hard to understand when you use Halo and a mini-game as a comparison.

I was saying that Halo lacks depth and is simplistic; therefore, it is similiar to Nintendo's party games. I never said that Nintendo's party games were better than Halo.

Nintendo's party games barely have a story. For instance Wario Ware, Far tooshort (took me an afternoon to complete.No replay value (its not been on since I completed it. Gameplay is very repetetive.No depth to the game. The mini stories are just lame.

Gameplay is one area I was not pleased with in WarioWare: Smooth Moves. The minigames are plentiful, don't get me wrong, but they are far too short. The longest minigames run at maybe 20 seconds tops, but then as you progress the game speeds up, and the time for each minigame is cut down by atleast half it's original length. Because of this, you will find the novelty wears off quickly with WarioWare's gimmicky control schemes and the overall fun factor for this game drops significantly. I enjoyed this game for the first 20 minutes of play, but as the game progressed it just lost its mojo. The single player mode of WarioWare is extremely short, taking about an hour and a half at the most to breeze through every chapter. Multiplayer may make the game a little more fun, but it's no Mario Party that's for sure.

All in all, WarioWare Smooth Moves is an alright game, but it leaves a lot to be desired. If you are into party games with no point, and don't care about wasting your money, then by all means buy this game. But if you are like me and enjoy games with a plot or even a sorry attempt at a storyline, then this game is not for you. The minigames are fun at first, but the overall repetitiveness of this game and the short amount of time it will take you to finish it make this game worthy of no more than being a rental. However Halo is far from that.

10 hours? Anyway, the point is that they are both short, and they both lack depth. Halo is nothing but mindless shooting; I played through Halo 2 on the medium and hard modes, and it's all action and no depth. You don't solve puzzles or anything like that. You rely on quick reaction, not on thought. Isn't that in the same league as a party game?

Yes 10 hours, at least for the 1st Halo, playing it for the first time. And Halo 2 comes in about 10 hours.

And I beg to differ Halo is far from mindless shooting. There are some tactical points to it. Halo instead sets you in an environment and expects you to think on your feet and react to a series of quickly changing, hostile situations. And the A.I. in Halo requires you to add 'stealth' in some of your actions.

I recall mentioning Metroid Prime, but not Metroid Prime 2, so we'll just forget about your Dark Samus statement. Overall, Metroid Prime had an original storyline, not in the Space Pirate areas or the alien experimentation areas, but in the way that the plot was presented.

Sorry I thought you meant as a series.

Yes, but the Space Pirates and alien experimentation have a lot to do with the game, you can't just ignore them.

Few games have the main plot's details scattered around in different areas, encouraging you to uncover the mysteries behind the planet. Sure, you don't have to scan everything; that's optional. However, the aspect of uncovering the storyline, and slowly piecing it together, motivates you to do it. Halo 2 didn't offer anything like that. It presented the plot to you, with little mysteries or anything.

But the game could've benefited if it gave us a clear plot. I really didn't know how Samus got her suit in the first place, there were many things I didn't understand at all, and that the game didn't bother to answer.

Also Halo CE: was quite a mystery itself. For one we didn't exactly know Master Chief's backstory all to well. We really only knew he is cyborg in the first game. And I also disagree the game presented the whole plot at first, your goals shift from moment to moment as events happen around you.

All you know about him is that he is a guy in a suit with a helmet. You don't know who he is or who he was.

And didn't you credit Metroid Prime for having a mystery? Samus doesn't have a detailed background either, we barely even know how she got the suit in the first place.

"Requires" skill? I grabbed a couple of needlers and finished the game easily by just button-mashing (And it wasn't on easy mode, either.) As far as I can see, you can use strategy in Halo's campaign, sure, but it isn't truly needed. The same as a party game. The only time when skill might be needed is when you're in multiplayer- The same for a party game.

Oh and a 5 second mini-game from Wario Ware requires skill???

You won't be able to say that with online play, though. You can't use memorable moments as an argument, because, later in your post, you said that "Multiplayer isn't about knowing anyone."

Well actually I was referring to offline multiplayer, but there's one thing you seem to forget. Xbox Live allows for voice chat with random people, which allows you to interact with other players and possibly have team match ups and have "memorable" moments on an online service.

There is alot more justification in this, considering that you won't be having deep conversations playing Halo online. You'll be shooting people up.

Again the voice chat Halo offers allows for more interactions. Plus you can add people to your Buddy List and possibly develop conversations and interaction.

Playing with people that are common with you doesn't add variety. And in order to play you need your friends to come over everyday. Online is more convenient for those gamers who can't have that happen everytime.

Sorry for the long post.

Originally Posted by Andross

Of course I have quality expectations for Party Games. They rarely live up to them, and the best examples are only "good", and maybe "great", if it is original, but never as a masterpiece. Halo, overall, has as much simplicity and as many cliches as party games. Sure, there may be some in different sections, but they even out. I'm just saying that you can't argue that the Wii's big titles are simplistic and not think that the Xbox's are simplistic. Both are simplistic, and that is the problem.

Halo was and is better then those party games combine. You know it, you're comparing them by such...dumb ways. Simplicity is a factor in Halo but I don't know how you let it fall in you're mind as far as party games.

Edit: Crap... I spent a couple of hours typing this. Ehh, spending too much time. You guys win. I'm leaving this thread, for now.

Oh well.

I

was never defending party games, though, now was I? Truthfully, what I was saying was more an attack on both party games and Halo. I was saying that Halo lacks depth and is simplistic; therefore, it is similiar to Nintendo's party games. I never said that Nintendo's party games were better than Halo.

It doesn't matter, I think your wrong.

10 hours? Anyway, the point is that they are both short, and they both lack depth. Halo is nothing but mindless shooting; I played through Halo 2 on the medium and hard modes, and it's all action and no depth. You don't solve puzzles or anything like that. You rely on quick reaction, not on thought. Isn't that in the same league as a party game?

Yes, thats what you do in an FPS, you shoot. You shoot and destroy your enimies. If you dont like it then the FPS is not your type. Stay with the RPGS and WOW.
Plus, It can easily be said that it can take 10 hours for a legendary game. I heard you say you played on hard but not on legendary or EVEN HARDER with a hidden skull.

I recall mentioning Metroid Prime, but not Metroid Prime 2, so we'll just forget about your Dark Samus statement. Overall, Metroid Prime had an original storyline, not in the Space Pirate areas or the alien experimentation areas, but in the way that the plot was presented. Few games have the main plot's details scattered around in different areas, encouraging you to uncover the mysteries behind the planet. Sure, you don't have to scan everything; that's optional. However, the aspect of uncovering the storyline, and slowly piecing it together, motivates you to do it. Halo 2 didn't offer anything like that. It presented the plot to you, with little mysteries or anything.

I bet around 1/5 people actually scanned everything to know more about the planet. How is having the last boss of the game be the title of the game be original?

Motivates? You overrate the plot of Prime way too much and your saying the Halo 2 storyline stinks? Don't push it.

Indeed, so, if you are going to use that debate, then does that mean you don't have any problems with Nintendo's casual-aura, since there are fans of those types of games, and that there are people that believe that games that you might like (I'm assuming you're a Halo fan) lack depth, as well? Or, will you say that both the FPS and the Party genre both lack depth, and need serious improvement?

What he said was true, face it. Not everyone is going to agree with you, what you say is not a fact. Really, I personally don't have a problem with party games, they can actually be fun onced played with three other friends. (thats what it takes with Mario party, not Halo.)

So you're saying that changes should come slow, and be minor? I thought you said that the genre was saturated.

Looking how things are now for FPS's, things do indeed look like they WILL be coming slow. Thats the fact that he's saying, not thinking.

Once again, you are misunderstanding me- I was never defending party games. I was saying that fans of Halo fail to understand that Halo has just as many problems as party games do. So, yeah, what you said in the above quote is true, and I agree with it. I'm not defending party games; I've been criticizing them by comparing them to Halo, which I was criticizing by comparing to party games.

Even after what Zeldafan1 just said right here, you still think that FPS's(Halo) has as much flaws as nintendo party games? Halo 2's gameplay improved, Mario party's 5,6,and 7 didn't.

How is it redundant? Metroid Prime did it, and it did it well. I believe Jet Force Gemini did it, and Jet Force Gemini (Although a third person shooter, but the perspective doesn't really matter) did it well. Other shooters allow you to upgrade your weapons for money, making them stronger- Sure, you could drop them, but you are discouraged to. Let's say you have three guns, and you can hold five. You might want to save a few of them, and upgrade them so that they are more powerful.

Yes, Metriod Prime did it in a way thats similar to Halo. For example, some weapons where better for different enimeis. In Halo, you mostly have a chance to change a weapon for the current situation but lose another of course. Admit it, some weapons in Prime, you get for a while, use, then leave it to build dust for a while. Plus, it was required.

Does the realistic touch matter when you're a space marine driving around a giant ringworld fighting off short aliens with blue blood and talking to giant plant-like creatures? Halo isn't a very realistic game, so, aesthetically, adding a little bit of realism isn't going to change it, much.

You forget, realism matters most when put into gameplay. In other things, it really doesn't.

I just picked up a couple of needlers, and used them for most of the game. There really wasn't that much challenge, as long as I had them.

Did you try that online or on hard?

Now, on to you, Snips.

Yeay me.

According to your disagreement with my originality statement, I could make an exact copy of Final Fantasy IX, and get a 9/10. Originality is important.

Actually, if they made some kind of remake with better graphics, yes it would be good. Just like Ninja Gaiden Black and Sigma.

If Originality is important and you say Halo has none, how did both Halo 1 AND 2 get a 10/10?

If they are simple, unoriginal, focused on reaction, marketed towards people who want quick action over depth, are they really that different? In fact, this brings me to a question I've always been asking- Why do people that call themselves "Hardcore" gamers always use Halo as an example of what a game should be like? Halo is just as much of a casual game as a party game; in fact, it is a casual game for younger people, where a game like Wii Sports is for older people. Alot of the people that I know in real life that like Halo barely spend any time playing games, only playing from time-to-time.

I feel that Halo is for cauals and hardcores. Hardcores stay high up in levels and ranks. Why do you think hardcores shouldn't play Halo, theres actually much more competition then you think, even now.

You should by now, unless you haven't been paying attention- But you have. Don't make it seem like you haven't. I've done plenty of explaining.

Explaining that is rediculous and not true.

"Requires" skill? I grabbed a couple of needlers and finished the game easily by just button-mashing (And it wasn't on easy mode, either.) As far as I can see, you can use strategy in Halo's campaign, sure, but it isn't truly needed. The same as a party game. The only time when skill might be needed is when you're in multiplayer- The same for a party game.

Did you think about the online play. And yes, its still much up to chance in Mario party with multiplayer.

I don't know if I even can admit it.

I can see that, look deep inside though.

People get good at WarioWare, they have competitions with their friends. Same thing, really.

No, its not, stop kidding yourself. Halo has online play. This means more competition, more hardcore gaming.

They can easily go with anything if they can be an expert at it. Truly dedicated gamers would be excellent at everything that they play.

You don't get my point, hardcore gamers are welcomed in Halo because you can get much better at it online. You don't understand how significant online play is today and it looks like Nintendo doesn't either, party games arn't online.

They don't have to be made. Possibly in multiplayer, if you get somebody that is good.

BUT THEY CAN BE MADE! Thats my point.

One can argue that it takes true skill to play a game of chance, because you don't know what you'll get. For instance, let's say there's this really, really tough WarioWare microgame that stumped just about everyone who tried it. When it hits you with that five second timer, wouldn't you say that you are skillful for doing it?

What your are saying now is just rediculous Andross, truly trash...

YOU KNOW SOMEONE CAN'T BE GOOD AT CHANCE!

GTA and Metroid are still considered, by most, shooters, and they are much different from other shooters. So would the FPS and 3PS genres lose what makes them great if they followed the examples of those games?

Of course but thats not what I'm saying should happen darn it!
I'm saying whats happening to the genre, sorry I have no control over it...

Also, why do all shooters have to be fundamentally similiar, like you're saying, when other genres, such as platformers, RPGs, and adventure games carry a ton of variety? The shooter genre can carry varying games. It's just that more things need to vary than the setting and the weapons.

*sigh* Andross please, this is getting rediculously annoying. I never, I REPEAT, NEVER said SHOULD. I'd like if they got better but it doesnt look like it. I said that they are similar. Therefore the standard for a good FPS has been set, the one that I just said.

It isn't like it's going to magically fall out of the sky before you. You need to look for it.

Exactly, then that makes the game easier.

I said "Great, enjoyable presentations." Trying to see how far you can throw a rock is "fun." That doesn't mean it is a "great, enjoyable presentation."

Halo made a "Great, enjoyable presentation."

I wouldn't say that my argument is completely off. I think that I have given enough examples and provided enough information to back up my stance, and make it solid.

Yeah, right.Yet you have completly ignored the reasons why Halo is no where near as simple as party games.

Baseball is fun for a reason; because it gets you active, and you get to play with your friends. You are making it seem like something is "enjoyable" just because it is "enjoyable." It has to be enjoyable for a reason.

So if you don't find a reason why your friends are doing something enjoyable, yet you know it is, then you don't join in?

There are different types of fun. What if someone likes basketball better than baseball? He/She would want to play basketball instead. Some things are more fun than others; that one was based upon taste.

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you NEED to know what kind of fun it is for it to be enjoyable for you?

Wait, so you are saying that trying to improve the plot and the depth is not trying to make an enjoyable game? That's what your last sentence implies.

Darn it Andross,no! I'm saying what developers ARE DOING. I never said anything about what you acused me of. I was saying what developers of FPS's are doing. Stop acting like you don't know. They.

Big, team based battles aren't fun if you get stuck with people that don't know what they're doing. Multiplayer play can often be more frustrating than it is redeeming.

That personally doesn't happen to me much. Easy way to fix it, get a friends list online and plan a game. Thats one of the reasons why friends list are avalible.

I have fun with most of the games I play; it's just that I have more fun with some games than other games.

I'm not a perfectionist, but I have standards.

How many games have made it through, 15?
Its easy to say you have these standards but you have played Halo and other games.

Sure, there's accomplisment on playing it on a higher difficulty level, but wouldn't you say that playing through a game that has excellent depth, character development, and exploration a lot more memorable than playing a game on hard mode, or multiplayer?

Yes, I agree but for some reason you think I'm against that. Thats not for me to decide.

A lot of people here own some great next generation consoles - I congratulate you. But recently there is another console that has been causing a bit of a storm. No, im not talking about any relitively new console, im talking about the classic, the unbeatable CD-I, also known as the Compact Disc Interactive.



Here are the amazing specs for this revolutionary console. Think the Wii is revolutionary compared to this? Get real!

CPU
16-bit 68070 CISC Chip (68000 core)
Clock Speed of 15.5 MHz
Display

Resolution: 384×280 to 768×560
Colors: 16.7 million w/ 32,768 on screen
MPEG 1 Cartridge Plug-In for VideoCD and Digital Video
Operating System

CD-RTOS (based on Microware's OS-9)
Other

1.5 MB of Main RAM
Single Speed CD-ROM Drive
Weight With DV Cart 1.460 kg, Without DV 1.210 kg
ADPCM Eight Channel Sound
16-bit stereo sound.

All I can say is... wow. This console even boasts some quality Zelda titles! These certain Zelda games are treasured by collecters and casual gamers alike.

Yes, some people out there actually think that its PS3, XBox360 and Wii. I hope that I have proven that there are better, more fun and worthwhile consoles out there. Thank you for your time.

All 3.

I got the Wii (the first one I got) the day it came out after waiting several weeks before for hours to get a reserve. I got the 360 a few days after my birthday, when my parents gave me money to go out and get one. And I just recently got a PS3 with the crap-load of graduation money I got. And I still got a crap-load left over. (Graduating is nice)

Originally Posted by Feels Like Hate

A lot of people here own some great next generation consoles - I congratulate you. But recently there is another console that has been causing a bit of a storm. No, im not talking about any relitively new console, im talking about the classic, the unbeatable CD-I, also known as the Compact Disc Interactive.



Here are the amazing specs for this revolutionary console. Think the Wii is revolutionary compared to this? Get real!

CPU
16-bit 68070 CISC Chip (68000 core)
Clock Speed of 15.5 MHz
Display

Resolution: 384×280 to 768×560
Colors: 16.7 million w/ 32,768 on screen
MPEG 1 Cartridge Plug-In for VideoCD and Digital Video
Operating System

CD-RTOS (based on Microware's OS-9)
Other

1.5 MB of Main RAM
Single Speed CD-ROM Drive
Weight With DV Cart 1.460 kg, Without DV 1.210 kg
ADPCM Eight Channel Sound
16-bit stereo sound.

All I can say is... wow. This console even boasts some quality Zelda titles! These certain Zelda games are treasured by collecters and casual gamers alike.

Yes, some people out there actually think that its PS3, XBox360 and Wii. I hope that I have proven that there are better, more fun and worthwhile consoles out there. Thank you for your time.

Hell yeah. The CDi kills all the next gen systems. Yeah...right.

I think I already posted here, but I'm too lazy to check. I think the PS3 is a terrible failure waiting to happen. The Wii owns. And the 360 is meh.

Originally Posted by hero_of_legends

Hell yeah. The CDi kills all the next gen systems. Yeah...right.

I think I already posted here, but I'm too lazy to check. I think the PS3 is a terrible failure waiting to happen. The Wii owns. And the 360 is meh.

What about the Wii owns right now? I mean seriously. All I've heard so far is Super Paper Mario, Brawl, Galaxy, then about how in a year it'll be the best system ever. So what? It's better because of three games and the possibility it will become better?

Originally Posted by Raunm

What about the Wii owns right now? I mean seriously. All I've heard so far is Super Paper Mario, Brawl, Galaxy, then about how in a year it'll be the best system ever. So what? It's better because of three games and the possibility it will become better?

There's also NMH(if you're into it that is), NiGHTS 2, Battalion Wars 2, A Katamari game (although i don't find it a quite attractive game its predecessors have gotten really good reviews), Geometry wars (seems prety cool), GH3, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, and SC Legends. But other than that you're pretty much right. I mean all of those games are pretty first class, but BW2 and NMH and B-List games so the Wii doesn't seem so interesting.

Edit: also i just found out where you got your sig, pretty funny.