When you show me a written mandate from Nintendo saying that devs HAVE to use Wiimotion when creating a game, I'll worry about it. Until then...Originally Posted by izembo
There's a big difference between "using it" and "being restricted by it".
When you show me a written mandate from Nintendo saying that devs HAVE to use Wiimotion when creating a game, I'll worry about it. Until then...Originally Posted by izembo
There's a big difference between "using it" and "being restricted by it".
never said they have to make games use it, i said 90% of the games out there DO use it, and make YOU use it.
So...what's the point you were trying to make? I simply said a while ago that a dev isn't required to use a Wiimote as a function when porting a game over, or make use of it when creating a game if it won't work. If it does work out, I don't see a problem. If it doesn't, I also don't see a problem. It's not restricting anything, unless you're just "not in the mood for excersise" or something. That's when you have the VC, and less energetic games that require a point/click/flick and nothing more.
talking about wiimote being forced on the player, which it is. there is no option for the games if you want to play it way A or way B.
Well, I guess that's sort of a point. But it's no worse than being "forced" to use buttons, imo. If a game works better with Wii-mote power and is made for it, it will probably be a better experience to play the game that way. If a market opens up because a lot of people want to play a game different ways, that might be something, but it seems like a lot of unecessary work if they don't get a much higher sales rate by implementing both. And I don't think that's the case anyway. I can't think of any games on the Wii right now that make me go "Man, I wish I had just buttons".
madden for one, but most games after awhile arm gets tired and it'd be nice to just give it a rest and play regularly.
edit:marvel ultimate alliance too.
You have to swing your whole arm to play those? (I don't have either of them). A remote flick won't do it? When I see people complain about having to wave their arms around alot, they usually don't have to, but I'm not sure on those games...
they feel natural for all of 5 minutes then you want to go back to a normal controller. having to flick your wrists everytime you want to shoot web etc. gets old and painful kinda quick. just saying some games are better suited for a regular controller and wish the game designers would realize that.
I have played hours of wii sports and to me two things come out. This is not an issue with the system rather the developers making a choice to make their controls that way. And it just sounds lazy to me, I have never found myself getting tired of moving the controller 2 inches up and down to get the tennis racket to swing or anything like that. It would be nice if they gave you options but I dont think this is a flaw of the system and developers will get used to this new system and begin to use its capabilities in a more natural comfortable way.Originally Posted by izembo
i dont have issues with wiisports, some games are fine with it, im just saying the way its forced 100% of the time use on some games is just plain stupid.
They do, and those games are on the 360 and PS3.Originally Posted by izembo
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU BUY THE WII IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO USE THE WII-MOTE/EXPECT GAMES TO USE IT?
Now, I almost never bash the Wii, but honestly. Complaining that the games on the Wii, a system designed entirely around the controller/gameplay and not graphics, almost always make use of motion in some way, is just retarded.
If you didn't want to play games with motion-sensing, buy a different system.
some games are only available on the wii, and comparing the wii to 360/ps3 isnt fair either. im saying some games its forced and doesnt fit and should have other options. a good deal of the games it works great for.
If you're talking about games that -only- exist on the Wii, that is, games that aren't ports and have no direct comparison, you don't really know how they'd be w/o the wii-mote. A crappy game w/ the wii-mote is probably still going to be a crappy game with a normal controller.Originally Posted by izembo
Nintendo said that 90% of they games released on the Wii will allow both Wii-mote play and legacy play via retro and GC controllers.
yes, i know, but its the opposite, 90% of the games require the wiimote
I think I would have enjoyed redsteel more if i could use my xbox controler. Aside from that game though i fuckin love the Wii-mote
You'll eventually see the Wii get the "DS" treatment, I imagine. When the DS first came out, most games were trying to make use of the touchscreen in some retarded way, but now they mostly use it in ways that make sense, etc, and leave most of the action to the d-pad/buttons.Originally Posted by izembo
FF3 is a pretty good example of the proper use of technology, letting you play the entire game using only the touch screen, but giving you the option to play it normally as well. At some point most developers will probably offer dual control setups, whenever wii-mote motion sensing development is second nature to the companies I guess.
Don't you see though, the Wii without the Wiimote is nothing, because it has inferior graphics to the 360/PS3.
They need to keep the wiimote action alive or their console will fail... I pray that Super Paper Mario brings the Wii some life until SSBB/mario/metroid come out, because I quite honestly haven't used the console since I beat Zelda somewhere in December.
yea, that's what i'm figuring on too. just stating the only gripe i have atm![]()
Yeah, and the DS w/o the touchscreen is nothing, because it has inferior graphics to the PSP.Originally Posted by Exoduso
LOL.