Remember when Games used to be about fun?

[Zork]

the wii is not a video game console, it's a toy for non-gaming adults and little kids.

So was the NES.

You could say that to just about every console (especially those of the 16 and 8 bit era)

[AD2101]

Video games on the Wii are still about fun, just not in the conventional way us old time gamers consider fun. Looking back this should have been more obvious, given how unconventional of a console the Wii was shaping up compared to the fairly straightforward 360 and PS3. I wholeheartedly agree that 90% plus of the library for the Wii looks like garbage, but they aren't really trying to appeal to my demographic. In fact, they could give a shit about us, hence all the jilted and pissed off Nintendo fanboys this generation.

[Rusty Venture]

I have no problem with your argument, however there is nothing wrong with these games. Taboo is a useful supernatural tool, it actually predicts the future and my copy is haunted. Three Stooges is a port. And Back to the Future can be fun but you have to warm up into it. Except the goddamn bees, they're tricky.

There isn't anything wrong with the games, as in, they function. This much is true.

But functioning, and being fun to play, are two totally different things.

And BttF sucks because the movie doesn't lend itself well to a video game circa 1986. The point of a video game based on a movie was to be somewhat faithful to what you saw on the screen. I really don't remember Doc telling Marty to avoid anyone in 1955 AND THE KILLER BEES THAT LIVE IN HILL VALLEY.

Must have been an unused line from an early draft of the script.

[Knuckle Duster]

There isn't anything wrong with the games, as in, they function. This much is true.

But functioning, and being fun to play, are two totally different things.

And BttF sucks because the movie doesn't lend itself well to a video game circa 1986. The point of a video game based on a movie was to be somewhat faithful to what you saw on the screen. I really don't remember Doc telling Marty to avoid anyone in 1955 AND THE KILLER BEES THAT LIVE IN HILL VALLEY.

Must have been an unused line from an early draft of the script.

Am I the only person on the planet who rocked the shit out of BttF and beat it multiple times when it came out?

I have no tolerance for it now, other than the beer-tapper mini-game, but I didn't hate it as much as most 'crap' I've seen on the NES.

[Rusty Venture]

You must have.

I couldn't tolerate the game before because it was stupid compared to the movie. I can't tolerate it now because it has crap controls.

I can forgive a game being stupid, but having horrible controls is inexcusable.

[N.Saibot]

Not true at all.
The PS3, given it has a hypervisor bottleneck implemented, really crushes anything high end from running good at all. Given the RISC architecture, You can't run wine to carry the windows side of things over either.

The slim can't run linux due to Sony artificially restricting it on the slimer CPU chipset. (I don't think they've overhauled anything, least of all to the point that it wouldn't be easy to patch with an updated firmware.)

The good news though is that 'all' current PS3 hardware has been reverse engineered & dumped, which opens up massive potential to the homebrew scene once the software is ripped apart.

Why are you picking on the most weak version of the PS3?
Why don't you try to find some downsides about the 60GB
version (I believe that was the one that had compatibility to
PS2 + PS1)?

What I am going to do is, buy myself the best version of the
console I can get, the one that supports the PS2, install Linux
there and see how far I can go with emulating things. My aim
is to emulate everything, install just about every emulator there
is and also every DOS-game ported over to Linux there is.
Everything up to the 16-bit era will be surely possible, I also
hope to be able to emulate the Saturn and then buy a Saturn-USB
controller for more authenticity. That would be like a dream come true : D

Wine can suck me just below the back by the way, since utilizing
the PS3's graphicscard is not really an option. Why would I want
to run wine, if playing Windowsgames will be impossible? What
does Windows do, besides gaming, that makes it worth having over
Debian or Fedora for example? Nothing that I'm aware of.

PS: did you know, that in Fedora 12 you have native support for the
Xbox 360 Pad (the one that has a cable connection)? You will be able
to play games with the 360 Pad on the Playstation! Now isn't that something?

[Baloo]

So was the NES.

Yeah, I was having this feeling two years ago really, how the Wii was really the new NES.

[Guntz]

Yeah, I was having this feeling two years ago really, how the Wii was really the new NES.

(I know we're being sarcastic here, but) So does this mean the Wii will have an insane fanbase in the next 10 - 20 years? Will there be prototype discs being leaked like crazy? How about some obscure sports game that was recalled quickly and re-released under a different label which will be worth $$$ in the future? I hope we get Nintendo World Championships 2011! The disc will be worth a fortune!

[N.Saibot]

Yeah, I was having this feeling two years ago really, how the Wii was really the new NES.

Wii is obviously not the new NES, but the similarities
are striking! It appeals/tries to appeal to a whole new
group of people - thus it is trying to expand a market
(the NES was doing something similar but far more
difficult, it kickstarted an almost dead market). The
NES has games that look very childish in their art design,
so does the Wii. The NES introduced a somewhat new
way of controlling games (if the D-pad was invented,
it was surely not the most common thing around) and
the Wii introduced a console which relies heavily on a
new controlling device - wiimote + nunchuk.

It's like Nintendo is trying to mimic the past, but only
makes a shitty parody. That's how I feel about it at least.

[17daysolderthannes]

Wii is obviously not the new NES, but the similarities
are striking! It appeals/tries to appeal to a whole new
group of people - thus it is trying to expand a market
(the NES was doing something similar but far more
difficult, it kickstarted an almost dead market). The
NES has games that look very childish in their art design,
so does the Wii. The NES introduced a somewhat new
way of controlling games (if the D-pad was invented,
it was surely not the most common thing around) and
the Wii introduced a console which relies heavily on a
new controlling device - wiimote + nunchuk.

It's like Nintendo is trying to mimic the past, but only
makes a shitty parody. That's how I feel about it at least.

I had initially made that claim about the Wii before the piles of terribly lame cash-in titles came out with almost nothing redeeming to make it comparable to the NES.

However, just about everything in your post is off/wrong.

The NES appealed to the exact same group of people as before. I don't see anything about the NES that makes it seem like it was for a different market than an Atari 2600. The only thing I can really pinpoint is the absolutely ridiculous advertising that was obviously trying to dupe kids into going nuts over it (house turns into a spaceship and takes off because they are playing NES? MOM! I WANT THAT!!!).

As many people have said before, the crash of 83 is often overstated and blown out of proportion. The 2600 was the only major competitor at the time and the ludicrously simple Atari games just lost their appeal once the novelty wore off. I mean, how long can you really enjoy an Atari game at a time? I can go about 10 minutes with the best games on the system. The NES had games you could play for hours or days trying to progress further (SMB, Castlevania, Mega Man, etc.). The "crash" also doesn't factor in all of the people that just moved to home computer gaming as the mid-80's are when personal computers started to really take off (like the Commodore 64, which came out in 82, for example). You never saw a "crash" post-2600 because there was always a substantial field of players and one losing out didn't mean a complete end. No one called it a crash when the Saturn died off, you know why? The PSX and N64 were alive and kicking.

As for the art design, that's a common American lack of understanding of Japanese culture in general. Americans call anything remotely resembling a cartoon childish, whereas the Japanese culture extensively uses animation across all markets and age groups. To the Japanese, "cute" characters are not just for kids. This is the reason many game characters appear "cute" because they were simply Japanese market games with minor changes (like the title and maybe some story). There is also the factor that the NES couldn't really produce anything that looked relatively realistic, so it was inevitable.

The D-pad had been around in Nintendo's Game and Watch handhelds at the very least if not in other places. Even still, it was an obvious progression as it was functionally just a joystick modified to be used with the thumb instead of your entire hand. Based on the number of hardcore joystick users out there, I would argue some never thought it was a good idea. Also, Sega did a much better job with the D-pad than Nintendo ever did.

The only thing you can really compare the NES to the Wii is with regards to the simplicity and accessibility, which are both very important for less hardcore markets. To this day, many girls will play an NES but won't touch a PS3 because they don't want to learn that many button assignments. I myself find that I like games that center around taking 2 buttons and making a skill-based game rather than a game that makes you manage a hoard of chorded buttons in an otherwise easy and straightforward game. Personally, I think the Wii got wrong just about everything it could've and how it is still selling like it is I can't begin to understand. I guess gullible housewives, brainwashed kids, mislead geriatrics, and clueless frat boys can sustain a terrible system when the marketing is right.

[N.Saibot]

I had initially made that claim about the Wii before the piles of terribly lame cash-in titles came out with almost nothing redeeming to make it comparable to the NES.

However, just about everything in your post is off/wrong.

The NES appealed to the exact same group of people as before. I don't see anything about the NES that makes it seem like it was for a different market than an Atari 2600. The only thing I can really pinpoint is the absolutely ridiculous advertising that was obviously trying to dupe kids into going nuts over it (house turns into a spaceship and takes off because they are playing NES? MOM! I WANT THAT!!!).

...

The D-pad had been around in Nintendo's Game and Watch handhelds at the very least if not in other places. Even still, it was an obvious progression as it was functionally just a joystick modified to be used with the thumb instead of your entire hand. Based on the number of hardcore joystick users out there, I would argue some never thought it was a good idea. Also, Sega did a much better job with the D-pad than Nintendo ever did.

The only thing you can really compare the NES to the Wii is with regards to the simplicity and accessibility, which are both very important for less hardcore markets. To this day, many girls will play an NES but won't touch a PS3 because they don't want to learn that many button assignments. I myself find that I like games that center around taking 2 buttons and making a skill-based game rather than a game that makes you manage a hoard of chorded buttons in an otherwise easy and straightforward game. Personally, I think the Wii got wrong just about everything it could've and how it is still selling like it is I can't begin to understand. I guess gullible housewives, brainwashed kids, mislead geriatrics, and clueless frat boys can sustain a terrible system when the marketing is right.

Why didn't you even read my post right? I didn't
say that the NES was somehow appealing to "new"
people. I just said, that the NES kickstarted AGAIN
a quite dead market and the Wii expanded (or tried to)
an already existing one. I only pointed out the things
that are similar about both consoles and then I wrote
that this similarity is only on the surface, the Wii sucks
anyways. What exactly is wrong with that point of view?

About the D-pad: yeah, maybe the NES wasn't really
the first one to feature it, but as I said in my first post,
I have no idea who invented it first, it just wasn't very
common. Why do you have to state the same thing as
I did and act like you're arguing with my post?

Edit: and by the way, I am not an American. You can see that
just benath my avatar. In fact I'm not much of a German either.
I'm a russian/ukrainian if you wanna know and don't care about
what a common misunderstanding in America is. If japanese
people are weird enough to NOT consider things like Pokemon,
Kirby and names like Mushroom Kingdom childish, well, that doesn't
mean they aren't really very childish.

[17daysolderthannes]

If japanese
people are weird enough to NOT consider things like Pokemon,
Kirby and names like Mushroom Kingdom childish, well, that doesn't
mean they aren't really very childish.

Apparently it's not just limited to Americans, but it is what it is and "cute" is all over the place in Japan. It's just a different culture, they don't relegate it to just children. Even Japanese porn is rife with "cute" anime girls with big eyes and round faces.

[N.Saibot]

Apparently it's not just limited to Americans, but it is what it is and "cute" is all over the place in Japan. It's just a different culture, they don't relegate it to just children. Even Japanese porn is rife with "cute" anime girls with big eyes and round faces.

I'm aware of that issue with japanese porn, yes : ))
I still like to think, that it is a japanese misunderstanding
of what is childish and what not. Guess I stick to deeply
in my prejudgice.

[j_factor]

The NES appealed to the exact same group of people as before. I don't see anything about the NES that makes it seem like it was for a different market than an Atari 2600.

---

The 2600 was the only major competitor at the time and the ludicrously simple Atari games just lost their appeal once the novelty wore off. I mean, how long can you really enjoy an Atari game at a time? I can go about 10 minutes with the best games on the system. The NES had games you could play for hours or days trying to progress further (SMB, Castlevania, Mega Man, etc.).

Didn't you just answer your own question? The Atari 2600 was fully of (mostly shitty) arcade ports and original arcade-like games. With only a few exceptions, almost everything on the system was tailored to short bursts of play; games that get progressively harder and you simply play until you get Game Over. Colecovision was mostly the same -- it prided itself on accurate arcade ports. Despite the complicated controllers, there weren't that many complex games. Looking back we can find some hidden gems from the era that are impressively complex for their time (like War Room and Utopia), but at the time, these games were not given much attention. The NES brought us games like Zelda and Metroid that were not arcade games and were nothing like you'd experience at an arcade. At the same time, the controller is only a d-pad, A, B, start, and select; and the games are sophisticated enough to set themselves apart from the prior era, but not too complicated that they alienate people.

Nintendo has always tried to be "for everyone". They've always gone for more accessible design, developed the more intuitive interface (for the consumer anyway, not necessarily for the developer), and eschewed esotericism. With only a few exceptions, their games are aimed at a mass audience, and so is the design of their systems. That's been their overall philosophy for a long time. Wii is crazy successful, but not fundamentally different. The only thing that's different is the shovelware, but that's just a product of its success.

Besides, "shovelware" is in the eye of the beholder (to an extent anyway). There have been games that I've looked at and thought "ugh, yet another piece of shovelware garbage" but then found that other people did not agree with my assessment. And I'm not talking about little kids or middle-aged moms or anything. I was astonished when The Price is Right was announced for Wii and significant numbers of people that post on gaming forums expressed excitement at the announcement.

[Knuckle Duster]

Why are you picking on the most weak version of the PS3?
Why don't you try to find some downsides about the 60GB
version (I believe that was the one that had compatibility to
PS2 + PS1)?

What I am going to do is, buy myself the best version of the
console I can get, the one that supports the PS2, install Linux
there and see how far I can go with emulating things. My aim
is to emulate everything, install just about every emulator there
is and also every DOS-game ported over to Linux there is.
Everything up to the 16-bit era will be surely possible, I also
hope to be able to emulate the Saturn and then buy a Saturn-USB
controller for more authenticity. That would be like a dream come true : D

Wine can suck me just below the back by the way, since utilizing
the PS3's graphicscard is not really an option. Why would I want
to run wine, if playing Windowsgames will be impossible? What
does Windows do, besides gaming, that makes it worth having over
Debian or Fedora for example? Nothing that I'm aware of.

PS: did you know, that in Fedora 12 you have native support for the
Xbox 360 Pad (the one that has a cable connection)? You will be able
to play games with the 360 Pad on the Playstation! Now isn't that something?

My point was that emulation on linux isn't the be-all-end-all best thing ever. Regardless of your PS3 sku: it runs like shit (doesn't run at all on the slim.)

Sega genesis support is flaky at best on linux itself, & you would get better results out of using a windows version under wine...they perform better than in windows native. The same can be said of most emulators.

This is impossible due to the processor being non-x86 & the age old recursive acronym ringing true: 'Wine = Wine Is Not an Emulator'

The second point I made was PS3 has a hypervisor. A limitation on resources. It effectively limits the performance options of a linux distro on the machine. It only has a tiny amount of RAM compared to a standard PC. You wouldn't get good performance sandboxed in linux at all.

This still holds massive potential in the future, since all current PS3's were hacked & are getting reverse engineered at the software level now.

I didn't know the 360 controller drivers were included native now; maybe that can be microsoft's goal, release non-standardized hardware everybody uses & force linux to absorb more needless drivers! Bloat thy enemy!