Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

$250 Wii coming to America November 19

[UPDATE 11] Nintendo's next-gen console will arrive two days after the PS3, bundled with Wii Sports; more than 25 games available at launch, first-party games to be $50; Web-surfing, photo editing, and news "channels" coming, as well. Full video coverage inside.

Wii Sports

See it »
Screenshot Index »

[EDITOR'S NOTE: All the US Wii launch details below--and more--have since been directly confirmed at Nintendo's New York City press conference.]

As Nintendo officially revealed details about the Wii's Japanese launch in Tokyo, reports in the New York Times answered the questions on millions of US gamers' minds: When will the Wii go on sale here? What will it cost? How many games will it have at launch?

As it turns out, the console will arrive on Sunday, November 19, in North America and South America. That puts the console's launch just two days after that of its archrival, the PlayStation 3, which has recently seen its own debut scaled down.

But while only 400,000 PS3s will be available at launch, the Times claims that the Wii will be "far more available in stores this holiday season" than its competitor due to its cheaper and simpler form factor. Nintendo has since announced plans to ship 4 million Wiis worldwide by the end of 2006, nearly double the 2 to 2.3 million shipped PS3s Sony is now forecasting.

Wii in NYC

Nintendo's press event reveals its next-gen console.

As many suspected, the Wii will cost $250 in the US, according to the article. Since Nintendo executives have said it would be under $250, the likely final price will be $249.99 or $249.95. It is now also confirmed that it will have more than 25 first- and third-party games available at launch, with 30 on shelves by the end of the year. First-party games will cost just $50, $10 less than most third-party PS3 and Xbox 360 games; it was unclear what third-party Wii games will cost.

Since the Times story went live, Nintendo has also announced that the classic NES, SNES, and N64 games downloadable to the Wii's Virtual Console would range from $5 to $10 in price, in line with most Xbox Live Arcade games. Some 30 titles will be available at launch, including unnamed installments from the Donkey Kong, Zelda, and Mario franchises, with a total of 60 arriving by the end of the year.

But while many had hoped for a console that would cost $199 or less, the Wii will have something not seen in a Nintendo launch since the SNES--a game packed in with a console from day one. (Note: Several GameCube bundles were offered postlaunch.) As rumored, the console will come with the Wii Sports compilation that was shown off at the Electronic Entertainment Expo earlier this year. The game comp will let players engage in bouts of baseball, bowling, golf, tennis, and boxing using the Wii's motion-sensing controller.

"Our goal is to bring gaming back to the masses," Nintendo of America president and chief operating officer Reggie Fils-Aime said in a statement. "You see that in our pricing, you see that in the number of units we plan to make available this year, and you see that in how we are positioning the Wii to appeal to every member of the household, including but not limited to the hardcore gamer."

[UPDATE 10] Nintendo has now confirmed that the Wii version of Twilight Princess will be available on November 19, but the GameCube edition won't arrive until sometime in December. The company also said that Excite Truck will also be on sale on day one of the Wii era, but Metroid Prime 3: Corruption won't arrive in stores until 2007, the same year that the Times claims the first Wii Mario game will appear.

Wii in Action

GameSpot editors emote with the Wiimote at NOA's NYC event.

As originally reported, the Wii will have Web-surfing capabilities akin to that of a home computer. After purchasing the Wii's Opera browser using prepaid Nintendo points, gamers will be able to surf the Web using the Wii-mote controller as a mouse.

Nintendo also appears to be moving away from its GameCube-era "game consoles should be for games only" mantra. Besides the Wii's previously announced DVD playback abilities, the console will also have many multimedia functions, called "Wii channels." These media functions are demonstrated at length via a series of videos on the Japanese Wii Web site, which show off the Wii's weather channel, news channel, messaging services, and "Mii channel," which lets players create custom, cartoon-like avatars for use in games. The Wii will also let users upload and edit photos from SD memory cards and share them on the Web.

"We are including all of these capabilities as part of our overall strategy to expand the gaming market," Fils-Aime told the Times. "Broadening the market is important because it will breathe new life into this business. Otherwise, this industry is moving down a path of being more and more limited to the hardcore gamer."

[UPDATE 9] Early Thursday morning, the Wii's launch date, price, and shipment numbers were also reported by USA Today. The national daily also said that both Super Mario 64 and the original Legend of Zelda would be available on the Wii's virtual console at launch.

As for Europe, Nintendo is holding an event in London on Friday to reveal its Wii launch plans for that continent.

1416 Comments

  • gi1

    Posted Oct 14, 2006 2:44 am GMT

    yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

  • sebas203

    Posted Oct 11, 2006 10:58 am GMT

    I will be just after Dante Killer, mmmmmmm, wiiiiiiiiii

  • DanteKiller

    Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:48 pm GMT

    From pass to ambitious to neat to "GET OUTTA THE WAY!!! I AM FIRST IN LINE!!!!!," My hype for the Wii has gone nowhere but up.

  • nintendor

    Posted Sep 23, 2006 10:04 am GMT

    Its perfect, more people will want to probably buy the PS3. While we buy the WII. So the WII will be full in stock.............hopefully.

  • Flimsyfishy

    Posted Sep 23, 2006 9:58 am GMT

    wait, what was this debate about gameplay vs graphics and other things?

  • wyndall2004

    Posted Sep 22, 2006 2:21 pm GMT

    same here

  • sk1

    Posted Sep 22, 2006 12:05 pm GMT

    I'm definitely getting the Wii at launch and I'll get my PS3 sometime next year!

  • georgec445

    Posted Sep 22, 2006 6:34 am GMT

    Gameplay is more then both of u think wyndall and messin18

  • wyndall2004

    Posted Sep 22, 2006 2:44 am GMT

    ''Not sure if you have reading comprehension problems but i didn't say any of the things you listed in your post.''

    I am sorry if my english isn't as good as yours messin18. English is only my third language.

  • wyndall2004

    Posted Sep 22, 2006 2:29 am GMT

    Gameplay is much more simpler than you think messin 18. Everything else is cosmetics. For a game designer to make good games he only needs one thing, his noggin. So the console on which the game is being ported to is not that much of a concern to him. That's the programmers job to remind him about technical limitations, ect. Everything you said you want to be added to new games have been done before. On a lesser extent yes, but its been done. ''AI, Physics, Interactive Environments, Huge Open Worlds, 1000's of characters on screen at once, Non-Linear open gameplay with no fake tatic buildings or doors''

    All these elements are peripheral. One example of this is Ninety Nine Nights for Xbox 360. It offers superb graphics, a truckload of characters onscreen, complex combo system coupled with great physics...But the game is boring. What went wrong? The gameplay was weak. Repetitive with no incentives to use the more complex combos.

    Every great game designer produced exciting new games and gameplays during their time with less than powerful consoles (Hideo Kojima, Peter Molyneux, Shigeru Miyamoto, Jordan Mechner, Alexey Pazhitnov). All their games were great because what drove them was their creativity. Not gimmicks or the technical prowess of the console the game's were made for.

    New consoles create new expectations for more content, yes. But it doesn't garantee better games gameplay wise.

    Every great game starts simple. With every generation of console, more content is added to fully use it's potential. But that doesn't change the core of the game. Final Fantasy has been the very same since the first one. All that changed was cosmetics. For me the truly next-gen moment in gaming history was when we went from 2D to 3D gaming. Everything in between have only been technical updades. So far the Wii feel next gen to me. Because of it's control scheme, it will force game designers to be the most creative ever.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 5:46 pm GMT

    No code needs to be changed. I'll try one more example.

    It can take anywhere from 5-60 minutes to compile and link a game. And characters, objects, buildings change all the time. If you had to re-compile every time you changed a car or character you'd get nothing done. Like if you had some tank and you wanted to give it a armor boost you don't want to re-compile any code....That's why game engines are "data driven" Here is an example:

    Say you have 5 cars. Each car's 3ds model name is stored in a file.. lets say a txt file. You code a parser to open up that file.. read in the car names.. look up that 3d model.. and load it into the game and render it. Now if you're 3d artist just made a new car and you want it in the game you don't need to change a line of code or re-compile the program. You simply need too add the cars model name to that same text file and you're good to go. Granted this is a simple example and there is more too it but it should work for you to maybe understand game engines a little better. Like I already said if you want proof or want to learn a bit more about how games work feel free to private message me.

    I enjoy discussing the future of game development but when it degrades down to specific technical debate with someone who I assume isn't a game programmer it seems pretty pointless. Have a nice day .

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 5:37 pm GMT

    Good, so that was your last post? I hope so, because none of what you've said has made any sense.

    Yes, when a game adds cars to a track, you're right. No code is added. DUH! The code has already been completed and compiled! When I play a PS2 game, there isn't a programmer sitting next to the console, programming away as I play! But the code is there, it was added during the programming phase.

    You're totally missing the point. Keep telling yourself you're a programmer. There's no way to possibly take a complete program, with one building, and add a second building without changing SOME code, SOMEWHERE within the program. Otherwise it would just be PFM.

    Interactive environments, huge worlds, 1000's of characters, dynamic environments... these are all GRAPHICALLY LIMITED. If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for you. But I have a feeling that you just need to have the last word.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 5:20 pm GMT

    I'll try one more post.

    In a racing game when you're deciding btwn having 1 opponent or 4 opponents the game loads with 1 to 4 cars. This fact should spell it out to you. No code is added or written the game is running off a disk. No new code needs to be compiled to have multiple objects. And obviously you use loops to render multiple objects how else would you do it? And games I’ve worked on have sold more than a million copies so they don't suck too badly

    There is a lot more than ram when you take into account...

    And none of these game play enhancements have anything to do with graphics: (AI, Physics, Interactive Environments, Huge Open Worlds, 1000's of characters on screen at once, Non-Linear open game play with no fake static buildings or doors.) But they do all require a lot of hardware power and can only be done in a game if a developer decides to take some focus and hardware power away from graphics and give it to game play.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 5:11 pm GMT

    So now you're telling me you're using loops to render multiple buildings... wow, your games must suck.

    Besides, you're talking about a subroutine. The main program isn't going to have ZERO changes and just magically reproduce TWO buildings instead of ONE.

    "The reason why gta makes you wait at a loading screen when you enter a building isn't because "it's dumb" it's a technical limitation."

    Yeah, I already tried explaining that to you (I don't know why you thought I said it couldn't be done because "it's dumb," that's not what I said). It IS a technical limitation, a limitation of RAM space NOT computing power.

    The fact of the matter is, gameplay is seperate from graphics. What you are asking for in games are graphical enhancements, period. They have nothing to do with making gameplay more fun.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 4:17 pm GMT

    Lol,

    I'll try to explain this to you.

    If you have 1 npc or 10000 npcs the amount of code is exactly the same to load them and have them do their thing. Do you really think engineers program each npc and each building individually? The same is true with buildings. Obviously a building "doesn't appear by magic” But yes no change to code is needed to load another building. The code in the game engine is all there. When a game engine has a "LoadBuilding" function written it's done. You don't need to write a "LoadBuilding" function for every building you decide to add into the world. So if you want to go from 1 building to 100 buildings 0 new code needs to be written. That's why c++ has something called a loop...

    Oh and I’m sorry if I’m not 100% correct with my grammar because I know how important it is to sound professional on website comments.....lol

    If you REALLY need proof that I am a software engineer private message me. But since this conversation isn't really going anywhere I’ll stop posting.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 3:41 pm GMT

    "Like i said i am a software engineer at a major game developer and i am very interested in where next gen games are going."

    No, you're not. You're a teenage kid hiding behind a keyboard with no understanding of how programming is done. Real programmers know how to capitalize, because they understand the importance of presenting themselves as professionals.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 3:39 pm GMT

    "If a game has 1 building you can walk into and they decide to add 2 buildings no new code is needed."

    This is the dumbest thing you've ever written up to this point. It's so dumb, I'm not even going to read the rest of your posts. Obviously you don't know and can't be told how things actually work, so I'm just going to quit now.

    You think that building would just appear by magic? No change to programming, just poof... another building exists?

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 3:01 pm GMT

    LoWpS,

    This really isn't a discussion about what console is the best and what one will sell the most. It's about where i'd like to see the next generation of games go.

    rarson is argueing some details most of them technical in nature which is kinda getting the entire conversation off topic as i try to reply and correct him.

    Like i said i am a software engineer at a major game developer and i am very interested in where next gen games are going. I've been very dissapointed by the constant focus on best graphics in sacrafice for gameplay. But like i said i'd much rather have next gen games go full force into: AI, Physics, Interactive Environments, Huge Open Worlds, 1000's of characters on screen at once, Non-Linear open gameplay with no fake static buildings or doors.) and don't perticularly care if i have to use the same controller i've been useing.

    It's my personal preference and discussion is good but argueing tiny details, saying some things are technically impossible, and speaking for rockstar engineers on whay they did or didn't do something doesn't contribute to the discussion.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 2:52 pm GMT

    "In order to fit that many characters on screen, the graphics would have to be cranked down until people are calling it a "PS one" game. As I said before, no company is going to sacrifice that much graphical quality just to fill the screen with characters."

    You're starting to see the problems with the wii. What you say is true for the wii but no the 360 and ps3. Because they are so powerful you won't have to nock down graphics quality that much to pull this stuff off. Look at Dead Rising. For an early 360 game they've gone a great job with tons of characters on screen and the game simply wouldn't be the same with 20-30 people on screen.

    Again no extra code is needed if you have more extra interior space. If a game has 1 building you can walk into and they decide to add 2 buildings no new code is needed. You simply don't understand programming if you think this is true

    You can insult me all you want but that really doesn't get this discussion anywhere.

    The reason why gta makes you wait at a loading screen when you enter a building isn't because "it's dumb" it's a technical limitation. Like I said take a look at saints row on 360. We're seeing exactly how more power benefits game play. Being able to walk into buildings real-time is much better than sitting at a loading screen. So to get back to what I’m saying what I would like in a typical next gen game and using gta as an example would be to drop graphics down a bit so there is enough memory and processing power to allow the city to be populated with thousands of peds walking around... think nyc rush hour... And have majority if not all of the buildings be real and dynamic meaning you could walk into or destroy any building you see.

    I'd much rather have that game than have a new gta with a motion sensing remote to control the same old game with same old linear boring game play.

    You will see games on the 360 that will be out soon that will pull off exactly these things. None of them pull of each and ever thing but they all pull of one of them extremely well (AI, Physics, Interactive Environments, Huge Open Worlds, 1000's of characters on screen at once, Non-Linear open game play with no fake static buildings or doors.)

    "Z-buffering is the management of image depth coordinates in three-dimensional (3-D) graphics, usually done in hardware, sometimes in software. It is one solution to the visibility problem, which is the problem of deciding which elements of a rendered scene are visible"

    I dumbed it down for this forum but trying to argue specific technical details when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about is a bit silly.

  • LoWpS

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 2:38 pm GMT

    so... many... big... quotes... chill guys, the winner will be who the winner will be. You've all got good points, but lets let the future sales charts to the talking...

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 1:59 pm GMT

    In order to fit that many characters on screen, the graphics would have to be cranked down until people are calling it a "PS one" game. As I said before, no company is going to sacrifice that much graphical quality just to fill the screen with characters.

    Extra code would be required for the extra interior spaces (the static buildings are just rectangular polygons, while the dynamic buildings would be complex shapes that have to be defined as something more than a single polygon). All the extra walls inside would require extra textures. Why are you even asking that question? This is a no-brainer.

    I notice you aren't defending your stance as a software engineer. I understand why, because as the discussion progresses, it's clear that you don't know anything about game programming. Z-buffering has nothing to do with what gets rendered; that's what z-culling is for. All z-buffering does is give a z-value to an object so that it can be rendered the proper distance with respect to other objects that may or may not be in the way.

    By the way, the Nintendo64 was the first console to use z-buffering, which is why I said it was "introduced into consoles back with the Nintendo64."

    The reason why the buildings had to load is because it's dumb to load all that extra data that you say doesn't exist into memory when the character isn't going to be routinely entering and exiting the building to complete the missions. It has nothing to do with rendering polygons, and the reason that Saint's Row does it without loading is because the 360 has a lot more memory than the PS2 does. It has nothing to do with the processing power!

    Reducing the polygon count isn't going to reduce the amount of memory that the textures take up. Processing polygons doesn't take memory space; texturing them does. Polygons are drawn, textures are loaded. Why would I want a game with dumbed down graphics just so that I could walk into a building without a load time?

    You are clueless! You need to stop making yourself look dumb. Have you never heard of the Havok FX engine? Do you not know that Nvidia is trying to use it to accelerate physics processing with their GPUs? The more you write, the more you show how little you know.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 1:15 pm GMT

    The things i wanted are gameplay and in no way require better graphics. It's actually the opposite. I want worse graphics in order to have extra cpu time and memory dedicated to other gamplay features: physics, ai, interactie environemtns, 1000's of characters, non linear open games with huge worlds......1000's of on-screen characters can be done with current systems. Lets say 360 has 5x more ability to put polys on screen. If you take a xbox game and don'y up the poly count of a player model then you can have 5x more characters on screen (this is a simple example and there are more factors)

    Why would extra spaces need extra code? You code a collision detection system and all other basic game engine functionality. The number of buildings you add doesn't dictate amount of code. Once the collision code is done that same code loop will be called for all buildings..... Don't insult me and tell me to "go back to school" when you don't undertand simple principles of programming and game creation.

    Z-buffering is a basics 3d graphics principle that has been around alot longer than n64. Basically it means what you can't see with your current camera view port won't be drawn in the renderer.

    But this has nothing to do with a static building that is an empty hull compared to a dynamic building that you can walk into. Why do you think walking into buildings in GTA had to be loaded from a disk? Because the game can't handle all of that memory of the city and a building at once. Look at saints row on 360. You can walk into alot of the buildings with no load time. Now if you reduced the poly count of everything.. cars, players, buildings. You could make a game where every building is real. Why wouldn't you want that? Wouldn't you rather play a game in a real liveing city instead of a fake one full of fake buildings? And 360 games are already includeing great physics that is way beyound anything we saw on the xbox. So saying it can't be done is silly.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 1:04 pm GMT

    Yeah, it's easy for you to say you said or didn't say something when you just keep saying two conflicting things.

    You said you didn't want better graphics. Then you said that you wanted all these other things that would result in better graphics, like 1000's of on-screen characters. The current systems can't accomplish this because they don't have the graphical capability.

    If you really are a software engineer, which I highly doubt, then I think you need to go back to school. You think all those extra spaces in all those buildings aren't going to need extra code? Furthermore, as a software engineer, you would know something about z-buffering which was introduced into consoles back with the Nintendo64, and the associated z-culling which would allow those buildings to be programmed with little or no additional processing power over the static buildings. They'd look and act exactly like the static buildings on the outside.

    I don't know why I even have to argue about this, since even Vice City had buildings you could enter. And each time you did, the new building would have to load off the disc. They were essentially seperate from the "outside" world. Nor do I understand why you would want to enter each and every building for no good reason.

    While you and Nvidia may think that a GPU is a reasonable physics processor, I feel that a seperate chip ala Ageia's PhysX chip would be a superior solution. I'm sure that if the physics add-in cards ever take in the PC market, the consoles will evolve to contain them as well. And that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: the consoles don't have a dedicated physics unit. Until they do, I think you'll find it hard to find a company willing to take so many resources from the GPU to work on physics. As you indirectly stated, physics is not something you can advertise on a box, and graphics grab people's attention. Like I said, they don't have the processing power to combine their current graphics level with the physics and other stuff that you want, but eventually they will.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 12:09 pm GMT

    rarson,

    Yet again please read my posts i never said i want to see better graphics. I said the opposite several times:

    "It isn't that big of a problem that the wii has a good deal less power than the 360 if you're only talking graphics. (i personaly would love next gen consoles to keep cur gen graphics in order to improve gameplay in all areas"

    1000's of characters on screen at once has nothing to do with graphics. It's gameplay. Saying i want characters to look amazeing and real would be grahpics. In some games it wouldn't be a good gameplay advancement but in others it would. It's personal taste of what i want in gameplay. Mabye you don't and thats fine. Mabye simpley giveing you a new method of contrlling a player is enough for you but for me it isn't. You don't think a game that plunks you in the middle of NYC with 1000's of people, no fake buildings or fake doors wouldn't be a major advancment in games?

    "You mentioned GTA, where you said keep the graphics the same but let us walk into each building. That doesn't require ANY more power, it requires a faster loading mechanism and a lot more programming."

    You're wrong about this. It requires power. A static building compared to a dynamic building is millions more polygons and computations not more "programming work or code" As a software engineer at a major game company i feel i may have a better understanding of this. No game maker or gamer want's a world full of fake buildings with fake doors and static linear paths. But in order for the game to sell and look good in screen shots on the box you need to spend the majority of your time, effoert, and hardware power on graphics, You can't tell doors are fake, or AI sucks, or the physics sucks from a screen shot on the back of the box. All you can say is Wow that LOOKS great but it won't PLAY great.

    You are wrong again that the things i ask for ar not possibilitys and will be done when the hardware is capable. The hardware IS capable. The problem is game developers always focus on graphics. They spend majority of the consoles power on the highest poly models, the special lighting and effects, and high res textures. Like i said if GTA stuck with last gun graphics and used all the rest of the sytems power for the rest of the great gameplay features i want it would be very possible.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 11:48 am GMT

    I'm sorry, but gameplay isn't limited by graphical prowess. You are saying that you care about hardware-driven "gameplay" but gameplay is traditionally considered an intangible arena seperate from a console's power.

    You are essentially saying you would like to see better graphics to enhance the gameplay.

    For examply, I could say that I would like to see Gran Turismo add more cars to the track to "enhance the gameplay," but more cars on the track would be considered a graphical upgrade, regardless of how it affected the racing. Why do you insist that you need to see 1000's of characters on screen at once? That is not an aspect of gameplay!

    You mentioned GTA, where you said keep the graphics the same but let us walk into each building. That doesn't require ANY more power, it requires a faster loading mechanism and a lot more programming. They easily could've done that but the majority of GTA involves driving or moving around on the map, not putzing around in a building. That's because having to go into every building would be just tedious and boring, so the programmers decided not to. They also chose to forgo the extra programming required to simply allow a player to do that when it's not a focal part of the game.

    See, you say that you'd like to see all these power enhancements and that you'll wait for the control scheme to pop up later. That is backwards, because graphics are always being improved. People will always want more. The things you are asking for are not possibilities, they are eventualities. They WILL happen, it's just a matter of when the hardware is capable. If you want to fork out twice the cost of a normal console just to have those capabilities a few months or a year ahead of time, then good for you. However those of use who value our purchases know that a little bit of waiting will reward us with lower prices.

    In the meantime, the controller is basically an overlooked piece of system design. Microsoft went and tried to build a controller using the best pieces of what was already out there when they designed the Xbox controller. Sony found a design that works and they are obviously sticking to it. Neither of these companies seem to be able to invent something new beyond adding a button or cutting the cord. Thank god Nintendo still feels the need to innovate.

    I'm not saying that the control scheme is better, but if the thing works as well as Nintendo says it does, then it will certainly make games more fun. And that's why I buy games, to have fun. I can certainly see some situations where I'd rather have a traditional control scheme, but that's obviously an option with the Wii.

    Why would you want to wait to have an innovative new control scheme when it doesn't even require a more powerful system? Obviously Nintendo feels they have it working well enough to use it on their next system, and obviously it doesn't require any extra processing power. Add in the fact that a traditional scheme is still possible, and now my question is, why wouldn't a person want to try it?

    I can forgive a person for not having the ability to imagine how their current games would be played with this "remote" thing. I couldn't imagine how a touch screen would be fun to play a game with. I can't even say that the Wii-mote is going to work well. I'm waiting to try it. But I'm certainly not going to dog Nintendo for making new innovations.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 10:20 am GMT

    wyndall2004,

    "I follow your logic, for a game system to be next-gen, it has to offer the same games we've been playing on the previous generation consoles, but with more content and prettier graphics."

    Never said that and pretty much said the opposite.

    Not sure if you have reading comprehension problems but i didn't say any of the things you listed in your post.

    All my posts have been talking about gameplay. The way you control a game is only one aspect of gameplay and the more interesting aspects of gameplay to me are, AI, Physics, Interactive Environments, Huge Open Worlds, 1000's of characters on screen at once, Non-Linear open gameplay with no fake static buildings or doors. All of these aspects require power. Like i said imagine GTA for next gen only with no fake buildings or static doors where you could go anywhere...and also being able to blow up buildings and see as many people and cars as there are in NY dureing rush hour. All of these cool gameplay features havn't even been close to being accomplished and all of them require alot of console power. I'd much rather have a system with power that can pull that kind of stuff off than a console with limmited power that has to focus soley on innovateing with a new controller.

    The console with the same old games is the wii. Exact same games i've seen on the cube only with a new controller. Red Steel is the most broeing, linear, typical fps game. But because it has a new controller people suddenly think a typical tired fps will become innovative? I dont' think so.

  • wyndall2004

    Posted Sep 21, 2006 3:52 am GMT

    messin18, You don't seem to get it indeed. What makes games fun and worth playing is GAMEPLAY. Nintendo understood that and invested in that aspect. Next-gen consoles should be about innovative gameplay. I'm not saying that the 360 or the PS3 won't be able to host innovative and interesting games. I just feel that Nintendo seems to be ahead of them on that aspect.

    So if I follow your logic, for a game system to be next-gen, it has to offer the same games we've been playing on the previous generation consoles, but with more content and prettier graphics. Power isn't everything. In fact, developping innovative games for the Wii with less raw power on hand than its competitors will produce innovative games gameplay wise. With the two powerhouses, all you need to do to keep your customers happy is sell the sames games you been making for decades but with prettier graphics. Too many sequels!!!!! Devil May Cry, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, etc...Its time to get innovative and move on! Unless they come up with new gameplayelements or a new one altogether, those new iterations will be pointless. For every Beyond Good and Evil and Psychonauts that dies, a crap load of sequels come out and rake all the markets attention.

  • powerframe8

    Posted Sep 20, 2006 3:13 pm GMT

    thanks messin18 for being a total douche. Anyways. Wii is 300 in canada... so im not gonna pick it up anytime soon. I'll wait till next xmas... or i just wont bother at all.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 20, 2006 2:07 pm GMT

    "Convenient how you just decide to arbitrarily focus on only six games mentioned."

    The top 6 selling games is an arbitrary focus?...

    The motion senseing looks like it could be good. BUT until i see one must have extremley great game that couldn't not have been done without the motion senseing remote it feels like nintendo sacraficed more next gen hardware power for nothing.

    You say that sony and ms are jumping the gun and going to far ahead of time with the tech. I think the opposite is true. I think Nintendo is jumping the gun with this new controller. Like i said before when 3/6 of the top selling ds games are simply re-makes with a few little new things thrown in i think gamers are saying they just want great games with great gameplay. All of the gameplay features i want: Great physics, Huge worlds, 100's to 1000's of characters on screen at once, 100% interactive environemnts, Non-linear open gameplay... Mabye when all these things are pulled off we could start thinking about new ways to control the player but i'd much rather have all of this first.

    None of these require a new controller but they do require more hardware power. So what do should game developers do to make great next gen games? Like always alot of them will simply cut cool gameplay in order to have the best looking highest poly models possible. But with the 360 and PS3 because there is so much power we're starting to see developers put more focus on thoes other aspect. On the wii however there really isn't that option. The main thing developers will have to innovate is with the controller. That's just not enough for me i need alot more in a next gen game than new controlls. While i'm sure i'll own all consoles of this generation and nintendo will make some great first party games as usual. If you only own the wii dureing this generation i think you'll be missing out on alot of games that are truley more revolutionary in more aspects of gameplay than the controller.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 20, 2006 1:45 pm GMT

    Okay, let me explain this a bit more, since you're not getting it.

    My DS wasn't bundled with any game. So obviously Nintendogs wasn't bundled with every DS. Sure, bundling the game will immensely help the sales, but you can't claim that Nintendogs isn't popular because it was bundled.

    As far as using versus needing stylus support, I'm merely stating my argument based on what you previously said:

    "If the majority of the you're top selling games don't use / need a certain hardware feature of the console then that hardware feature is not required for the console sucess."

    You said use OR need, not just need.

    Convenient how you just decide to arbitrarily focus on only six games mentioned.

    Mario Kart DS: uses the touch screen for powerups. And it works nicely. Nintendo would not be able to get the same effect without the touch screen. And Mario Kart DS's feel goes back to the original game's feel with the directional pad. I like it better than a stick. Regardless, Sony has shown that joysticks thus far have not been replicated satisfactorily.

    Super Mario 64 DS: while I agree a PROPER stick would've been better, it also would've made the game much too similar to the original. The whole POINT of the game is introducing the new control scheme, so if you don't like it then don't play it. Just because you FEEL it shouldn't use the touch screen doesn't change the fact that the game is popular in spite of it.

    I understand that games sell systems. But games don't dictate system hardware. Well, actually to a point they do (anyone remember the Firewire ports that USED to be on the PS2?). But basic system design is up to the hardware manufacturer. If none of the games used the touch screen, I would agree with you that it was unnecessary. As it is, the fact that games don't HAVE to use it is a good thing. It allows the more conventional games to still be brought to the system.

    While I agree with your desires of systems, especially physics and interactive environments, you can't blame Nintendo for making a realistic system. Sony and MS are trying to cram so much tech into the boxes that they are ahead of themselves. If they made the machines for the market that sells best, they would be making machines coming out at $300 on which they'd lose little or no money on selling out of the box. Instead, they are trying to be 3 steps ahead of the current-gen tech and have to charge way more while still losing a ton of money. I mean it has gotten so bad that they have created viability for Nintendo to sell a less powerful console for more than they've ever charged for a console before.

    The graphics won't make a game any more or less fun, regardless of how good they are. While I agree that the other stuff takes power, the OBVIOUS focus on these next-gen consoles is graphics. And all it takes to see that is all the shouting about HD this and that. The new control scheme is innovative and has the potential to bring a new level of fun to games. I'll have to try it before I commit to the Wii (it should be interesting to see what a Wii kiosk will actually look like), but it certainly looks more interesting than the regular controller with the slapped on motion sensor of the PS3. And the fact that the console is cheap means that it's not as huge an investment as the PS3.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 20, 2006 11:07 am GMT

    Just because a game utilizes the touch screen doesn't mean it needs it or it works well with it. I'll try to spell it out one more time for you.

    Nintendodogs was bundled with the ds so the sales are definitly a bit high.

    But lets look at the top 6.

    -Mario Kart DS, This game does not need a touche screen and would have been better if nintendo had put a joystick on the ds and not a direction pad

    -Animal Crossing, Again thiis game would be just as good without the touche screen

    -New Super Mario Bros, Game absolutley doesn't need the touch screen

    -Brain Age, Game does need touch screen to work

    Super Mario 64 ds, Another game that doesn't need the touche screen and would have been alot better with a joy stick.

    So 4 out of the top 6 selling ds games would have been just as good if not better without the touch screen. Use some common sense here. Games Sell Consoles, When 4/6 of your best selling games don't need a hardware feature of your console it's pretty clear that hardware feature wasn't required for the consoles sucess.

    It isn't that big of a problem that the wii has a good deal less power than the 360 if you're only talking graphics. (i personaly would love next gen consoles to keep cur gen graphics in order to improve gameplay in all areas. Imagine takeing gta and instead of upping the grahpics for next gen take every building in the city an let you go inside them with no fake static doors). And yes it's a fact that shouldn't be repeated but if you read the nintendo fanboys below you you would have seen me responding to the kid who suggested wii madden looks exactly like 360 madden.

    All of this aside the problem with wii is computational power. The things i want in next gen games are: Great physics(Saint's Row), Huge worlds (Oblivion), 100's to 1000's of characters on screen at once(Kameo, Dead Riseng), 100% interactive environemnts (un-anounced fps), Non-linear open gameplay...

    All of these things require a great amount of console power. Nintendo is relying too heavily on motion senseing and not on all of the rest. So far all the wii games look exactly like current gen titles with motion senseing added on. That doesn't excite me at all. But i get very excited when i see 360 games pulling off some of the advancements. It's too early to say if the wii games will be able to compete with other console games in all of these categories but early indication is no.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 8:42 pm GMT

    Messin18, don't try to explain logic to me, since it's clear you don't understand how it works.

    Your facts are also messed up, allow me to fix you. By the way, a "15-year-old remake" would've been remade 15 years ago.

    DS games that have sold over 1 million copies worldwide (according to Wikipedia):

    Nintendogs (7.71 million)
    Mario Kart DS (4.94 million)
    Animal Crossing: Wild World (4.89 million)
    New Super Mario Bros. (4.72 million)
    Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day (4.11 million)
    Super Mario 64 DS (3.82 million)
    Dr. Kawashima’s Brain Training 2 (3.31 million)
    WarioWare: Touched! (1.97 million)
    Big Brain Academy (1.74 million)
    English Training (1.42 million)
    Tamagotchi Connection: Corner Shop (1.28 million)
    Tetris DS (1.25 million)

    Guess what? ALL OF THESE GAMES UTILIZE THE TOUCH SCREEN. By your logic then the touch screen is a reason for the DS's success.

    Regarding Madden on Wii: yes, I agree that there will be a noticeable difference in graphics, especially on an HDTV. Yes, the Wii obviously has less power than the PS3 and 360. But "not nearly as good?" The Wii has shown potential for VERY good graphics. Not 360-caliber, but close. Just look at Super Mario Galaxy. People who complain about the Wii's graphics are either spoiled or just have penis envy. I mean, saying the Wii's graphics don't measure up to the 360's is like saying the PS3 is expensive. Duh. And it's been said a million times already. The fact is that if this were the PC market, 98% of you people would be buying the cheaper videocards and be staring at a picture with lower graphics setting and not caring. It's not that big a deal that the graphics aren't the best, get over it.

    Just because Nintendo's first-party games are geared towards younger players doesn't mean the rest of the games are. However, I have to admit that I cannot get over the styling of the Gamecube. It clearly looks like a kid's system. That is one reason I'm so glad Nintendo has done a good job of upstyling the Wii.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 2:41 pm GMT

    Hoppe_c80,

    I would love to see a quote that a madden developer said wii madden looks so close to ps3 and 360 madden he can't tell the difference. #1 the wii developer is going to do whatever it takes to hype the game and #2 look at the gamespot preview of madden wii:

    "Madden 07 on the Wii looks very much like any of the Madden games on the GameCube. We didn't see many close-up shots of players, or any replays or special effects in the demo, but the action on the field moved smoothly. The players all move well, and although there's not tremendous detail in the backgrounds and fields, the focus is on the movement of the players"

    Key sentence here: "Madden 07 on the Wii LOOKS VERY MUCH like any of the Madden games on the GAMECUBE"

    It's a fact that the wii will be very underpowered compared to ps3 and 360 and will not look nearly as good.

    It's a fact that historicly nintendo gears games towards kids and young people.

    There isn't anything really wrong with these facts but i can't understand why nintendo fanboys refuse to accept them.

  • messin18

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 2:34 pm GMT

    Rarson,

    You have the logic all wrong. The logic is this. I'll spell it out nice and slow for you

    Games sell consoles.

    If the majority of the you're top selling games don't use / need a certain hardware feature of the console then that hardware feature is not required for the console sucess.

    In the strange example you made up you missed the key point. MAJORITY of the TOP sellin games. Not just "a game".

    The point still stands the DS is a great sucess because of great games. Not because of a touchscreen. And It's also true that the top selling games are 15 year old remakes meaning gamers arn't picking up the ds for a revolution they want games with great gameplay. And it also shows you don't need a new control gimick to get that great gameplay (new super mario bros, mario 64, mario kart)

  • VirtualBoyZ

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 10:58 am GMT

    Must own... Must have... Excellent...

  • Hoppe_c80

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 9:51 am GMT

    you may say that the graphics arent close to the 360 or ps3, but the top devloper for madden wii said that the graphics are so clse to the 360 thst he couldnt tell them apart. the the top devloper for the new Marvel Ultimate Alliance said that he was surpised what the wii could do graphically.

  • 4esth

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 8:40 am GMT

    lol: "Besides the Wii's previously announced DVD playback abilities, the console will also have...."

    Somebody missed some news

  • cayne_phoenix

    Posted Sep 19, 2006 12:12 am GMT

    2 days after me birthday...

  • ninjajuggalo810

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 9:57 pm GMT

    i really wish people would stop complaining about the price of the controller xboxes wireless controller is $50 and doesnt have the same capabilties as the wiimote and who knows what ps3s wireless will be your really complaining about $10 which you could just as easily get a third party (if available)

  • Gboy2003

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 9:35 pm GMT

    Sweet! The day before me birthday!

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 7:34 pm GMT

    Go to google.com and type in "$250 to canadian dollars" Google has a built-in currency converter.

    It's 279.80.

  • ps_fan

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 6:53 pm GMT

    does anyone know how much this is in canadian dollars?
    thanks in advance

  • parasite5768

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 5:20 pm GMT

    Awww...i thought it would only be 170..o well..its still a lot cheeper..but its gonna hurt a lot more to take a Wii...he he he...i wanna Wii now!! ha ha ha...o..i love that name

  • living420

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 4:27 pm GMT

    I don't know how anyone can comment on a system that they havn't played. I'm excited to try both the PS3 and wii!

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 1:48 pm GMT

    You guys don't get it. Everyone saying that it's not a "next generation" console simply don't understand the meaning of the term "next generation."

    Maybe if this were the successor to the SNES, and it had similar graphics to the SNES, then I would find it a point worthy of argument. As it is, I can't see how the graphics capability of the system is a factor in whether or not it's "next gen." Assuming we ARE basing the merits of the system on arbitrary factors, why would we choose something as narrow as graphics alone? The controller itself hurls the system into the next-gen realm, and the design of the system is sleek and new (refreshingly different from the N64/GC style). The add-on "shell" concept for the controller, which almost no one seems to mention when it comes to the controller, is also revolutionary, and I think one of the coolest aspects of the controller.

    The control scheme and flexibility is such an extreme departure from the norm that it makes me feel like the other systems are the ones stuck in the last generation. With all it's awesome specs and HD features, the 360 (right now) feels like a slightly prettier XBOX. In fact, the first thing I thought when I first played several 360 games is "this isn't next-gen." Granted, second-tier software will help bring the best out of the system, but I think graphics have gotten to a point that minor bumps here and there in processing power don't mean much anymore.

    You want to talk next-gen graphics? Give me a 3D display. Give me a head-tracking HUD. A few million more polygons doesn't matter at this point.

  • nappan

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 12:53 pm GMT

    If you want the Wii for what it is, not as a next gen console, but as a next gen gamecube, then it's a good price for a good system. Without HD support or the power of the PS3 and Xbox360 it's not really a next gen competitor, but like the gamecube, and every nintendo console before it, the Wii will have a strong niche. I would guess that the Wii will sell like mad to nintendo fans, and then over time, as the price drops and more games are released (or a couple of killer games like resident evil 4 was for the gamecube) it will end up as the third or "other" console on people's shelves. There is nothing WRONG with that, it's a niche that Nintendo does better than anyone else. Enough of this "where's the dvd playback" junk, or the fanboys screaming about the Wii owning the next generation of consoles. The Wii is what it is, and that's enough.

  • rarson

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 12:37 pm GMT

    "I've read elsewhere on this site that there will be no DVD playback... What's up with that?"

    How many people DON'T have a DVD player by now? Even if you didn't, you could go out and buy one for less than $100 that is a better DVD player than either the PS2 or the XBOX. The point of the matter is that DVD playback is the most insignificant function a console could have at this point (especially when the entertainment industry is now trying to cram HD formats down our throats). Nintendo is saving money by not including it.

    Regarding the DS, one of the games that I love that uses the touch screen is Bomberman. It's a great example of a good use of the touch screen that I think other people are forgetting. Remember, you don't have to use the stylus to use the touch screen! Bomberman essentially uses the touch screen to add additional buttons to the DS, and it's really rather awesome to use in that fashion.

  • sheep469

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 10:53 am GMT

    "Besides the Wii's previously announced DVD playback abilities"

    I've read elsewhere on this site that there will be no DVD playback... What's up with that?

  • Hoppe_c80

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 10:21 am GMT

    this is gonna be the best november ever!!!

  • NandoSupes

    Posted Sep 18, 2006 9:18 am GMT

    people relax, is just too early to tell what next gen system is going to be numero uno, but I do know one thing, the Wii is gonna be more succesful than the gamecube , is gonna be awesome and I"ll buy one at launch. changing the subject, Nintendogs and Mario Kart ds sold that many copies for one single reason, fun. they are fun games that anyone is able to play from the go, and if a game is fun and the gameplay is great, graphics dont matter and the Wii is going to prove this, later.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!