I live in Denmark. 1$ should be worth round about6 kr i think, so here we go.

Xbox/PS3 games: 500-600 kr =83-100$

Wii: 400-500 kr = 66-83$

PC: 350-500 kr = 58-83$

I cannot remember the price of handheld games.

Craplist. Most of these games haven't changed a thing in gaming. I mean, come on, Wii Sports? That game hasn't done a thing for gaming, and is only selling well because you can get it with the Wii.

I want to thank everyone here for your opinions on this situation.

If I had the money I would get both, but is not the case.

For those who played Crysis, is it a relatively linear game (like COD) or are the maps open for exploration in order to progress (like recent MOH Airborne)?

snover2009

The maps are more open for exploration than your average fps. Also, most stuff can be destroyed aswell. However, i probarbly shouldn't say too much, as i don't own the game myself.

I have been hyping the Conduit for Wii for quite some time now, but, as it may turn out, thats its not all that great. especially since it is scoring less than 9 out of 10. But, I need to get some use out of my Wii, it has been collecting dust for months now.

I may instead of spending 50 for this game get Crysis Maximum Edition for 40. Includes Crysis, Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars.

I believe that my computer would run it decently enough to enjoy the game.

I am mainly asking the people who own a Wii and/or a PC that can handle Crysis.

Which one do you think I would be better off with?

snover2009

Just cause the Conduit didn't score a 9/10 doesn't mean it is a bad game. Hell, some of my favorite games has scored lower than 9. IGN gave it 8.6/10, meaning it is a great game with minor flaws that can easily be overlooked. If you've anticipated this game, don't hesitate buying it. :) But if you want Crysis, be absolutely sure that your computer can run it.

I'd say buy The Conduit. It sounds like you've been anticipating this game, and it is a much safer purchase aswell.

Most developers that has gone bankrupt that i know of, went bankrupt because of games not being succesful. Usually this didn't have anything to do with the graphics. Troika closed after having no major succes in videogames (except from among the hardcore rpg crowd), and their games weren't even focused on graphics.

[QUOTE="nchan"]

Game development costs too high. Now that we see cases about just one game could potentially bankupt an entire company, next gen, it wouldn't surprise me if Wii2/HD is just slightly less powerful than Xbox 360 and PS3. PS4 and Xbox720 would be just slightly more powerful than their predeccesors. So to those that want real life and CG graphic next gen, don't expect one.

Adrian_Cloud

I'll speak for the Xbox 360 owners: why is the 360 rubbish? So far i've enjoyed plenty of great games on my 360.

[QUOTE="mand_450"]

[QUOTE="Zaistev_basic"] I would have agreed with you at some point that improving art form of gaming is good for the industry. What a lot of elitist gamers such as yourself fail to understand is that ART does not always mean better graphics. Design does not always mean ART.

ART can be gameplay, fun factor, and creativity. ART in this video game gen nowadays, as 3rd party developers and elitist gamers such as yourself put it, is about graphics and physics. Graphics and physics can help improve tha gameplay, but it DOES NOT MAKE Gameplay. Fun factor is always the most important part of gameplay. Is the game fun, or just eye candy?

If you have both, then it's better. However, the balance between gameplay and graphics is dilluted due to high demand of graphics and physics by elitist gamers such as yourself without realizing that the economies of scale of that graphics emphasis in video game is unsustainable as proven by many 3rd party losing money, or worst are bankrupted.

I am a hardcore gamer (not elitist), and I embrace whatever gaming there is regardless of graphics, like Wii, and PC. We as gamers should not isolate other kinds of gamers like casuals or practical gamers. Even a lot of hardcore gamers are isolated as more generic FPS were produced than good RPGs and other grenre produced this gen. You and I have to understand that we hardcore and elitist gamers are not even the largest consumers, combined of the video game target demographics.

Lastly, by admitting that you are an elitist gamer, it basically means that you believe that your kind of gaming belief is superior that others. Thus, that's why I called it elitists. And NO, elitists gamers DO NOT know what is good for gaming and what is a bad game. As proven by Wii, DS, PS2, and PC, quality of games is very subjective.

You nor I have no credibility to say which game is better and which is not. Our opinion of games is just an opinion and so as 3rd party developers who failed to understand the video game market. What we can't argue is that 3rd party developers and the video game industry in general are having a hard time due mismanagement, wrong strategy, and the high development cost that does not match economic and market trend nowadays.

Zaistev_basic

I actually consider elitist gamerand hardcore gamer to be the same thing. And believe me, i'm not a guy who thinks "Graphix beatz evrything!" In fact,i can still play an old game and have fun with it, even if the graphics are poor compared to todays standards. Hell, at the moments, i play Spelunky, a new freewaregame with graphics resembling those from the good old days. Download it if you want to, its freeware and its addicting.

Also, i never said which types of games are better than another. However, some games helps pushing the mediums of the industry and improving it. I don't think that old games likePac Man, Super Mario, Sonic etc. has to be pushed aside for this to happen. That is what is so great about this generation, there is now something for everyone, hell even old people are starting to join in and share the fun. I'm just a guy who would like to see this still quite young industry evolve even further.

I agree with you on most of what you've said. However, i still didn't say that graphics = art, but that it is just a small part of it. The biggest part of art in games(in my oppinion) will always be in the gameplay. That is what we remember games for.I still play alot ofgames that i like from the last decade, and enjoy them as much as i did then.

And about this elitist/hardcore gamer thingy. I've mistaken the two words for being a synonym of each other, and have accepted my mistake. So i'll correct myself and say that i'm a hardcore gamer and not an elitist gamer, and that i judge a game by it's gameplay and longevity. Believe me, i don't care about games like Uncharted, Crysis, Gears of War etc. even though they feature amazing graphics.

[QUOTE="mand_450"]

[QUOTE="Zaistev_basic"]LOL, is it because of the success of the Wii that some elitists gamers in this forum think that gaming is dying? Gaming is dying ever since the elitist gamers took over video gaming and blown the video game economy out of proportion due to the high production cost of creating a HD game and the time it takes to finish developing a game compare than before. Ironically, as much as some elitist gamer blamed the Wii for the video game market condition nowadays, it was actually the elitist gamers themselves have caused the video game market in a downward spiral due to their unreasonable demand for graphics and physics which caused 3rd party developers to go under. Another irony is that 3rd party developers themselves have that elitist attitude on gaming too. As a result, 3rd party developers have isolated the casual or practical, even some hardcore gamers into their kind of gaming.Zaistev_basic

I consider myself as an elitist gamer, yet i don't think gaming is dying. I just thought it would be interesting to hear folksanswer to this question.

Besides, the elitist gamers are perphaps the most important part of this industry. They are the ones that know what is a good game and a bad game. They know what there is to know about gameplay, graphics, sound etc. and their constant demandings for more quality titles is what make the developers pull themselves together. I view gaming as an artform, and if there is no onethere to appreciate the art, then there is no reason to makeart. If gaming only included casuals, there would be no need for a complexstory, no need for deep, immersive worlds, no need for innovative gameplay, and no need for beautiful graphics, music and sound. The gaming industry would just be stuck at where it started.

Besides, there is plenty of games for the casuals at the moment.

ART can be gameplay, fun factor, and creativity. ART in this video game gen nowadays, as 3rd party developers and elitist gamers such as yourself put it, is about graphics and physics. Graphics and physics can help improve tha gameplay, but it DOES NOT MAKE Gameplay. Fun factor is always the most important part of gameplay. Is the game fun, or just eye candy?

If you have both, then it's better. However, the balance between gameplay and graphics is dilluted due to high demand of graphics and physics by elitist gamers such as yourself without realizing that the economies of scale of that graphics emphasis in video game is unsustainable as proven by many 3rd party losing money, or worst are bankrupted.

I am a hardcore gamer (not elitist), and I embrace whatever gaming there is regardless of graphics, like Wii, and PC. We as gamers should not isolate other kinds of gamers like casuals or practical gamers. Even a lot of hardcore gamers are isolated as more generic FPS were produced than good RPGs and other grenre produced this gen. You and I have to understand that we hardcore and elitist gamers are not even the largest consumers, combined of the video game target demographics.

Lastly, by admitting that you are an elitist gamer, it basically means that you believe that your kind of gaming belief is superior that others. Thus, that's why I called it elitists. And NO, elitists gamers DO NOT know what is good for gaming and what is a bad game. As proven by Wii, DS, PS2, and PC, quality of games is very subjective.

You nor I have no credibility to say which game is better and which is not. Our opinion of games is just an opinion and so as 3rd party developers who failed to understand the video game market. What we can't argue is that 3rd party developers and the video game industry in general are having a hard time due mismanagement, wrong strategy, and the high development cost that does not match economic and market trend nowadays.

I actually consider elitist gamerand hardcore gamer to be the same thing. And believe me, i'm not a guy who thinks "Graphix beatz evrything!" In fact,i can still play an old game and have fun with it, even if the graphics are poor compared to todays standards. Hell, at the moments, i play Spelunky, a new freewaregame with graphics resembling those from the good old days. Download it if you want to, its freeware and its addicting.

Also, i never said which types of games are better than another. However, some games helps pushing the mediums of the industry and improving it. I don't think that old games likePac Man, Super Mario, Sonic etc. has to be pushed aside for this to happen. That is what is so great about this generation, there is now something for everyone, hell even old people are starting to join in and share the fun. I'm just a guy who would like to see this still quite young industry evolve even further.

LOL, is it because of the success of the Wii that some elitists gamers in this forum think that gaming is dying? Gaming is dying ever since the elitist gamers took over video gaming and blown the video game economy out of proportion due to the high production cost of creating a HD game and the time it takes to finish developing a game compare than before. Ironically, as much as some elitist gamer blamed the Wii for the video game market condition nowadays, it was actually the elitist gamers themselves have caused the video game market in a downward spiral due to their unreasonable demand for graphics and physics which caused 3rd party developers to go under. Another irony is that 3rd party developers themselves have that elitist attitude on gaming too. As a result, 3rd party developers have isolated the casual or practical, even some hardcore gamers into their kind of gaming.Zaistev_basic

I consider myself as an elitist gamer, yet i don't think gaming is dying. I just thought it would be interesting to hear folksanswer to this question.

Besides, the elitist gamers are perphaps the most important part of this industry. They are the ones that know what is a good game and a bad game. They know what there is to know about gameplay, graphics, sound etc. and their constant demandings for more quality titles is what make the developers pull themselves together. I view gaming as an artform, and if there is no onethere to appreciate the art, then there is no reason to makeart. If gaming only included casuals, there would be no need for a complexstory, no need for deep, immersive worlds, no need for innovative gameplay, and no need for beautiful graphics, music and sound. The gaming industry would just be stuck at where it started.

Besides, there is plenty of games for the casuals at the moment.

It took me about 15 hours to finish the first game only. 15 HOURS!!! and wasn't able to finish GoW2 before the kids came back home.
Very few games of this generation take more than 10 hours to playthrough.

mithrixx

That is really just a pretty average lenght for a game really. I consider 15 hour long games a short one really. And there are alot of long games this gen which last far beyond 10 hours, like rpgs, open-world games etc.