jbanes

Online is not truly competitive. It's a co-op game where you compete for the highest score. And it's TONS of fun! Honestly, I wish more FPSes were like this. Forget the storyline, forget the maze crawling, forget the puzzling. Just let me SHOOT something! In fact, make it a LOT of somethings and you've got yourself a deal! That's what I love about Onslaught. As an aside, does this game remind anyone else of a lightgun that that's NOT on rails? An odd idea, I know...

Nope. You can transfer them. Mario Galaxy *should* work. Games with an online component often can't be copied, though.

They're supposed to be unusable. The 1 and 2 buttons are for sideways (i.e. gamepad) control. Nunchuk and/or IR control ignores the existence of these buttons. Games occasionally use them for something that you would never want to touch by accident*, but otherwise they're pretty much useless in the wand configuration. * e.g. Onslaught's online mode allows 2 or more players to override the wait for a full 4 players by pressing the 2 button.

It's actually kind of funny, because the Playstation controller was God-awful from day one. People seem to like it more out of familiarity than anything else. Then Microsoft comes along, learns from Sega's excellent design choices, and perfects the gamepad/analog controller... just in time for Nintendo to introduce a fundamental shift in gaming input. Microsoft just can't win, can they? BTW, where's the option for Wii Remote + Nunchuk? I demand a recount! Judges! Judges! :x

Use small flicks instead of full arm swings. The game registers the same amount of force either way. Hit the weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE.

The word you're looking for is "core". You are a "core" gamer, not a "hardcore" gamer. The term "gamer" encompasses anyone who plays games. Including casuals. Why not? Since April we've seen the release of Guitar Hero IV, de Blob, Wario Shake It, Mega Man 9, Alien Crush Returns, Bomberman Blast, Toki Tori, etc. Am I missing something?

@Rybags - Did you just suggest mip-mapping on the Atari 2600? Backporting modern technology is so much fun.

One would expect that. But in 2008, the Wii sales still trailed the 360 sales. To the point where the Wii was looking like a semi-losing proposition for publishers. Various murmurings were that Wii owners only bought their Wiis for Wii Sports. Or that they only purchased Nintendo games and that third parties could not compete. That line of thinking netted us the gimped version of Rock Band for the Wii. A version that pissed off many Wii owners and thus became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rock Band 2 reversed those decisions. Along with an explicit apology from Harmonix, the Wii version of Rock Band 2 was released as a first-class version of the game. Granted, it was released 6 months after the other systems and is only available in North America. But the sales are already strong (despite practically missing the Christmas season!) and may overwhelm sales on the other consoles in the long term. Just because they'd move more units doesn't mean they'd make more money. There are a variety of fixed costs associated with placing a game on the store shelf. Without access to information in Nintendo's control, it's difficult to say if the numbers would bear out a greater profit. One would think so, but that assumes that lower prices wouldn't "burn out" the market for the product. Lowering prices may more more units in the short term, but the long term prospects are not necessarily better. Also, there is an aspect to this I haven't touched upon. By keeping their prices high, Nintendo is also playing a psychological card. Generally, the more you pay for something, the better you tend to feel about it. This is a weird sort of confirmation bias that causes consumers to focus more on their purchases. e.g. One study had wine drinkers purchase and evaluate a $10 wine vs. a $100 wine. (May not be the exact numbers, but you get the point.) It was the same wine, but the $100 wine scored more favorable impressions than the $10 wine. Nintendo may be trying to use this bias to ensure that consumers find their products valuable.

FWIW, the VGChartz numbers seem to bear this out. Take Guitar Hero as an example. According to VGChartz, the Wii version of GHIII has outsold the competition despite its late start. It's a slim margin, but it's there. GH:WT is even more impressive. The Wii has sold almost a million copies more than the nearest competing console. (XBox 360) That's 46% more units sold than the 360! A shocking, yet vindicating number for everyone who felt that the Wii's software sales should not be trailing behind the rest of the industry. It is, after all, the most popular console of this generation.

Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!

They don't have to be in the Top 200 to be (relatively speaking) selling like hotcakes. As long as they keep selling at a steady pace, Nintendo ends up making significant revenue. Consider what an average of 20K units per month would mean. At $50 a unit, that's a cool million dollars in revenue right there. All for Nintendo sitting on their butts and doing nothing. Until that situation changes, you're unlikely to see a Player's Choice line of games. Keep in mind that lower prices help drive those sales. That's why prices get lowered. Nintendo is betting that you'll eventually buy the product anyway, just at a later date than if they dropped prices. For them, such a gamble is likely to pay off in spades.

I thought the first one didn't sell very well? Why then would they release a sequel? The game sold over half a million copies on word of mouth alone. I'd say that's doing pretty well, wouldn't you? Wii games seem to be slow to take off. Take Boom Blox as an example. Sold horribly in its first few weeks. Then it suddenly rebounded and sold like hotcakes. Go figure. I imagine part of the reason why these games sell so poorly at first is that they're priced at $50. They seem to do a lot better when they drop a smidge in price. (Zack & Wiki ended up selling for $30, Boom Blox $40) Wii gamers appear to be a bit risk adverse, probably from getting burned on a lot of the early releases. If the price comes down a little, it can turn a game from an absolute failure into a stunning success.

Battalion Wars II is a third party title published by Nintendo. I suppose one could think of it as Second Party, but the relationship doesn't seem as strong as most of Nintendo's second party relationships. Believe it. Worldwide, Nintendo is selling ~1.8 million consoles per month. That keeps their market growing fast enough to sell through all the first party titles they want. At full price no less. Worse yet, with such poor showings from third parties, Nintendo's titles are even more attractive to the average consumer than in past generations. Interestingly, Nintendo titles have always held their value surprisingly well. Try picking up a used copy of Mario Party 4/5/6/7 for the GameCube. They sell from $25-$40 depending on which game we're talking about. Whereas third party and Player's Choice titles can be had for anywhere from $5-$20.

Glad to see that Taito isn't going to be ripping people off again. Space Invaders: Get Even was a fun idea, but Dear God was it overpriced! Getting through the first levels was an unsatisfying use of 500 points that had me vowing never to pay for the rest of it.

You and me both. I still know about the big sword.

It can be traced back even earlier.... ^Fail. The correct answer. And you guys call yourselves gamers? Turn in your gamer cards immediately!

That one is easy. The types of games on the 7800 (arcade style) are very different from the types of games on the NES (console platformers). You have a preference for one type of game over the other. The PS1 vs. PS3 issues the original poster was complaining about are a different ball game. The same type of games he liked are available today. (Tomb Raider was even remade recently.) The problem is, these games don't stand the test of time. He may remember them fondly and even get some enjoyment out of replaying them, but it's the lack of revolution vs. slow evolution that's causing his problem, not a devolution of gaming. Personally, I thought the PS1 was a piece of crap when it came out; only suitable for teenage boys with no lives or friends to play games with. I eventually got a PS1 used and realized that I really didn't miss out on much. (Save for Dino Crisis. That game is AWESOME. Way better than Resident "poor excuse for dialog" Evil.)

Let me put it this way: I have always understood that Casual Gamer == One who plays casual games. That is the definition the market uses as well. Now if you look into my library, most of the games are what are currently considered "casual games". (Missing WiiFit though. Couldn't convince the wife. ) In fact, Nintendo's core games have held a lot less appeal for me. (Kids love 'em, though. ) My occasional breakouts into hardcore are usually classic gaming and shmups. (Love shmups. Gotta have them shmups! It even sounds great rolling off the tongue: shhh'muuuuu*P*) So thus we come back to the question of how to define a casual gamer. If we define a "casual gamer" as someone who occasionally plays games, then I'm not a casual gamer. But that's not what the term means. Research says that casual gamers play a LOT of games. Just not the same type as most people.

[insert argument where we go back and forth on what "casual" means again]

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attach_rate Umm... I dunno. I'm not sure if that's a good metric unless you at least define hardcore as someone who likes highly challenging games. I consider myself mostly casual with some leaning toward hardcore as I defined it earlier, but I easily have hundreds of games. Even for the Wii alone, I have one of the largest collections on AtariAge. (Possibly THE largest?) My favorite games in my collection are all clearly in the casual category. (e.g. Defend Your Castle, Pinball HoF, Zack & Wiki, Wild West Guns, Link's Crossbow Training, Toki Tori, etc.) Of course, I could be the exception that proves the rule, but I'm not so sure I believe that.

I respectfully disagree, especially where the Drum Rocker is involved. I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. The GH:WT pads WORK out of the box. The RB2 pads are fragile pieces of plastic that need hundreds of dollars more in equipment to do anything useful with.

Despite the lack of a free development kit to encourage development like XBLA has, I think WiiWare has managed to accomplish this goal. We get a wide variety of experimental games from World of Goo to Defend Your Castle to Lost Winds to Toki Tori and more. The big problem with XBLA (IMHO) is that Microsoft forced developers to commit to making expensive games. By expensive, I mean $200,000 investments and up. This completely negated the indy quality they were looking to get out of making the devkit a free download. In result, XBLA has some pretty cool stuff, but it's really just the minigames that wouldn't be large enough to ship on a disc. (e.g. 1942, Street Fighter HD, Space Giraffe, etc.) Meanwhile, Nintendo will let you publish just about anything if you can get accepted into their program and shell out the $2,000 for a devkit. Which seems more restrictive on the surface, but ends up being a more open environment. Not to mention Nintendo's royalties kick Microsoft's arse any day of the week.

vi vs. emacs? Windows vs. Mac? steak vs. chicken? Obama vs. McCain? Flash vs. Javascript? Atari vs. Intellivision? SNES vs. Genesis? Mario vs. Sonic? 5200 vs. 7800? 360 vs. PS3? Casual vs. Hardcore? Touch Me vs. Simon? Odyssey vs. Pong? Bob Villa vs. Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor? Did I forget anything? And Moycon, I agree with you that we're reaching the end of the information available to us. The only further comment I'd like to make is that the "cheaper" aspect of Jasper relates to the 65nm process. That makes some of the internal parts cheaper. However, Microsoft also added a variety of components that would have offset that savings. That was the point I was making. I don't really believe Microsoft is making money off the consoles. The numbers just don't seem solid enough to make that claim definitively. But it doesn't matter. They have an incredibly high attach rate, and that's obviously where they're making their money.

Indeed. I'm actually a bit shocked at how little has changed between the RB1 and RB2 instruments. Other than the wireless aspect, the models I see in the store appear to be the same instruments as RB1. Wikipedia claims some slight improvements, but certainly nothing incredible: GH:WT Drums have the velocity sensitivity as well and are way quieter than the RB2 drums in my experience. (As for how much quieter, let's just say that I had to come running when my son was wailing on the RB2 drums in Best Buy. ) The quiet aspect doesn't seem like a big deal until you realize the the "correct" way to play the drums is to really *TWHACK* them with a flick of the wrist, much like you would a real drum. If you try to go easy on the drums they may still work, but some notes may get dropped and you may have trouble keeping the rhythm.

Actually, it happened in two major steps. In 2006 Microsoft cut $50/$20 off their console's prices. ($349/$279, respectively) This would have left them with a ~$25 profit on the Premium model if console defects and returns hadn't driven up costs for the year. In 2008, Microsoft had several sales on their Premium consoles, basically selling off the 20GB premiums for $299 to make way for the 60GB premiums. These were on the market for $349 for a few months before being permanently dropped to $299. It's almost a given. Microsoft cut so many corners with the 360 that they had to re-engineer for reliability. The Jasper chipset contains an extended heatpipe in addition to significantly more memory, a different board layout, and other changes from the original system. While it's possible Microsoft is saving enough money from the 65nm changeover to make up for the extra hardware, the fact that Valhalla is in the works suggests otherwise. The Valhalla chipset is intended to run even cooler and cost less to produce thanks to a combined CPU/GPU chipset. This change should shave quite a few dollars off the manufacturing costs, potentially bringing the 360's manufacturing costs down again. That's my 2 cents worth, anywho.