If you're bored, post here.

[Reaperman]

I still think both sides have valid points, but I'm starting to think of wii more as nextgen.

Historically 3 major things made a console nextgen, and life was pretty clearcut, there was no need to look at minor points. the three:

• release date.
  
• being billed as the next system by xxx brand.
  
• graphics/power
  

points wii hits squarely:

• release date (100% consistant with nextgen)
  
• wireless controllers--all current gen systems have them out of the box while past gen systems have them as additional purchases.
  
• use of standard flash media out of the box. It didn't happen without attachments last gen, this gen PS3 does it too.
  
• internal wireless networking. Networking out of the box was a mark of (some) lastgen consoles, and wireless out of the box is as much a mark of nextgen.
  
• 'virtual console' is very consistant with nextgen
  

points for debate:

• 
  
• power--this is a confusing one. It **IS** more powerful than systems that were clearly lastgen. But it's not really much more than gamecube was, and many titles don't even push wii up to gamecube standards. Is 'somewhat heaftier than before,' (1.5-2x gamecube) comprable to the mountains of power microsoft and sony have added?
  
• 'the next nintendo'--well according to nintendo it is, but this is mostly because of its controller. Deep inside, beats the heart of a gamecube with a bolt-on turbo. Never before has almost all of a systems 'revolutionary' factor relied on a controller, which is generally considered an accessory. however technically wii games can't be played on gamecube, so while it's a bit superficial, I think the point is barely tipped toward the 'wii is nextgen' area.
  
• Gaming media. this was to be the generation of HUGE games, but microsoft's HD-DVD failure leaves them paddling around in nintendo's DVD boat too.
  

points wii misses:

• resolution. 576i maximum? Great that's clearly lastgen, and barely that. Even Dreamcast's max (640x480) is very close
  
• hard disk. While only sony requires one this time around, it stands as a fairly modern thing to have in a system.
  
• games. First party titles mostly new, but much of Wii's life is made up of ports from lastgen systems. It's still getting PS2 ports.
  

 

I see two ways to look at my points.

There are no major points that wii obviously misses and very few minor ones--it's nextgen.

There are more 'major points for debate' than clear major hits, so what the hell is it?

Edited September 25, 2008 by Reaperman

[kisrael]

I see two ways to look at my points.

There are no major points that wii obviously misses--it's nextgen.

There are more 'points for debate' than clear hits, so what the hell is it?

There doesn't need to be a clear answer.

It's kind of a "third way" solution; it's doing innovative things in controllers at its core (not at the fringe, like PS2 was w/ eye toy), but it's less than the typical generational jump in processing power.

 

I disagree with the relevance of some of the points; like not having a Hard Drive -- WIi, in effect, has a small hard drive, and that's the core of their storing downloaded games setup. It's a lot closer to a hard drive than anything GC or PS2 had. (And in fact it's that a hard drive is technically optional for 360 that is the real limit in media, no HD-DVD, I think)

 

And man, I don't see resolution as mattering as much as fans seem to think it does.

[AtticGamer]

To me Wii is a half-breed like Jaguar and CD32.

 

I don't mean to offend any fanboys and my console preferences are not present in that statement (except Wii's).

 

Even Xbox had an 8GB HDD, so being the only console not having one this generation is bad.

Edited September 25, 2008 by AtticGamer

[crazytoy]

Hi, I know there is a Wii sub group, but I figure in there I will get the opinion of only Wii fans of which there are many. I would like the opinion of everyone even Wii haters. I have owned every Nintendo system. I collect and play games for the SNES, N64 and Gamecube still (as well as Atari and sega). The thing is, I love games like Mario Kart, Mario 64, paper mario, Metroid and so on... but I also like the multi platform games (Resident Evils, Soul Caliburs, Splinter Cells, Time Splitters to name just a few) that are on the Cube. With the Wii it seem's to me from my limited exposure to the platform that it is a perfect for casual gamers (i have a ds and love those games too) but if you really want to play next gen shooters and other multi platform games for the most part you will need a Ps3 or Xbox360. Am I right in thinking this? If so maybe for the first time the Nintendo platform would not be my first choice for the current/next generation.

 

I know eventually I will get one when they are cheap just to play the new Nintendo franchises, but would I be better off as someone who is getting close to having all cube titles he wants and yearning for something new and new games to wait and get a different platform?

 

 

I would appreciate your point of view, since the only other people that have offered opinions are the guys at Gamestop who (of course) suggest I buy 2 consoles (xbox 360/Wii).

 

Probably not as powerful as XBOX 360 or PS3 but most popular by far with simple easy to play games. When too many buttons are involved on controller, many parents do not like that...they like simple things that their kids could enjoy. PS3 reminds me a little bit of Sega Saturn, powerful and fun games but not popular and making red ink paper losses. Seems to be costing Sony too much money in losses. It kinda reminds me of Sega. Dreamcast was hugely popular but one or two years down the road went out of Console systems because Saturn System put Sega in very deep losses and red ink.

[kisrael]

To me Wii is a half-breed like Jaguar and CD32.

 

I don't mean to offend any fanboys and my console preferences are not present in that statement (except Wii's).

 

Even Xbox had an 8GB HDD, so being the only console not having one this generation is bad.

Again, it's not quite a "halfbreed" because it's also trailblazing in other directions; it defies easy categorization since it's path isn't just More Polygons and Processing.

 

It has half a gig drive, which is definitely too small, but the fact that it's flash and not a HDD isn't the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the system is a lot more durable (red rings of death anyone?) because of it...

[cimerians]

I have all three. I like all three. Each console has its perks. But what defines next gen? The system and its company when compared to its previous system? Or all systems and all companies?

 

I think WII is next gen when talking about innovation. But if you say graphics and sound. Not so next Gen.

But the concept itself is next generation. Thats the way I see it.

 

So yes it is.

 

Makes for good discussion.

[128bytes]

And man, I don't see resolution as mattering as much as fans seem to think it does.

 

I agree... I don't think it matters much if this debate will ever be resolved

[Atari5200]

is it next generation, no it's current generation. It's current for Nintendo standards.

 

personally is the Wii next gen? Not in the context of this thread, not in terms of graphics, not in terms of sound, not in terms of any kind of system ingenuity. I don't care what's under the hood. From what I've seen, I don't think any game could not be done on the Gamecube in terms of technical stuff. The only thing that makes the system and games different is the Wii-mote.

 

It's a current gen system, there's no debate, it just that it's an extremely under whelming current gen system. And still, I think the fact that I had a 360 well over a year before getting a Wii has something to do with that. When you compare 360 games to Wii games, I just sit there scratching my head as to what Nintendo was thinking..but it's working for them, so oh well.

[kisrael]

is it next generation, no it's current generation. It's current for Nintendo standards.

 

It's a current gen system, there's no debate, it just that it's an extremely under whelming current gen system. And still, I think the fact that I had a 360 well over a year before getting a Wii has something to do with that. When you compare 360 games to Wii games, I just sit there scratching my head as to what Nintendo was thinking..but it's working for them, so oh well.

Wait, by next gen do you mean next gen or "properly current gen" or what? What was the "next gen" is here....

Wii has been a lot cheaper than the 360. Again, it's trying to reach out to audiences besides the "more polys! more physics! more splosions!" crowd.

 

So since all 3 systems are, no doubt, current Gen, the question becomes: "how should gamers define a gen?"

Is it strictly "more polys! more physics! more splosions!" ?

If the N64 came out, but didn't have any 3D games, just really sharp 2D ones, would it have been of its generation?

[Atari5200]

What has been the common factor between all generations until now?

 

Has it been power and graphics??

 

As far as I can recall, I'm not aware of any other generation where there wasn't an enhancement in graphical and overall technical capabilities. It might be different if there was a game for the Wii that hands down could not be done just as well on the Gamecube, and I still believe that is more the developers fault than hardware.

 

2600-5200-7800-Jaguar

 

Nes-SNES-N64-Gamecube-Wii

 

SMS-Genesis-Saturn-Dreamcast

 

Gameboy-GBA-DS

 

I'm not disputing it's not a "next gen" or "current gen", It just doesn't feel like it, and it doesn't feel like it because of my experiences with the 360. The Wii feels like I'm playing a PS2 or Gamecube with a fancy controller.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Atari5200

[Paranoid]

The Wii is "next generation" in that the I/O of the unit really redefines the whole concept of gaming to make it more group and family oriented as a viable alternative entertainment device.

 

That is, the Wii collects crowds at parties - the Wii is something you, your kid, your wife, your sister-in-law and your father-in-law might all find yourself playing at one time.

 

That is pretty damn Next Gen.

 

But the Wii *only* excels at this kind of experience. Bowling. Olympics. In a weird way, it is almost retro, because Sport and Activity simulations are what are the MOST fun with Wii... which really goes back to 4 player Atari 2600 games. It isn't like they discovered something new over at Nintendo. They dusted off something forgotten.

 

But in either case, it works.

 

Well... maybe that is a little too harsh. Depending on the game, if it seems logical that a motion based interface is a more logical method for I/O interaction, I'll usually go for the Wii. I can imagine that Force Unleashed is probably going to be more damn fun on the Wii - simply because you can get your fake, glow in the dark Wii saber, plug the Wii Mote into it, and play like the infamous Star Wars Kid while really kicking Clone butt on screen.

 

Now, on the other hand, GTA type franchises, which I'm not going to play with the entire family, are superior, far superior, on an Xbox360 or PS3. The whole XBox Live package is far more refined than the Wiis online offerings (and more of a potential drain on your pocket book, too). Involved and complex games with large media (think Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc) are going to be better on the MS or Sony machines. There is simply no doubt and no argument about this. The PS3 and Xbox 360 run hardware circles around the Wii. The Wii is basically an external DVD drive with a couple of USB ports and a SD slot.

 

Keep in mind, at release, the Wii $249 price tag was considerably less than even the LOWEST level Xbox that was available, and that alone gave them a huge leg-up in the current generational war for console gaming. It would have been a LOT more than $50 additional if the Wii had better GPU and CPU at release to market. Although the observation is interesting. What will Nintendo do now that MS and and Sony are cutting the prices of their rigs down to the area where the Wii lives. If the Wii didn't still have such massive appeal and buzz behind it, I imagine they would be dropping likewise. At the very least, they're sitting content knowing that their original lower overhead and massive sales makes it very easy for them to cut prices whenever they finally have to.

 

But really, they're different - and it depends on you.

 

You sound like you are

 

a: on a budget

b: into "traditional" "real" games.

c: a Nintendo fan

 

That is probably the worst place to be, huh? Heh. I'll tell you.. the funnest things on the Wii are usually small little mini-games built into some larger game, almost always sporting oriented. I'm a real fan of the "track" event in Sega Vs. Nintendo Olympics, although Archery is cool, and there are others, too... in that title. In Wii play, there is a stupid bull-riding game that is a blast. Bowling is kind of the Combat of the Wii. And they're not games you want to play alone, or even with one other person. You want to compete... to stand side by side next to another person making similar idiotic gestures, sweating, groaning and being a fool, trying to beat you while a room of other players and spectators laugh and drink and all have a good time.

 

With the XBox 360, you can do this too, to a certain extent, but there is also more of a focus on becoming a Russian immigrant in New York working your way up through a criminal family... all by yourself.

 

If you define it that way, it is easy to say Xbox 360 and PS3 are TRADITIONAL and the Wii is INNOVATIVE.

 

Being a retro gamer as well, I realize that the eye candy isn't the whole picture, either. But, if I'm going to be playing GTA, I'd rather have it on something powerful. If I'm going to be playing Guitar Hero, I don't want lag, choppiness, I want the best possible expansion library online, I want the best possible online multiplayer modes...

 

Which is, ultimately, why I have both. I don't think they compare to each other. I don't have a PS3 - and won't. The PS-3 IS comparable to the Xbox 360, and in my mind, outside of being the currently least expensive BluRay player, there isn't any other significant advantage, and a lot of disadvantage. I'll wait for stand alone BluRay to come down.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Paranoid

[Reaperman]

wikipedia seems to go entirely by release date link. According to them, hyperscan and gamewave are current gen, which I think is a bit odd, but by their logic it's all rather simple. I'm starting to like simple answers.

 

as far as power goes, how close are 5200 and 7800? they might be the closest systems to the gamecube to wii jump. (assuming wii is the suspected 1.5/2 times more powerful than gamecube, which honestly I really haven't seen)

[Atari5200]

I wouldn't say $299 to $250 is considerably lower, but that's my opinion.

 

And again, I'm not saying the system isn't next gen, just for me it doesn't feel like it.

 

Can you remember the first time you played Super Mario World after playing the NES for so long and being like..damn. And how the SNES just kicked the living shit out of the NES, how the Dreamcast kicked the living shit out of the Saturn, how the Gamecube kicked the living shit out of the N64. The Wii doesn't feel like it's kicking the shit out of anything, it feels like the same old. But again, that's just me and I'm going to leave it at that.

[Paranoid]

The Xbox 360 doesn't seem like it is kicking the shit out of the Xbox, and the Xbox didn't seem like it was kicking the shit out of the PS1. Things have been more evolutionary for awhile now. I don't think that is a good argument.

 

But the PS1 seemed like a pretty quantum leap over what had come before it.

 

The 5200 to 7800 thought is an interesting one, though. I personally think the 5200 is a better machine. There is no doubt that the 7800 was "next gen" in that it could render nearly perfect arcade renditions for the time, something the 5200 came CLOSE to, but obviously fell short.

 

But for me, I've always maintained that the 5200 seems more vibrant (color) and responsive (things seem to move quickly and respond quickly to I/O on the 5200, and seem sluggish and dull on the 7800).

 

So, a move forward doesn't always mean a more satisfying experience.

[kisrael]

And things are messed up with this "nextgen definition" thing.

I mean the PS1/N64 opened up new kinds of gaming because of the advance of the techologies... storage + polygons for the PS1, polygons and good controller for the N64.So it was a much bigger generational gap than most others. Wii is at least trying to do another Great Leap...

[Reaperman]

And things are messed up with this "nextgen definition" thing.

I mean the PS1/N64 opened up new kinds of gaming because of the advance of the techologies... storage + polygons for the PS1, polygons and good controller for the N64.So it was a much bigger generational gap than most others. Wii is at least trying to do another Great Leap...

I'm not sure that I've ever bought that n64 or psx were especially revolutionary in any way. I will give n64 it's rumble/storage port and I'll give psx it's...well it really was nothing revolutionary at all, but the games were good...

 

but something needs to be done with gaming's 5th generation though. 1993-2002 is far to large of a gap, and the 'weak' systems in the generation really have to be separated from the more powerful ones developed later on. That would be an especially messy split though, because it can't really be done just by date. I think 'survivors' vs. 'died early on' is the way to do it. And just kind of pick the systems that survived up until just before the 6th generation started (say, 1997) as being 'late 5th generation' vs. early '5th generation'.

 

analog control, for example, is a mark of late 5th generation systems. All three had it available, but only two came with it and just the one launched with it.

though it's more/entirely subjective, the saturn, psx and n64 lacked the sluggish feel of the earlier 5th generation systems too.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Reaperman

[DracIsBack]

as far as power goes, how close are 5200 and 7800? they might be the closest systems to the gamecube to wii jump. (assuming wii is the suspected 1.5/2 times more powerful than gamecube, which honestly I really haven't seen)

 

The 5200-7800 example is probably the best ... Atari was the only company that really crossed "through the crash". All the other precrash systems didn't release post-crash successors. Both are 8-bit systems etc.

 

With the NES/SMS, the next step was to the 16-bit level, reprisenting a fairly large leap in processing power between NES/SNES, SMS/Genesis.

 

 

I'm not seeing the power increase either (A gripe of mine) though I think the Conduit looks like it's trying to go there.

[kisrael]

as far as power goes, how close are 5200 and 7800? they might be the closest systems to the gamecube to wii jump. (assuming wii is the suspected 1.5/2 times more powerful than gamecube, which honestly I really haven't seen)

 

The 5200-7800 example is probably the best ... Atari was the only company that really crossed "through the crash". All the other precrash systems didn't release post-crash successors. Both are 8-bit systems etc.

 

With the NES/SMS, the next step was to the 16-bit level, reprisenting a fairly large leap in processing power between NES/SNES, SMS/Genesis.

 

 

I'm not seeing the power increase either (A gripe of mine) though I think the Conduit looks like it's trying to go there.

Atari's such a basketcase because it released the 7800 so late.

The 7800 is probably a good example of a system that doesn't fit in the generation, since it kind of sort of had the power of its peers, but its games and game styles and default controllers were pretty much from the previous generation.

 

Pong

2600/Intellivision: big leap

to NES/SMS:felt like a leap in terms of kind of game, the tile based scroller

to Genesis/SMS: refinement, looks really great

to PS/N64: big leap to polygons

to PS2/GC/Xbox: refinement

to PS3/360/Wii: refinement for the first two, Wii is barely a refinement but again, it's all about the controllers

[atarian63]

To me Wii is a half-breed like Jaguar and CD32.

 

I don't mean to offend any fanboys and my console preferences are not present in that statement (except Wii's).

 

Even Xbox had an 8GB HDD, so being the only console not having one this generation is bad.

not have a hard drive does make it much more reliable. Maybe not nextgen thing but more reliable.Kinda like Eee PC it is it's own thing. Different but its working. So maybe next gen does mean different things not just one pathway.

[DracIsBack]

Atari's such a basketcase because it released the 7800 so late.

 

One's vision is always 20-20 when looking back. Put yourself in Tramiel's shoes in 1984.

 

- The market has collapsed from $4 billion to $100 million in two years

- You have millions of unsold consoles, cartridges and accessories that no one wants

- Your retail partners have millions of unsold cartridges, consoles and accessories that they have to get rid of at firesale prices (much less than they paid for them) in order to get them off the shelves.

- Your two primary competitors have laid off most of their game development staff and discontinued video game operations

- Most people making games for the consoles you own are closing shop, laying off people or bleeding tons of red ink

- The name of the company you own is associated with the poison that caused the above pain

 

How anxious would you be to bet the farm on a new video game console under these conditions?

 

its games and game styles and default controllers were pretty much from the previous generation.

 

The games and styles did evolve to a point where later 7800 titles were of the style of that generation. 1986/7 games were reflective of the 7800's original mission: show that the console can play arcade games from the early 1980s very well and that it can play the same kinds of games as those "pesky computers".

 

Where I fault Jack is that he didn't react quickly once the market had recovered by paying attention to the competition and altering course. Stuff like Scrapyard Dog, Midnight Mutants and Alien Brigade was needed in 1987, not in 1989/90. The pad controllers which were released in Europe in 1989 were needed in North America quickly.

 

Instead of changing his strategy (which he could have done) he focused on a little pet project called the Atari XE Game System in an attempt to rebuild the 8-bit distribution channel, development support etc.

 

to Genesis/SMS: refinement, looks really great

 

I found this to be a pretty substantial leap. Characters half the size of the screen, problems like flickering and slowdown way less prevelant. Parallax scrolling. Many more colors, Digitized photos, video and sound. Scaling, rotation added. Use of pre-rendered CGI graphics introduced.

Edited September 27, 2008 by DracIsBack

[Reaperman]

for me, HD is kind of a big deal, especially with an item that costs so much--though wii hasn't gone as nuts with its price, they're still very high for a gamecube++... Ever since I shelled out big bucks for 720p, I want everything I plug into it to do at least that much. Granted 480p and 576i don't look bad, but 'good enough for 5 years ago' isn't a positive mark for a nextgen system at all, and 10 years from now we'll be sitting in this same forum (all having HDTV's) complaining about wii not being up to snuff.

 

I actually wouldn't mind a progressive scan cable for GC. I'll work on removing a kidney so I can afford it... But it's saturday and I've decided I need 'gamecube stuff' today.

 

As far as systems that got kind of a raw deal with the nextgen, neo geo comes to mind. Somehow (because of release date) Neo Geo CD, slipped into 5th gen, but the *real* neo geo sits in 4th gen, even though it's games were ported straight across to 6th gen.

and really, the 7800 to xegs system move--is that actually a power downgrade? The 3 of them (5200, 7800, xegs) are just--why did you release so many 8-bitters atari? why not an STGS with cart games so I don't have to fiddle with floppies and mice?

 

I'm not seeing the power increase either (A gripe of mine) though I think the Conduit looks like it's trying to go there.

it does look pretty good. how was metroid prime 3? I hated the first 2, but the control was nice, and they pushed the gamecube pretty hard, so I imagine the 3rd is probably a great wii fps. I'd really like to play a wii fps (though not M.P.3) specifically because of the controller. I just wish the conduit was being done by somebody besides high-voltage software though. They did vidgrid and I haven't forgiven them. I wonder if the conduit is just a tweaked version of their gamecube call of duty 2 engine. Something about the lighting looks just wrong, and though it's a work in progress, the art direction is far from stellar.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Reaperman

[kisrael]

How anxious would you be to bet the farm on a new video game console under these conditions?

I'm not taking a firm stand that it was a terrible decision esp. given the circumstances, but still it's weird when labeling generations.

Instead of changing his strategy (which he could have done) he focused on a little pet project called the Atari XE Game System in an attempt to rebuild the 8-bit distribution channel, development support etc.

Yeah, it's actually is a testament to how good the original late-70s architecture of the Atari 8bits was-- though I think at that point the P/M graphics were showing their age

 

to Genesis/SMS: refinement, looks really great

I found this to be a pretty substantial leap. Characters half the size of the screen, problems like flickering and slowdown way less prevelant. Parallax scrolling. Many more colors, Digitized photos, video and sound. Scaling, rotation added. Use of pre-rendered CGI graphics introduced.

Yeah, but still I'd say less of a break from the previous generation than the NES era was from its previous...

(though arguably Colecovision is kind of a straddler in that view)

[KrazyKaiju]

how was metroid prime 3? I hated the first 2, but the control was nice, and they pushed the gamecube pretty hard, so I imagine the 3rd is probably a great wii fps. I'd really like to play a wii fps (though not M.P.3) specifically because of the controller.

Metroid Prime 3 works exceptionally well with the Wiimote contols. I think it does for the Wii what Goldeneye did for the N64. The graphics also show that the system is capable of some really top notch visuals, despite being limited to 480p.

 

Once the studios stop porting PS2 games and actually start designing games from the ground up to take advantage of the Wii's hardware, we'll begin to see just how big a jump the Wii made from the Cube.

[DracIsBack]

and really, the 7800 to xegs system move--is that actually a power downgrade?

 

There are differences between MARIA and GTIA in terms of graphics but they use the same 6502.

 

The XEGS was released for a specific reason: To rebuild interest in the 8bits by repackaging the (poor selling) 65XE as a game console and getting it into stores that didn't carry computers anymore. In 1986, the 8-bits were seen as dying, with many software developers also jumping ship.

 

The Tramiels hoped that the machine would take off and help them clear through a warehouse of Atari 8-bit games, software, peripherals and parts. The games were more sophisticated than the 2600 and cheaper to put out than the 7800 because it was easy to port over legacy disk games to cart than it was to write 7800 games from scratch.

 

why not an STGS with cart games so I don't have to fiddle with floppies and mice?

 

Atari had a few things in the hopper between the 7800 and the Jaguar but none of them materialized. There was the Panther and also the Mirai. Check out this discussion

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65900

http://www.atarihq.com/museum/miscatari/mirai.html

 

it does look pretty good. how was metroid prime 3?

 

Trying to get into it now. To be honest, I find the control really frustrating. Cool art direction, but not a dramatic improvement over the other Metroid games, IMO

 

I wonder if the conduit is just a tweaked version of their gamecube call of duty 2 engine. Something about the lighting looks just wrong, and though it's a work in progress, the art direction is far from stellar.

 

They claim it's a completely new engine, designed to make some effects on the bigger systems possible on the Wii.

[jbanes]

The 7800 is probably a good example of a system that doesn't fit in the generation, since it kind of sort of had the power of its peers, but its games and game styles and default controllers were pretty much from the previous generation.

In all fairness, the 7800 was a machine from 1984 competing against a machine from 1983.