PlayStation Move vs WiiMote

A quick buck is prostitution. A planned promotion that USED to be pro was wii.

It is inferior now but still the original like Toad said.

You have to know that, at the time of release 4 years ago, people don't see Wii as inferior. It was actually considered superior since Nintendo decided that having the game directly interact with the audience(albeit in a pretty lazy manner like waggling) would be better than to just release a HD console. Hence DS's touch screen and Wii's motion controller.

And it became the quick buck only after its released. Nintendo marketed it with the casual people like celebrities and only then that they knew it can be a quick buck is when they decided to just let the cash flow in. Before its released, Nintendo only had direct reference from their DS released 2 years ago at the time of launch as well as the fail innovative technology they did back when its the NES age.

Now the thing is, as much as i like the Move, Wii is still the original. Sony just took the Wii design and improved on it since they are building a new one from scratch.

Its the same case with Kinect. Kinect is the prototype of what's out there in the market just like Wii was back then; albeit more like the NES Power Glove. Microsoft didn't take their motion system from anyone else except for themselves, and therefore its really natural if it turns out to be very buggy.

Finally, the move is not perfect either. You should see the gameplay for Kung Fu Rider; its a pain in the ass to jump at certain crucial points that may mean progress or a death. Ultimately, in some games like Sports Champions Move is perfect, and in other games its probably just about as awesome as the Wii motion controller.

Wow really?

Move is just an improved Wii remote design but, built from scratch using completely different technology? Beyond appearance I'd say they're nothing alike.

Kinect a prototype wholly developed by Microsoft? I guess Microsoft didn't admit that they licensed the technology from an Israeli company and turned into a product after-all.

For all your words, you should probably make sure you get your facts straight first.

@ anon 22:12

i bet they'll be pushing it all to primesense now that kinect's looking to be flopping so hard

but anyway the market still looks to wii as the original despite the different technology. and why? because their controller designs are the same

The Kinect itself is also a copy of Sony's Eye Toy, they just perfected it (or at least were supposed to do so). In the end Nintendo has had the most impact with it's innovations, despite not having the best graphics, wether people like it or not

This is getting amusing now... We keep repeating ourselves.

When Nintendo come up with a new way to play games (examples being the Wii remote and handhelds) it always suck. Based on sony and microsoft fans. When sony and microsoft then decide "Fuck, Nintendo made success with their new stuff. Let's try something similar." whatever they produce, doesn't suck. And this is despite bugs.

Nintendo is now going for 3D, which many experts say will be greatly imporved in a few years. It will most likely be a success, because it is the first 3D handheld. When sony or microsoft again decide that "Fuck, Nintendo made success with their new stuff. Let's try something similar.", they will have access to the improved 3D tecnology and know if the marked likes 3D or not. At which point sony and microsoft fans will step up and claim that the 3DS suck and whatever is better.

At this point, Nintendo will have another thing going... Possibly Head tracking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw&feature=channel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw&feature=channel]

Here is the thing Nintendo Wii Consoles sells on the casual gamer market because a lot of people grown up playing Nintendo consoles when they were kids, Wii-wifi network offers old games on DLC even the Sega collection which I was surprise.After looking at the Specs they use on the Wii they were using cheapest technology they can find back then you be surprise you don't see Fall Out 3 on Nintendo Wii because it didn't have the best technology to put that game on there system because I don't think 729 MHz processor is going to play that game.

The only reason why Nintendo is making 3DS is because the Hand-Held Market is big in Japan and other country's. Most game sells on the DS are higher then then the Wii's Mario Galaxy 2 the reason why they are selling 3DS for $300 is because the technology they are using on that thing is better then the Nintendo Gamecube and PSP.

I wonder if anyone is going to make a game on 360 with Kinect support that involves having sex in an eroge.

I tested the Wii a few years ago with a few games, and honestly most of the fun I had was trying to make it respond to the movements it said it would. The games were small and uninspiring with the exception of the first party games in general. I was hoping that it was because the game I tested was in early development that the controls were so unresponsive. I mean they were smaller movements, sure, but still, it was designed for this kind of thing, right? Even at release nothing had really improved. Functionality that was based on the motion controls had to be cut because frankly the Wiimote is a piece of garbage to me. I guess it's good in first party control perhaps, but even when I played those games it just didn't feel like I was really in control.

Either way, Nintendo DEFINITELY spearheads the use of these innovations in the gaming industry, with the power glove, the gun, etc. but spearheading an effort can only go so far. Just because they used crappy motion control doesn't mean they should be praised specifically for using motion control. They need to be praised for their attempts, and held accountable for their failures.

If it took Sony to make improved motion controls before Nintendo could fix its crap, then Sony doesn't deserve heckling, they deserve credit where it's due for showing Nintendo what their innovative asses should have done to improve on their motion controls over time. They may be innovative, but they never seem to aspire to 'perfect' any of their technology.

Great. So Sony loves being the best. Now let's see Sony come up with something original. Then I'll give them credit.

Sony and original? Like their controller which both nintendo and microsoft copied.

Or pushing 3rd parties instead of just their own which made FF7 the big success it was. FF7 sold more copies on the first weekend then all previous FFs on Nintendo did together in their whole lifetime. And it wasn't because of square, but because of the incredible marketing campaign SONY made arround it.

Making a Console thats both a media Server and a Console. Making it possible to install third party OS on your Console. Making it possible to put in any 3.5" HD you wanted in your Console (at least in the FAT PS3).

Its the fault of Nintendo entirely. Sony asked them way back to make a Console with a CD Drive, but shortsighted as Nintendo is they refused. And that nearly killed them for sure, because that was the birth of the Playstation.

Oh, besides, best name ever. People who aren't gamers often call every console "the new playstation". At least here in europe.

Nintendo and Microsoft copied Sony's controller? I know there are some devout Sony fanboy's on here but that's just ridiculous...

So you won't give them credit unless they make it...? That's pretty shallow... I give Nintendo credit for its innovations, but most of them aren't even their innovations, just taking the tech from other companies that did the research anyway and made it for gaming. So Nintendo isn't really original either, so it's all moot.

One other thing. Sony did not approach Nintendo with the SNES CD drive idea. Nintendo actually contracted Sony (and apparently Phillips as well) to develop it for them. But then, for reasons unknown, Nintendo completely abandoned CD-Rom as a viable option touting that longer load times and a complete hardware overhaul was necessary and stuck with the ROM based cartridges they used for N64.

Ludology 101. Get yer facts straight fanboy.

"Making a Console thats both a media Server and a Console. Making it possible to install third party OS on your Console. Making it possible to put in any 3.5" HD you wanted in your Console (at least in the FAT PS3)."

My PC did that years ago

Great risk, yes, but with their financial 'power' they could make a console equivalent to PS3/360 in terms of graphics with a dedicated motion controler that guaranteed good movement recognition. Instead they decided to release an improved PS2 with a motion controller that works, but could work much better.

In other words, they went for a platform that's cheap to manufacture, yet sells for a good amount of cash, which translates to nice profit if it sells well.

This makes sense.

Nintendo is a business. They are in the business of making money.

IIRC the only Japanese company to make a bigger profit than Nintendo is Honda.

They have a lot of financial "power" now but remember that before the Wii came the Gamecube, which unfortunately didn't do well at all. it made a profit but that's about all that can be said. They had to do something to shake things up while at the same time being very careful. They pulled it off, and as usual the rest of the industry followed in their steps.

The Wii was released half a decade ago. People often seem to conveniently forget that. Things were different, mainstream motion control was new, and they didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

It would actually be pretty pathetic if, after all this time, the move WASN'T an improvement.

Um, as Shigeru Miyamoto said, Nintendo makes games so people can have fun playing them.
Simple objective.
They don't go overboard with emulating the latest technology like the PS + XBox does.
Nintendo likes being original.

I wouldn't say that Nintendo likes being original at all.

How many DS's have been released and they're how different from the previous model? Right...

After the Gamecube failure Nintendo realised they couldn't compete at a technology level and decided they had to find a new market.

If the Wii had failed as well then that would possibly have been the end of Nintendo in the Console business.

There is a difference between having to find a new market because of a failure and not just uppgrading to the best specs possible.

@21:18
actually, when nintendo announced the wii, they were in danger of going bust because of the gamecube's failure (still think it's a brilliant console imo, it just lacked 3rd party support)

it was a massive risk

That is true. Basically their market was 'toys for families.' It's been written in several articles before that basically many more people have the Wii, but on average they have far fewer games, and most people I've talked to outside of old folks homes tend to leave it collecting dust for long periods of time like any other toy (old folks use it for exercise in their generally samey lives these days, which I actually love). Granted my 360 is doing the same, but mainly because I just have less time to play anything, and I'm working through my backlog of PS2 games ^^

Anyway, Nintendo would have had an even bigger overlapping market probably should they have even done standard tech for that time, but they decided not to. Either way though, experienced gamers seem to be aware that there are severe limitations on what can be done with the Wiimote effectively. Everything can feel very uncomfortable when not handled right, hence why only first party games really get acclaim. Really I can't see the controller being ousted anytime soon as the most direct and intensive control over a videogame.

In no way shape or form does N64 in-game graphics beat PSX. To claim so means you know nothing. If anything looks better it's because you're comparing a crappy PSX game with the best N64 game. After that the rest is fanboyism or just... lack of perception.

08:36 Christ you're a fucking idiot. Or you have amnesia and can't remember anything from a decade ago. YOU know nothing. This is not a matter of opinion. You're just wrong.

The difference between the PSX and the N64 was equivalent to the difference between software and hardware rendering on the PC.

Things that the N64 had that the PSX lacked: bilinear filtering, proper z-buffering, perspective correct texturing, anti-aliasing, and its polygon construction was wobbly as hell. All this made PSX graphics a complete fucking mess to the point where you sometimes couldn't even tell what things were supposed to look like.

You know why there are no games on the PSX that feature a large full-size world like Zelda OoT or MM? Precisely because of that. Even the very best looking games on the PSX can NOT show graphics that can convey the illusion of a "solid" world because the console's rendering is too pixelated and can barely hold its polygons together. 3D objects that break up, shiver all over the place, show polygon gaps, or just disappear, floors that seem like wobbly jelly beneath your feet, all that made the PSX a console that was unable to construct any world as immersive as Zelda.

Oohhhh but it had CD media, so developers could show a pretty intro FMV to hide how fugly all the games looked. Ever wonder why ads for FFVII only ever showed FMV cutscenes? Even publishers knew the console's graphics looked like shit. Where as the N64 Zelda games were advertised in their full epic in-game glory.

tl;dr: the PSX looked like shit, even its best games.

Shhhh, don't pop their precious little bubble.

You don't seem to understand.

Nintendo could have 10 years to "improve" the "motion control technology" but it would amount to nothing because Nintendo has no desire to improve.

Clearly this was possible as far as when Wii was released, assuming Nintendo put in any effort developing some decent motion control technology but they'd rather release things with old technology and mark up the price by slapping their name on it.

Yup, and I know why. It's quite simple, really. The Wii is intended for casual gaming. Casual gamers prefer easy controls, and the WiiMote delivers.
Move sure is better, but also makes gaming harder, something Nintendo obviously doesn't want for the WiiMote.

The Wii, it's controllers and it's games are perfectly geared towards the intended target audience, and that's why it sold like hot cakes. A real stroke of marketing genius.

It's a thing of balance, really. Consoles must balance fun with not-extremely-expensive. Sure, the Wii could have been a Move HHD 5 years ago, but probably at >$599, in which case, it wouldn't have sold nearly as many consoles as it has.

On the other hand, I'm under the impression that the Move's and the WiiMotionPlus' hardware has the same capabilities, and that the difference lays in the software

Haven't they already released the Wii Motion Plus which greatly increases motion accuracy in their newer games? Like their upcoming Zelda?

You can still just flick your wrist left to right and win 70% or more of Wii games.

a wise man

gamecube and xbox was more powerful than PS2

gamecube and xbox was almost par, but xbox have some extra capabilities.

The fun part is... Move is made in china.