Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
6 hours 2 mins ago
144
The 8 Worst Game Character Makeovers Ever
108
Are You Ready to Have the Best Gaming T-Shirt Ever?
23 hours 17 mins ago
107
New Hentai Game ... Aimed at 12 Year Olds?
10 hours 41 mins ago
88
Rumor: MAJOR PS3 exclusive to be announced on August 3rd!
10 hours 41 mins ago
86
Feminists are upset over "Fat Princess"
13 hours 47 mins ago
70
Forget Megaman Shirts... These MGS4 Shirts are the Best Gaming Shirts ever!
11 hours 24 mins ago
69
Never Before Seen Final Fantasy Versus XIII Video
4 hours 52 mins ago
66
XBOX Live Paid Service Days Numbered?
4 hours 44 mins ago
Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
a good game should play well while looking good at the same time
Yes, the graphics can be pushed aside and the gameplay is what matters most, but this article is suggesting that the Wii games have better gameplay than the 360 and PS3 games, which is quite frankly a horrible generalization.
I'm sure 360/PS3 owners are envious of games with such superior gameplay as My Horse and Me.
Hell even Wii gameplay and 360 gameplay are two different things. The former being gimmicky as hell and the latter being first person shooter dominated.
Yeah, quite a few Wii games don't have good gameplay, but there are some that also have very good gameplay. So it all really depends on how you look at situation.
For those who prefer to be by themselves when playing games (though I can't imagine why), the graphics do become a major aspect in their lives. I offered my cousin to play the old TMNT in Time game with me once, and he refused, complaining of it's graphics. :S
Who doesn't prefer to play a single player game alone?
Single player games are done alone, clearly, just different styles and attitudes towards games. Someone, in general, would play a multi-player game by themselves, such as Brawl or something...and would actually prefer it like that. -_-
How can you people not realize that it's all because of that stupid little comment that this whole thing started? Stupid... stupid people. You know, I try to be nice. My first comment was completely nonabrasive. But then when I have to deal with people that try to tell me that I'm the one in the wrong when I know I'm not, instead of just admitting that you (apparently) screwed up at explaining yourself very well in what you were trying to say, I tend to get a little nuts considering these are not difficult things to understand but yet still you show no signs of comprehension.
You're simply reading it wrong, jmac. That is actually how this whole thing started. I love how you jump to conclusions, though, nice work: We're stupid people. We are fools. You're the one being attacked as if you are so wrong. We lack comprehension skills.
Sure, that all adds up, doesn't it? That's "trying to be nice" isn't it? You don't need to try too hard to be nice around here.
Regarding what you believe the keywords are...that was in parenthesis for one, because I can't see someone rather playing a game like Super Smash Bros. Brawl alone than with others, as it's more of a 'party' game and such.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you mis-comprehend yourself? You did, after all, not take into consideration the word 'prefer.'
The ignorance continues with you still. You tell me to re-read the same sentence and it yields the same results. I didn't screw up the comprehension of your sentence, you screwed up being able to properly explain what you were thinking in text. You seem to realize this but yet still tell me to re-read the same original sentence. It's apparent you fail to realize that if you wanted to change the meaning of your sentence you would actually have to edit it. In it's current form it simply cannot convey the message you want it to.
Simply.
Prefer makes all the difference in that sentence to me. Prefer, as in those who CHOOSE to be by themselves. I can't imagine why someone would prefer that, one who would prefer to game by themselves for as long as possible...get it? Why be such an ass for a technicality? Seriously, where are you going with this, jmac? I repeated what I meant over and over and over again since it wasn't that clear to everyone (which you pointed out), so why persist?
But whatever, go ahead and speak like you're speaking for everyone, the same people you call ignorant. Some people get what I said, some don't. It's not one-sided, some actually understand it, you don't represent everyone here. Not all messages are clear.
You're getting nothing out of this argument...actually it really feels that you've got nothing better to do than argue...pointlessly. And just why the hell would I want to edit it because it doesn't meet ONE person's satisfaction? I'm not that much a "needs everyone's approval" kind of member, sorry. If I were to edit it, it would be as though what you said afterwards would be irrelevant or un-true, so I'd rather explain myself in another comment...which I did after you brought it up. I don't know if you're reading half-way or what, but I didn't just tell you to re-read it, I also mentioned that I explained in detail for you...care to tell what more do you want?
It's easy to speak for everyone when there's only one way to properly comprehend things. Sure, many times people will incorrectly comprehend things but that's not correct. The fact remains, I comprehended what you were saying the correct way. You just didn't mean exactly what you said and needed to edit it. That's all.
I meant what I said, it was just worded 'unclear' to some people. It wasn't a matter of a 'correct' or 'incorrect' way, just how people receive it. They receive it based on how they read it, which different levels of education, different socities, and other aspects could affect how they read it.
In my case, those related to me understood what I meant at first-glance, people from my 'circle' you could say. Yes, I was wrong to word it this way but again, from my eyes, it looked reasonable. Persisting this issue is really pointless, though. It was supposed to be resolved after my second comment, explaining how I sought it to be interpreted.
With that said, no real gamer ever hangs onto Wii games for more than a few months, whereas you still have millions of people playing Gears of War a year and a half later.
I think that says something about gameplay versus graphics (especially when Gears has both and the Wii only has gameplay).
The idea of implying such a thing when most of the Wii's success can be attributed to people that JUST bought the console because they loved Wii Sports is idiotic. If there's a large group of people buying a system for the wrong reason, it's not PS3 owners or 360 owners. It's Wii owners. I don't hate the Wii - I just hate its hardcore fans, such as Dave Parrack, that stand behind a banner of "GAMEPLAY>GRAPHICS", as if they're the ONLY ones to believe such a thing. Just because it's on the Wii, doesn't mean it automatically will have better gameplay and better replayability. Call Of Duty 4, Warhawk, and Halo 3 aren't exactly going to die in a month. They're going to last a long freaking time.
If there was a huge epidemic of people that love ONLY graphics, Crysis would be much more popular than it is.
There are people that are into really good graphics that delivers a very good gameplay, and then there is those that like a gameplay but where the graphics aren't always the thing.
Like the 360/PS3 is kind of more towards the extreme hardcore games (IMO) and catches those players attention, while the Wii is more towards like a family console that makes it fun to play with friends and family and occasionally on your own.
Just going off personal experience with my friends and stuff, we find games that are fun through multiplayer the funnest. I know 360/PS3 have multiplayer but it's something that with the Wii games that makes it funner. My guess is just that it's not like just like all out, but there is times and stuff when you can just stop and laugh.
Really it is all ones personal opinion. It just depends on what your into.