What do you mean by better games? The PS3's top 5 (or so) may not compare to the Wii's top 5 (highly debatable, but whatever), but as for their libraries as a whole, there isn't really much comparison IMO (setting aside certain personal preferences I suppose). The Wii suffers from poor 3rd party support, so its library is missing out on a lot of games; on the other hand, while they haven't helped to differentiate the PS3 from the 360 (at least in a positive way), games like NBA 2K, Assassin's Creed, COD4, The Orange Box, VF5, SKATE, DiRT, Burnout, DMC4, Oblivion, Rock Band (this will come to Wii eventually though), etc., have helped to fill out the library of games (all of these are multiplatform 3rd party games BTW, not touching exclusives). From the standpoint of their libraries, I would think most people would be getting better games by switching to a PS3 (or a 360 for similar reasons of course) from a Wii. This will probably change as Nintendo releases more games and as more 3rd parties jump on board (Rock Band, Spore, and a few other games are coming to Wii IIRC?), but it still needs some growing, which is understandable since it has only been out for about a year (especially since Nintendo didn't have much help). Of course, I'm taking this from the perspective of a "traditional" gamer. "Casual" gamers would probably see this differently (PS3/360 have few games that interest them, while Wii has Wii Sports, GH3, WiiFit, Wii Play, Mario, etc.).
Guess i should have been more clear...i was referring to games that you can only play on PS3. Which is what i was talking about one might buy a nintendo, because of games you can ONLY play on that system. casual/traditional/hardcore etc gamer "titles", i dont really like to get into. Personally, it just seems like something made up by elitist nerds and i dont think top 5 games for each system are debateable...putting aside personal preference and looking at it as a whole.
It's true on some games the Wii controllers are just wayyy too hard to use. FIFA, NBA Live.. haven't really tried others. However doesn't Wii sell normal controllers for games like that? The best thing about it is, I'm in Asia right now and I get the games (pirated of course) for under a dollar and they're just as good. I'm planning on getting some more games this weekend.
Hmm, so it seems like the 60G and 80G PS3 can play PS2 games but the 40G one cant (I’m assuming that’s what the BC means)? What is the SUK? I haven’t seen the 60G in stores and I don’t think I have played my PS2 in half a year, at least. I really only played sports games on it anyway, but folks keep telling me I need to expand to take full advantage of the PS3’s capability. When will the new SUK ones (whatever that means) go on sale?
Why does that matter? That only really matters IMO when multiple systems have roughly the same games (like the 360 and PS3), so the exclusives stand out more. When you have consoles that aren't that alike (like the Wii and PS3/360, or perhaps even better, the GC and PS2/XBX), that's not really a good way to look at things IMO. Going strictly by your definition, the Wii probably has more/better exclusives that both the PS3 and 360 have combined, let alone either one (I'm not counting PC/360 or PC/PS3 games as exclusive BTW). Simply put, if you had a PS3 (or a 360), you'll end up with a better library of games than the Wii. No use in restricting it to just exclusive games since its not like anyone would only buy exclusives. Now if we were comparing the libraries of the 360 and PS3... The Wii's game have the edge for sure, although things like the critical reception to both systems' games are close enough to make it debatable IMO. I don't particularly care to get into providing that argument though, so I'll just agree with you for now. I think you meant SKU, and that means stock-keeping unit. Basically just a model or version of something. In this case, it means each PS3 is a separate SKU. So you have the 60GB SKU, the 80GB SKU, the 40GB SKU, etc. If there was a new SKU, it might be a 120GB PS3 with 2 HDMI ports (or something like that). BC does mean backwards compatibility, or at least that's what I mean when I use it. Sorry about that. I usually use a lot of abbreviations like these, even though they're not exactly clear to understand. We don't know when the new SKU will go on sale. We technically don't know for a fact that there will be one, or that they're even getting rid of the 80GB SKU. Making this info public too soon would hurt sales. If I had to guess, it would probably be somewhat soon, maybe in the next month or two. I wouldn't let it drastically impact any decisions you want to make (this stuff happens pretty often), but if you're in no hurry, I might recommend waiting a bit. That is, unless you really want a PS3 that plays PS2 games, in which case you should probably buy a 80GB PS3 (or any 20GB/60GB PS3s you might be able to find by chance) whenever you can. It is nice to have the ability to play PS2 games, but if you only played sports games on your PS2, I'm not really sure it is a feature worth having on the PS3.
I think it matters a lot. If i have ps3 and no 360, i could probably get by with a shooter like resitance. However if i have either/or 360/ps3...nothing is comparable to mario titles. And i think nintendo has the best exclusives, by anyones definition. By brand, history, uniqueness, etc.
We can see how much of a factor that was for the N64 and GC, which both had similar scenarios if I'm understanding you right. I'm sure the Wii has plenty of games that aren't really comparable to games available on the "HD consoles." But the "HD consoles" also have plenty of games that aren't comparable to anything on the Wii (and there are WAY more in this category AFAIK). I misunderstood your point if it involved more than this.
n64 and GC were both great consoles with some of the best games i've ever played, imo. they just didnt sell well. then again i think rambo was #1 at the box office last week
I'm not sure you understand what he is saying. Every system will have exclusives and it's hard to say which are "better". That makes up only a small portion of the games available for the systems. The wii is going to lose out on a lot of great titles (possibly even game of the year type releases) because of the difference in hardware. As far as the exclusives go, I would see the Nintendo top 5 as being (in no order) Mario Galazy Zelda Metroid Prime Zach and Wiki Super Paper Mario or Wii Sports maybe I have a really hard time believing you could think that is "better" than Gears of War Bioshock Mass Effect Halo 3 Oblivion (exclusive to 360,PS3 anyway) That's great you like nintendo games but don't think that is reason enough to say the still small library is better than the massive 360 and growing PS3 libraries.
I probably dont follow completely...im brain fried and doing multiple things at once while on a caffeine buzz and nicotine withdrawl phase but can one not also play a some of the games you listed above on PC? but the smaller library is a problem for me (which is all that matters to me ). Even when I spent endless hours playing video games in HS and college days, for my console I had 10-20 really good games that i would play throughout a consoles life. The rest of my time was spend on PC games. personally, i take quality over quantity any day of the week. no doubt the wii will lose out to some cool titles because of hardware limitations, i never meant to argue that
Seems like you're continually looking for self-confirmation here that your Wii is the 'best'. Hey, it's probably the best option for you, be happy about it and move on. I look at Brando's list and I much prefer the second list. Why? Just because. The same reason some people prefer blue to red. The fact that those games are available on PC doesn't diminish the fact that they are still good games on the PS3/360. It doesn't suddenly make those games on the Wii any more appealing either. And the fact that there is a larger library doesn't diminish the quality of the better games. Great games will still be great games. I don't want to buy a Wii (which I would rarely use) and then build a super PC (I currently own two laptops, neither suitable to play hardcore games) to play the other games.. I'd rather just buy a console and be done w/ it. And I can totally understand the appeal of the Wii and why people would be infinitely more happy w/ one over a PS3 or a 360. I get the Wii's uniqueness. But that uniqueness does not appeal to *me* outside of trying them out for an hour.
im not trying to confirm that wii is "the best" or not. I thought my point was simple, nintendo has the best list of games that you can ONLY play on their console. does the ability to play a game on another console dimish the games value? not at all. but i think it does dimish the value the system in a way. hey, i would love to have a 360. I like a lot of the games they have. dont get me wrong about all that but 1) i'm cheap and (2) i dont need more of a reason to sit on my ass at home. Plus, I figure i really get the urge to get some of those games, there is a chance i can get it on PC
That's besides the point, unless everyone who buys a Wii automatically gets a free PC (capable of running the games listed of course). I take both. You got to remember that quality is subjective, so not everyone sees things the same way. You might be OK with the 10-20 games Nintendo releases, which is fine and completely understandable (they do make excellent games). But that won't work for everyone. For every gamer that wants to play a new Mario game, there are probably 10-20 other gamers that couldn't care less (you can easily use this for any other Nintendo game, or really any game). A list of 10-20 games isn't going to cut it if the average gamer may only care about 5 of those (and/or if they want to play 20+ games in a console's lifespan). I understand the point you're trying to make. It is debatable, but it isn't really anything I care to discuss, so for the sake of simplicity, I'll agree with you there. The problem is that even if this were true, it doesn't really mean much at all due to the point I was trying to make. Imagine there are 3 consoles (A, B, and C), two of which (A & B) have the exact same library of games (maybe just different price points, media features, online plans, whatever). The other one (C) has Lair and only Lair, while the other two have GTA, Final Fantasy, MGS, Mario, Zelda, Halo, Madden, etc. Obviously, the console with Lair has the best list of games you can ONLY play on that console, but it isn't even close to having the best library of games. The average gamer would be much better off with console A or B rather than C. Extreme example of course, but hopefully it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.
its not besides the my point the rest we can agree on. we were making different points, both i think are valid it is simply from different perspectives
