PlayStation 4 or Xbox One or Wii U?

[Janx]

As a serious gamer, the only one I would ever buy is the Wii U. Despite the fact is less powerful than the others and will almost certainly receive the least support from all third party publishers, it will still receive the Nintendo games, which are are worth of the price of buying a console for. As for the XBone, it will eventually have very few exclusives worth of playing and, while the ps4 will have some, I would argue you will do much better with a PC instead of buying a console from either Sony or Microsoft.

Sony is making a point the ps4 is just a hyper charged PC. Well, it is actually a very capable PC for the money they are asking. However, if you're willing to expend the double in hardware, you can assemble a PC more powerful than the ps4 that will be fully compatible with previous generations of games (and thus have a rich library unlike the ps4), and much much cheaper in the long run as Steam's discounts are much better than anything Sony can ever try.

I wouldn't get too hung up on Exclusives. In the grand scheme of things, they're more of a "grass is greener" kind of thing where you find the other console has something you can't have. I certainly wouldn't put much stock in XbOne not having as many exclusives. Given that in the current gen MS stole how many exclusives from PS3 (like FF), Exclusives are an artificially inflated "feature." Plus, there will likely be an even distribution of exclusives, as there always is.

Now your argument for PC games is interesting. Aside from my complaint that PC games are seldom tech-support-less (meaning % chance of me not getting called to straighten out a problem is higher than zero). Cost is a big factor to most gamers.

$400-500 gets you a console that will be stable and supported for SIX years, based on the Sony declarations and market observation. Any game that comes out during that timeframe will work on your launch day machine (assuming your launch day machine lasts, as the prior generations did). And you will NEVER have to spend time configuring drivers and such to get your game to work.

When people suggest to BUILD a PC for $1000, how good is that PC for gaming? How long will that PC last before it starts to be sluggish on the newer games. You'll probably get 2-3 years, before you need to start upgrading parts. Newer video card, more RAM, faster hard-drive. New motherboard to support faster CPUs.

We're not even talking hardware reliability, assuming all physical parts suffer no problem for the time you own the gaming machine, you will likely need to upgrade the hardware to keep up with the newer games that were written to expect better hardware at their release time.

Every console gamer should admit, that the PC version of the game is always better. Better frames per second, rendering distances, ability to be modded, etc.

Every PC gamer should admit that the better game play comes at the price of more expensive equipment and more labor to maintain it.

Most console gamers accept that their PC is just for surfing the web and doing term papers, and that the console provides a trouble-fee escape from doing term papers and technical complexity.

As such, buying a cheap $500 PC to surf and work and a $500 console to play games on the big screen TV is a better investment than a $1000+ PC to play games on a monitor (most people don't hook their only PC to the big screen TV as you can't do WORK that way).

There's plenty of people hooking a PC to their big screen TV and playing games. But they're still the minority in cases I've observed. Whereas, dedicated appliances getting hooked to PCs like xboxes, iTV, Roku, etc aren't even blinked at as unusual.

 

[Vicente]

I would get a PC and a WiiU.

Arguments for the PC: most Xbox/PS games will come for it. Better and cheaper most of the time (Steam sales FTW). Also, there are games you are never going to be able to play on a console (RTS, MOBAs, most MMOS...). Or at least decent ones (I know there are RTSs for consoles, but a pad is not a good controller for that). Mod support can be important for some people (Skyrim is a great example).

Arguments against the PC: will need to be updated along the way nearly for sure (but with one update you are good to go).

Arguments for the WiiU: Nintendo first party games are usually amazing, and you can't get them anywhere else. You may change WiiU for 3DS XL maybe if you want.

Arguments against the WiiU: those first party games haven't arrived yet. Let's see how 2014 fares...

My 2 cents!

 

[Janx]

I would get a PC and a WiiU.

Arguments for the PC: most Xbox/PS games will come for it. Better and cheaper most of the time (Steam sales FTW). Also, there are games you are never going to be able to play on a console (RTS, MOBAs, most MMOS...). Or at least decent ones (I know there are RTSs for consoles, but a pad is not a good controller for that). Mod support can be important for some people (Skyrim is a great example).

Arguments against the PC: will need to be updated along the way nearly for sure (but with one update you are good to go).

Arguments for the WiiU: Nintendo first party games are usually amazing, and you can't get them anywhere else. You may change WiiU for 3DS XL maybe if you want.

Arguments against the WiiU: those first party games haven't arrived yet. Let's see how 2014 fares...

My 2 cents!

I think you shot the WiiU down with "party games." At least for a serious gamer, party games are not the draw (I guess serious gamers don't go to parties and/or have friends ).


Serious gamers want high frame rate and top notch games. They'll either buy a PC or Sony or MS to get their fix.

At least, that's my assumption of what a thread about what console to buy is really about.

 

[Jason Stewart]

PS4

 

[Dragonwriter]

Arguments for the WiiU: Nintendo first party games are usually amazing, and you can't get them anywhere else. You may change WiiU for 3DS XL maybe if you want.

I think you shot the WiiU down with "party games." At least for a serious gamer, party games are not the draw (I guess serious gamers don't go to parties and/or have friends ).

I believe that was actually intended as first-party games, as in developed and published by Nintendo, not the "party game" genre.

Now, on to the issue at hand. For the record, I own both 360 and PS3 and use them regularly for a variety of features. Haven't picked up a Wii, though I'm considering it now that it's really approaching the bargain rack.

My own preference is leaning strongly to the PS4. It has strong features, good controller design, a nice variety of announced games plus several good exclusives in the pipes, and a variety of excellent exclusive series that largely hold my interest better than the ones belonging to Microsoft. Plus, it doesn't pay-gate a variety of online connectivity features.

Microsoft's various policies were damning at the opening, along with its higher price. And while MS has reversed many of those policy decisions, it seriously damaged my willingness to support them as a company for the time being. And certainly not for a Kinect-including batch of $500 with less games of current interest to me than the PS4. They have some good stuff in the pipeline, but it just isn't enough to get me back on board yet.

I do not see Nintendo and the WiiU being a serious contender. While Nintendo's first-party games have a track record of being high-quality work, I find them generally derivative. They've found a comfortable rut and do very little to expand out of it, beyond introducing new controller schemes. Said new controller schemes are something only they really seem to be interested in creating now. Third-party studios aren't doing much for the Wii or WiiU for a reason, in addition to the influence of Nintendo's poor support for them. And given the recent, current, and continuing figures coming from Nintendo, I am concerned for their future as a company.
(Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo. I just haven't been very interested by them in a while.)

Finally, I will chime in on the PC issue... If you can afford it, a gaming PC is a great thing. But it is generally more costly than a console, deteriorates in gaming quality over time (as opposed to console, where games get better over time) unless you spend to upgrade it, and the controls can be somewhat awkward when hopping over from regular console play. That said, PC's advantages are considerable. As others have pointed out, mods are available, Steam sales contain some wonderful discounts, a number of genres play better on PC, and at the outset graphical fidelity is superior. And given your concerns over only being able to pull one of the new consoles, PC is probably going to cost more to get a good one running and likely out of the race for you.

Those are my takes on the various options. My biggest piece of advice is actually this: wait. Seriously. Wait a while, watch each of them, see which console brings out more games you are interested in playing, and let their prices drop. If you absolutely have to have one come this holiday season, I hope my opinions above have been helpful.

 

[Janx]

Those are my takes on the various options. My biggest piece of advice is actually this: wait. Seriously. Wait a while, watch each of them, see which console brings out more games you are interested in playing, and let their prices drop. If you absolutely have to have one come this holiday season, I hope my opinions above have been helpful.

That's probably the best advice right there.

 

[Vicente]

I believe that was actually intended as first-party games, as in developed and published by Nintendo, not the "party game" genre.

Correct! Sorry I was not clear enough.

I do not see Nintendo and the WiiU being a serious contender. While Nintendo's first-party games have a track record of being high-quality work, I find them generally derivative. They've found a comfortable rut and do very little to expand out of it, beyond introducing new controller schemes. Said new controller schemes are something only they really seem to be interested in creating now. Third-party studios aren't doing much for the Wii or WiiU for a reason, in addition to the influence of Nintendo's poor support for them. And given the recent, current, and continuing figures coming from Nintendo, I am concerned for their future as a company.
(Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo. I just haven't been very interested by them in a while.)

I kind of disagree here. I find that Nintendo innovates more on their core franchises than most companies out there. Or at least I find more innovation on their games than I find in the new CoD, Halo or FIFA (talking about other IPs that get iterated over and over again). Third party support is something they have to work more, but they have some interesting things coming down (Rayman, Bayonetta 2... Not enough though).

Regards!

 

[Janx]

Correct! Sorry I was not clear enough.



I kind of disagree here. I find that Nintendo innovates more on their core franchises than most companies out there. Or at least I find more innovation on their games than I find in the new CoD, Halo or FIFA (talking about other IPs that get iterated over and over again). Third party support is something they have to work more, but they have some interesting things coming down (Rayman, Bayonetta 2... Not enough though).

Regards!

Do you still have to exchange Friend codes?

Can you do Skype or MSN Messenger video chat to a PC? (the 360 could do MSN Messenger IM and video chat to PCs and other Xboxes)?

Can you form an ad-hoc 8-way voice chat with your friends?

While watching Netflix?

Then launch a game to play together and keep the group together?

Other than the WiiMote, I'm not sure of what innovation Nintendo has brought to the table lately. And the WiiMote kind of sucked in the exercise/dance genre's compared to Kinect due to what it couldn't detect.

I obviously am not as familiar with the Wii series, but I am very up on technology. Nintendo hasn't come onto the radar with very much innovation in a while. Their stuff has some appeal to some people, and the price is certainly right. But the gaming snobs don't see it as a serious contender for these reasons.

What exactly do you consider innovation in a game that Nintendo is leading on?

For myself, the definition would involve a new game play mechanic or something that's big and not like anything else. It might be additive, like Minecraft's building and creating within an FPS environment. That did not exist before MC (and games like it) came out.

Obviously, straight FPS kill games are not innovative anymore, they've been done since 1993. MC buildability, or Elder Scrolls' RPGing within an FPS framework (since the 1990's), or the stealth/not killing FP genre were "innovative" but now they are not new, and they most certainly weren't Nintendo driven.

Like FPS's, platformers have been around forever, and Nintendo has been the king of them. Has there been anything innovative on top of that?

Dance games were once innovative (DDR), but better motion capture is merely additive to the genre. WiiMote's certainly improved DDR, but that wad has now been blown.

Music games were innovative (guitar hero/rock band), but interest has faded, even though the technology has improved to where you can use a real guitar and drums (v-kit).

 

[Vicente]

Do you still have to exchange Friend codes?

Can you do Skype or MSN Messenger video chat to a PC? (the 360 could do MSN Messenger IM and video chat to PCs and other Xboxes)?

Can you form an ad-hoc 8-way voice chat with your friends?

While watching Netflix?

Then launch a game to play together and keep the group together?

I am talking about innovation in games, not other console features. Agreed those may be important for some people, not for me really as I find a PC is way superior on all of those, so they do not influence my decision about buying one console or another, I get those things for their games and gaming capabilities.

Other than the WiiMote, I'm not sure of what innovation Nintendo has brought to the table lately. And the WiiMote kind of sucked in the exercise/dance genre's compared to Kinect due to what it couldn't detect.

I obviously am not as familiar with the Wii series, but I am very up on technology. Nintendo hasn't come onto the radar with very much innovation in a while. Their stuff has some appeal to some people, and the price is certainly right. But the gaming snobs don't see it as a serious contender for these reasons.

I find hard to say Nintendo hasn't innovated when from my point of view the Wii and the Wiimote were the ones that forced Microsoft and Sony to bring Kinect and Move to live. The DS was another great example of hardware innovation. Probably they haven't found something so successful with the WiiU and 3DS hardware features (a little too early to tell, but looks like it), but honestly, repeating the Wii/DS success was kind of doomed effort.

What exactly do you consider innovation in a game that Nintendo is leading on?

For myself, the definition would involve a new game play mechanic or something that's big and not like anything else. It might be additive, like Minecraft's building and creating within an FPS environment. That did not exist before MC (and games like it) came out.

Obviously, straight FPS kill games are not innovative anymore, they've been done since 1993. MC buildability, or Elder Scrolls' RPGing within an FPS framework (since the 1990's), or the stealth/not killing FP genre were "innovative" but now they are not new, and they most certainly weren't Nintendo driven.

Like FPS's, platformers have been around forever, and Nintendo has been the king of them. Has there been anything innovative on top of that?

Dance games were once innovative (DDR), but better motion capture is merely additive to the genre. WiiMote's certainly improved DDR, but that wad has now been blown.

Music games were innovative (guitar hero/rock band), but interest has faded, even though the technology has improved to where you can use a real guitar and drums (v-kit).

I find that there are far more gameplay/design differences between Mario 64/Sunshine/Galaxy than FIFA 12/13/14 or Gears of War 1/2/3. Maybe it's just me, but that's how I feel when I play the next Mario/Zelda/Metroid game vs the feeling in other big IPs out there.

Regards!

 

[Janx]

Well, the WiiMote is probably the real innovation for Nintendo on the Wii (the Wii itself was not innovative other than the hardware to make the WiiMote work, so for conversation's sake, it's about the WiiMote).

Unfortunately, it only effectively tracked the hands, whereas Kinect could track the whole body.

The cost to that being, both PS Move and WiiMote keep a controller in your hands for game commands that body motion doesn't work for (like moving around the map in an FPS). Kinect is useless in an FPS, because I can't really send a movement motion that signals "run 50 feet that direction, while looking left and shooting"

For the most part, nobody uses their PS Move or Kinect for anything by exercise/dance games. At least in the FPS market, as PC games love their mouse/keyboard, console gamers prefer their controller without flailing their limbs. I suspect the WiiMote is similarly relegated to "do I really have to move around to play this game" bucket.

Very cool idea, but not as awesome once implemented and forced to rely on it as a user interface. just like motion technology as UI for computers will suck until we get holographic projection screens like Minority Report. Trying to manipulate UI on the screen without touching the screen (kinect and this other company who's name I forget) will suck until my hand makes contact with a screen. This is why touch screen interfaces are doing so well nowadays and my Kinect is unplugged from my 360.

Now as to in-game innovation, I'm afraid Vicente's example's don't really compare apples to apples. You can't say "360 games are all the same" when your list is 3 titles from the same series. Of course, GoW 1 is like GoW2. But Gears of War is NOT like FIFA or Crash Bandicoot or Minecraft or Rockband, or Lego Star Wars or Dance Dance Revolution or Kinect Sports.

There are plenty of different game genre's on the 360. For every "different" Nintendo game, somebody can probably find a non-Nintendo game that is just like it. I'm sure there's a platformer like Mario 64. And a cart racing game like Mario Cart.

Referencing Mario 64, Sunshine and Galaxy is not like referencing sequels in a game franchise. They work differently because the sequels are not designed to be different. Your 3 mario games are designed seperately but using the same characters. Those are different marketing decisions how whether to repeat a game's pattern or re-use characters in a new game. Ironically enough, MarioKart is guilty of the same "rehash" of these sequels. But it's largely popular.

What I'm talking about is whether there's completely new game play ideas that nobody has done. It gets a little fuzzy when the others copy it, but usually there's a standout (like Minecraft) that everybody else recognizes as "the first"


From this viewpoint, unless the Wii has game innovations that NOBODY else has, what does the Wii offer that I can't get on a 360 or PS3? kind of like the exclusives but in my opinion, more important. You can't get Gears of War on a PS3, but it's an FPS and if you played one, you've sort of played them all. So play Resistance on the PS3 instead.

Up until a few days ago, you could only get a game like Minecraft on the PC and 360. That's an innovative game play that Wii doesn't have (probably still doesn't but I could be wrong).

Is there any truly unique game play on the Wii systems? Which granted, the WiiMote enabled, but now the other consoles have caught back up only to find it was cool idea but not great to actually use.