Millions of people have lower standards than you apparently.

Geometry Wars is already out for the Wii.

Do you know how stupid that argument is? You don't need a story to make a good game. That's a fact. You need a story for a good RPG, but not for every genre.

To turn around your own argument on you--you're not fifteen anymore. Stop caring so much about how dignified you come off.

I can personally guarantee you that if your ability to enjoy life is predicated on the assumption that you're not going to look, sound, or otherwise just come off like a total asshat while going about it, that you're not going to be enjoying life very much.

To turn around your own argument on you--you're not fifteen anymore. Stop caring so much about how dignified you come off.

Anyway, I'd have a lot more respect for the stance that story is such a big deal in games if any of these elitists who spout it out could ever come up with a game that actually had a story that was better than, say, the sort of crap you'd find in a pulp fantasy novel. Find me a video game with a story better than, say, the works of Kevin J. Anderson. If we're talking about an honest-to-goodness storytelling medium, and not just another platform for snobs to be bitches towards other people about, that shouldn't be that hard. He's not an amazing author, just good enough to keep a publishing contract. Which isn't really saying much, because so does Christopher Paolini.

Heck, find me a video game with a story better than the works of Joe Quesada and I'll be impressed! I might even consider easing up on you story snobs a bit. Then I can at least say "With work, videogame stories can be as good as superhero comics! I mean, not the good ones. We're not talking comics by Warren Ellis or anything. But still! They can be as good as crappy superhero comics!"

Unless you count Katamari Damacy as an example of a game with great story, in which case I'll concede. But I really doubt you do.

Hey someone close this thread. It's just abuncha kids arguing now, and I got what I needed from the original post. Thanks a lot to those who contributed.

I can personally guarantee you that if your ability to enjoy life is predicated on the assumption that you're not going to look, sound, or otherwise just come off like a total asshat while going about it, that you're not going to be enjoying life very much.

To turn around your own argument on you--you're not fifteen anymore. Stop caring so much about how dignified you come off.

I would like to point to everyone that in March the Wii is getting Brothers in Amrs: Road to Hill 30, a game that came out on the PS2 in 2005.  It's also getting Okami which came out in 2006.

What does this tell you about the future of the Wii?

SHUT THE FUCK UP

YOU FUCKIN RETARDS, LET THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FUCKIN BUY THE FUCKIN NINTENDO WII, BUY THE FUCKIN SYSTEM!

SINCE WHEN DID VIDEO GAMES BECOME SUCH FUCKIN SERIOUS BUSINESS?

You're a pretty big fan of the PSP, I seem to recall. Are you really going to sit here and tell me that ports of old games are a sign that a system's not viable for new ones or innovation?

...you look for a good story in Mario games? What exactly do you look for when you play shooters, platformers, sports games, etc on a console other than the Wii? What do you get from beating them other than a short cutscene and the credits? What do you achieve in the end?

Oh, and can you tell me how playing any game is dignified?

It doesn't make much of a difference, though. You don't have to swing the thing around like a buffoon unless you enjoy it. I mean I realize it helps your points to exagerrate the effect of the "waggle," but if any of you have played any Wii games besides the "active" ones for any amount of time at all, you know that you barely even have to shake the thing to use the motion controls. The only reason to swing it around like a real sword is if you want to.

And that's for all games. Even Wii Sports and the like. The controller almost never checks how far you're swinging, only speeds and angles. A flick of the wrist is more than enough to activate it. With Wii Sports, it's more fun to actually act like you're throwing the bowling ball, but you could do just as well simply twisting your wrist a bit.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

YOU FUCKIN RETARDS, LET THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FUCKIN BUY THE FUCKIN NINTENDO WII, BUY THE FUCKIN SYSTEM!

SINCE WHEN DID VIDEO GAMES BECOME SUCH FUCKIN SERIOUS BUSINESS?

It's easy to say it because it's genuinely true; barring personal tastes and whatnot which I've been trying to keep as a running theme within my posts thus far.  The thing is, the console doesn't systematically destroy anything unless a game that absolutely requires a 14 buttons and cannot sacrifice a one for some kind of intuitive implementation is created.  Although a game isn't entirely required to use the Wii remote/ nunchaku, obviously it's encouraged because that is the core controller setup for the console, the thing is however, is that thus far save for "fighters" almost every genre of game that has landed on Wii has been reasonably doable through that controller layout.  The lack of more compelling software from other publishers is largely driven by their own hand seeing as Nintendo has at least provided more complex software beyond the likes of "Wii" branded games (Sports, Play, Fit, etc.).

I certainly agree every console is capable of this, I don't want to make it seem as if it's an exclusive thing regarding having a compelling story and basic fun as an either/or type of thing, but that it's obvious both can coexist and will continue to coexist because different people are willing to tolerate it.  Now, obviously, there are those who have made a horrible run of things by in fact doing what you said, just making people waggle the controller and that is all there is to it, but as far as the Wii's library is concerned, that isn't all there is to it to every game.  Even those like Zelda and Mario Galaxy which have some rather novel uses of motion sensitivity do so mainly as a complement to a more conventional style of play.  Others like MP3: C, Godfather, RE4 and such leverage it quite a bit more but didn't really take away from the experience of the former now that you had other actions to contend with or the latter despite having been through them before in some form.  Heck, I imagine that if Fire Emblem were created with some form of motion control in mind, it would largely be for what many expected at first anyway, selecting units and directing them, which I don't think is too drastic a change towards the "flailing" side of things when considering how much more FE represents.

Granted, we aren't exactly talking anything Metal Gear or Final Fantasy calibur here, but unless there was something entirely unwieldly with how they designed the game in conjunction with the Wii remote, I can't imagine those games being lessened because you get to control them a different way; unless they tossed in some brain training challenges wild knifing modes during combat or something.  If anything, I don't think at all that it's the tech. itself that is keeping games like that off of the system but how publishers are choosing to utilize it despite other taking the risk to do something a bit more "serious" with their development resources.