fun factor: PS3 or Wii?

please i don't want any fans to mock or criticize both systems because they're a fan of that company. i want your honest opinion, which system has better fun factor. well i already own a ps3 but no wii, but i heard of that system, i like the full motion feature of the controller, but i don't like their games, too childlish. ps3 on the other hand have better picture and sound qualities. at the end of the day, games can decide for buyers wich system they want to purchase. i got nintendo ds, but i rarely buy new games for it. i buy tons of games for my psp and soon for the ps3.

I think you answered your own question. I too own a PS3 and PSP but I don't have any Nintendo products at all, for the reasons you already stated. Yea the Wii has a full motion controller but if you don't like the games or they don't appeal to you, then whats the motivation to buy one? At the end of the day, the game is going to be fun because you find the game to be fun, not because of the way it is played. Existenz said it best in another thread, something to the tune of 'Wii games look like PS2 Eyetoy games.' I never even looked at it that way but its true.

Wii simply offers a new interface with which the player uses to interact with the game. Now at face value this seems to revolutionise every game played on the system, but that's just one way of looking at it. Some could consider the Wiimote to detract from the overall experience of the Wii as it offers an unfamiliar interface that could confuse veterans and highten not lower the learning curve that Ninendo has been so insistant on lowering. The Wiimote can I believe increase fun factor to some extent and offers a great first time experience but the questions to ask are is it worth the trade offs.

A story can make or break a game in many cases, games such as Metal Gear Solid have been renowned for there amazing cinematic story which greatly acells the in my opinion weak gameplay. Games with story need the player to be engrossed and realised within the worlds that the visit, adding such a device as the Wii mote could detach the player from the game, they could ultimately feel 'silly' waving there hands around, though a good game should remove controlls and controlls should simply be a method of controlling the game Wii seems to be centralised around making the controller the game.

Party games and other fun short games are well suited to the Wii and destroy there 360 and PS3 counter parts with there fun mechanics and easy to adopt gameplay but they lack depth, many games on Wii such as Rayman, Warioware and lots of othe party games may be fun but after a short while the gameplay isn't stronger than any other game, just the interface, games on Wii I could ultimately see as being weak and hollow, it's important for games to increase in depth as the user progresses keeping the experience fresh for the player but in many Wii games the gameplay doesn't seem to be more than the face value. I can see the importance of making games easy for newcomers and keeping depth to a minimum to lower skill entry but in doing so games are sacrificing the depth that makes them long lasting, picking up a phone can be fun the first time, but when you must do the exact same action again and again with no change in pace the game can get old, you could say this is false as games such as Pong and Pac Man are shallow and there mechanics can be learnt in several seconds in fact, but have you ever actually spent more than one hour on Pac Man straight? I myself haven't spent more time on Pac Man than 10 minutes in all the time I have had the game or various versions of it. With these technical advances we are also supposed to make great advances in fun, but now Nintendo seem confident on not changing the technical side of things to keep gameplay innovation but at the moment it seems to me that they are not changing anything, they are making a simplistic controller in an effort to reinvent the games industry or at least change it's direction, indeed the games industry is getting more expensive and harder to produce games on the scale that Microsoft and Sony are demanding but I'd rather be a part of that than the glorification of monotonous shallow gameplay that is nothing more than a way to suck in people who remember the good old days, I'd much rather go on a trip though a lush forest exploring ruins in glorious detail with an amazing story and fiction to follow than sprinkle wine over the heads of rabbits, oh look, whack a mole in console form, good good, we always need more whack a mole.

PS3 and Microsoft are indeed the ones taking the greater risk than Wii, they are the ones pioneering the new ideas, sure the faster hardware and services are all they are supplying, but it's this that matters. They are supplying a hard route, a route of millions of pounds to create games, a route that demands high fidelity in every game, an expensive route of expansion. This route may seem stupid but as technology gets better so will ways to communicate with it, with XNA Microsoft are already trying to make it easier to create more content for video games cheaper and removing the middle men such as the bottom level coders.

I don't really know who will emerge victorious but I'd be willing to be Nintendo will make more money, but that's not a good thing, if Nintendo make more money then Sony and Microsoft will play for survival and follow Nintendo, I don't think that's a good thing if power doesn't keep on increasing.

I also hope that Wii gets some good developers, who aren't interesting in the cheap tag line of 'innovation' that Nintendo are slagging, I hope they get developers interested in creation, developers that will create beautiful worlds with deap gameplay scenarios and stories that will compell a new generation, games like Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Halo and the countless other games that deliver on there promises.

When it comes down to it, the consumer will chose what's fun, whacking a bunny with a mallet or exploring vast worlds, communicating with a massive online base, enjoying well thought out encounters and playing through the greatest games of all time. Sadly I believe that people will chose the Bunny route.

Ameer Edit: Split into paragraphs for easier reading.

This message was edited by Ameer(moderator) on Jan 03 2007.

I completely agree SomethingWacky.

I think that Nintendo isn't doing anything extraordinary or revolutionary. They stuck a motion sensor in a TV remote and made it work together with some 4 year old technology in a small case.

Developers need POWER in order to render big environments, that's something Nintendo doesn't understand apparently. Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. Nintendo has one of those down, and even then, it could be MUCH better.

No Wii games have online. No Wii games have Graphics NEARLY as good as the Gamecube. No Wii games make INNOVATIVE use out of the remote.

okay one last question, which of both systems ps3 and wii have better economic value, their useability and features.
since ps3 is way more expensive, at the end, which one is a better purchase.

quote Nero_DxS

okay one last question, which of both systems ps3 and wii have better economic value, their useability and features.
since ps3 is way more expensive, at the end, which one is a better purchase.

Well, as far as technology you're getting for the money you're paying, the PS3 is a better value. The Blu-Ray drive alone would cost far more than $600 in any application other than a PS3.

but i saw the news on tv, they asked couple of adults and children to play wii and ps3 to ask their opinion which system they prefered despite the price tag. the majority of people enjoy wii better than ps3, some say we don't care about graphics we care about gameplay, some say graphics are important, but to choose just one, it would be wii. because the guy play wii for an hour without boredom, but he played ps3 and quickly got bored.

so tell me what are currently the most own titles for ps3?
i got resistence: fall of man, ridge racer 7 and fight nights round 3. so are there any great titles out there?