meh, graphics aren't everything in a game. it's just one that should be inputted to the game. i don't like wii because of the motion sensor for the system. i like my old regular controllers. something like the ps3 how it has motion and regular controls are what we should get. something that i don't like about graphics not being in HD is when playing on a HD tv the screen has like 2 inches of each side black. it's like playing on a rectangle.

Call me a "knucklehead", but graphics are important to me.  Yes, gameplay is the most important factor, but the graphics are the icing on the cake, and can potentially ruin a game.  I mean, a cake can be delicious, but what if the icing was made of crap?  I don't want to eat that cake. 
 
To be honest, the graphics in Muramasa are bad to the point that it seriously made my stomach uneasy.  It had style, but the colors weren't vibrant, and it was too blurry to make out the details of the character's face.  If a game like this had the beautiful colors and sharp details of a game like Castle Crashers, they would be much more appealing.

I don't see how you can be an "HD fanboy" when by true fact, HD is superior to SD.  Microsoft and Sony have made the decision to move on to the HD generation, while Nintendo stayed in the past.  I know that the Wii is focused on gameplay and controls (which aren't very responsive in the first place), but 480p just looks terrible compared to what's available today.

My problem with the game is that  the release of Shadow Complex proved that full sized games can come out on XBLA and PSN for a budget price point.  I can't justify spending $50 on this game because of that.  I'll play it (through Gamefly) but $50 is a little steep for me to pay for it at retail.

This is why I miss the good ole NES/SNES days, where game play was considered more important than graphics, what a horrific thought right!? I think older gamers such as myself appreciate this game for what it is, a beautiful hack n slash with a few rpg elements. When did the level of graphic detail enter the equation in determining how much we enjoy a game? It is complete bullshit. Yeah, I do enjoy playing games in 1080p, but not to the point where I shit all over a game for having SD graphics. Have some fucking fun people!

" This is why I miss the good ole NES/SNES days, where game play was considered more important than graphics, what a horrific thought right!? I think older gamers such as myself appreciate this game for what it is, a beautiful hack n slash with a few rpg elements. When did the level of graphic detail enter the equation in determining how much we enjoy a game? It is complete bullshit. Yeah, I do enjoy playing games in 1080p, but not to the point where I shit all over a game for having SD graphics. Have some fucking fun people! "

Fair enough points Diamond, until you got to the part "gamers are significantly less graphics whores today than they used to be." Wait, what?

" @Diamond: If that were honestly the case, people wouldn't care what maximum resolution a game's visuals were designed for, or flip the hell out when they discover that their super awesome 1080p game isn't "true" 1080p. "

" Fair enough points Diamond, until you got to the part "gamers are significantly less graphics whores today than they used to be." Wait, what? "

" @Diamond: If that were honestly the case, people wouldn't care what maximum resolution a game's visuals were designed for, or flip the hell out when they discover that their super awesome 1080p game isn't "true" 1080p. "

" @Diamond: Have any actual statistics to back that claim up? "

" @Hailinel said:

" @Diamond: Have any actual statistics to back that claim up? "

Oh god.  You and me both know there's no such thing.  Anyways, I was alive then, I saw what things were like. Add that to the fact that no modern gaming platform has graphics in the name of the system, and Zelda TP wasn't advertised with a kid gawking over the graphics. "

Those changes only reference changes in the way that games and consoles are marketed.  They don't have any relationship to the number of graphics whores out there.

" @Hailinel said:

Those changes only reference changes in the way that games and consoles are marketed.  They don't have any relationship to the number of graphics whores out there.

It has a direct effect because the marketing is what made the graphics whores.  It was reflected in how everyday people talked about the games, although that is impossible to prove, anyone that was a gamer through the 80's and early 90's can probably back that up. Now, Nintendo themselves are taking an anti-graphics marketing angle this generation.  They used to write in Nintendo Power how SNES was better than Genesis because it could display more colors.  Ads for just about every game used to be filled with graphics terminology, you never hear that in a commercial now. "

" @Diamond: Have any actual statistics to back that claim up? "

Screw Fanboys, if they don't want a great game, only because its on the wii. Then they are the ones missing out. Those of us who are willing to play games because they are good and not just because they are on the platform of our choice, just get to have more fun than them.

" @Hailinel said:

" @Diamond: Have any actual statistics to back that claim up? "

This kind of post is incredibly childish and you are making it crystal clear that you don't understand the history of gaming before the year 2000. That doesn't make graphic whoring right or wrong but you should dump the thought that this generation either produced the problem or made it worse. Diamond is 100% correct. "

" It's seriously impossible for Nintendo to please some of these people. People constantly whine that "the Wii has no games!" But if somebody actually goes through the effort to make a good, exclusive Wii game then the same people whine "why is this only on Wii? It should be on the HD platforms!" The inherent contradiction of these two complaints seems to elude them. "

So it's suddenly childish to ask for evidence?  That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

SD videos on my main display that aren't upscaled are actually painful for my eyes, I've adjusted to HD and can't go back. Even the 17" laptop I'm writing this post on has a full HD resolution...

" @oldschool: i dont think wii fit counts, and re4 is a multi-platform game :) i think all 3 consoles have great games not just the wii...just speaking my mind... "

I was just playing through Tales of Symphonia on my Gamecube yesterday.  It is obvioulsy an SD game and it is being played on my HD plasma.  Yes, I can see the 'fuzziness' of the graphics, but to be honest, I rmember seeing that "fuzziness" on my old SD television as well.  Thing is, for me, I don't care and I still think it looks terrific, even compared to Eternal Sonata or Infinite Undiscovery on my 360 (not as good obvioulsy, but it just doesn't matter).

"(not as good obvioulsy, but it just doesn't matter). "

Because obviously Zork has no gameplay difference compared to say, the Tales game oldschool enjoyed, all the difference is in graphics.

As for the view distance thing, how does it matter? If it's an SD system everyone still has the same view distance ability, so it all evens out.

Anyway, graphics matter from functional elements to aesthetic. But SD graphics can still serve both. I think that was his very valid point, ey?

I'll repeat the only current system offering full HD is the PC as many of the popular PS360 titles are in sub-HD resolutions. How about that?

As for the view distance thing, how does it matter? If it's an SD system everyone still has the same view distance ability, so it all evens out.Anyway, graphics matter from functional elements to aesthetic. But SD graphics can still serve both.

I was reffering to his comment bout a multiplayer shooter. As for racers, if the draw distance is good and the tracks well designed (ie, it happens to be a pretty good racing game) I have no issues. Maybe on the PSP's small screen sometimes. Perhaps the games you remember didn't have all that great draw distance, or had other visual flaws beyond resolution given the system you're talking about.

" @oldschool said:

"(not as good obvioulsy, but it just doesn't matter). "

Baloney.  If graphics didn't matter, you'd be playing Zork. HD matters in a very objective way:  in multiplayer shooters, because HD (along with large draw distance) allows you to spot enemy from a distance much easier.  Of course, graphics don't matter in rpgs or adventure games:  So go play Zork. "

It's not that the Wii doesn't have any good games.. it's that the Wii doesn't have enough good games that I actually want to play. 
 
I own over 20 PS3 games. I can only think of a few Wii games that I would want to play that aren't either re-releases of an older game or something on the VC.
 
I have no problem with SD. So long as I have component cables, it looks fine on my 40" Sammy TV.
 
The reason I don't really want a Wii outside of the games, is that I don't think it's worth more than $150 or at most $200. 
 Buy a Wii. Then buy the nunchuck add on. Then buy another nunchuck add on for the inevitable 2nd controller. Then buy the Classic controller for some of the games. Then buy rechargable batteries. Then buy a USB to ethernet adapter because this damn thing doesn't have ethernet built in.  Wanna know what I bought for my ps3 outside of games and another controller? an HDMI cable. $3 from monoprice.
 
It's the same gripe I have with the 360. You have to buy rechargeable batteries for those controllers, pay outright bullshit prices for a hard drive upgrade, pay for an online service i'd never use enough to justify the money, buy the same $3 HDMI cable, but then realize you can't use the stock cable if you want to use a different output for audio, thus screwing you into either mutilating the composite/component cables or buying microsoft's bullshit $50 hdmi kit. Then the 360 has the polar opposite networking handicap of the Wii: no built in WiFi, that costs like $100 to get. Oh, and you can only use the official headset, nice.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to go on a tangent of why the other two consoles piss me off, but that really is the major reason I don't own either of them.

I will get a Wii eventually, but not until it's dirt cheap. I have never liked a Nintendo console enough to just outright buy it when it first comes out. It takes a long time for enough decent games to crop up out of the sea of shit (especially good games I actually want to play.)

Managed to get my HDMI cable working the other day (too thick to realise I actually needed to configure it). It's fantastic. As much as I love it though, it shouldn't stop anyone from buying a game because it's not in HD. I mean, it's not that much different.

Eh, a nunchuck is included in the box, it's not an "add-on". Soon you'll have to buy the Sony waggle wands "for some of the games" too (as I seriously doubt they'll be offered with a robust title like Wii Sports Resort and for the price of a single game, no more, like the Motion Plus has made its price a near non issue). Wi-fi is quite widespread, shame you're still struggling with cables, though the ethernet adapter is only like a tenner. Rechargable batteries + charger are not expensive either nowadays, all the good brands too. Most of that would still cost less or about the same as a new PS3 Slim, nevermind the initial price of the PS3, or the upcoming Wii price cut. Then you can factor in that all Wii games are launched brand-new for a tenner less than games on the PS3 (or 360). Anyway, being so ignorant you don't even know what's in the box, you shouldn't even attempt to comment on its library. Not many games you actually know of appeal to your particular tastes, that's just fine and dandy by me, but general statements about how many "decent" games it has or doesn't have are way out of your jurisdiction. This thread didn't even refer to you really, since you're not a "HD fanboy", so I don't see the point in bumping it just to say how you don't think a Wii is worth its price...

I really don't get HD Elitists/Graphics Whores. They're called video 'games'. The important thing is the gameplay. Yeah, it's nice if the game looks good, too, but graphics are always the least of my concerns. Even if we say that the look of a game is important, I think the art style is far more important than the actual graphics. I'd take Muramasa over many 'HD games' because it simply has a gorgeous looking art style, rather than a bunch of bald space marines running around in a world made up of black and gray. (Obviously there are some HD games with great art styles, too, I'm just saying)
 
Ultimately, however, game play is king. I'd much rather play a game with so-so graphics but addictive game play than a game with state of the art graphics but game play that is just okay. I still spend plenty of time playing and replaying old games, and my Wii has gotten plenty of use.
 
@ReFracture:  The nunchuck is included with the Wii. Even if you buy a second controller, it's about even with the prices for other consoles. Personally, I think the Wii is a great value given the great games it has for it, but it sounds like it might be hitting that $200 price point soon.

Well if you like Galaxy/Klonoa there are many good platformers on Wii, either 3D (say, De Blob) or side scrolling like Klonoa (say, Lost Winds, and a bunch of others on WiiWare like Icarian, or retail like Wario Land and A Boy and His Blob etc). If you're also a Metroid fan then there are Metroid-like games coming to WiiWare like Cave Story. Since you like action games like No More Heroes/Muramasa, it's also got a fair share of those, like the upcoming No More Heroes sequel or Sin & Punishment 2. Of course it also has its own brand of experiences like the various sports games (not just Wii Sports mini games but also the likes of Pro Evo Soccer) or the likes of Endless Ocean and Trauma Center. It's even starting to get some quality RPGs like the upcoming Arc Rise Fantasia and The Crystal Bearers (more action than RPG this, but you also like Zelda so it works for you too). Maybe look into its library (both existing and upcoming) further with (outdated) threads like this and this or even this and this. To me the HD systems lack what made the PS2 special, that is, all the cult hits or low buget yet worthy experiences it was full of, instead mostly concetrating on Hollywood blockbuster esque experiences, the AAA stuff, while the Wii lacks the AAA stuff from a third party perspective (yet is slowly gaining some) but gets plenty of the niche titles, so it's just as worthy of owning, alongside Nintendo's own AAA games.

As for motion controls, I'll have to question what games you've played. Mario Galaxy didn't use them but worked just fine, showing traditional experiences can work with the Wii's controllers just fine too, while Metroid Prime is arguably far better with the use of the pointer, making these controls the sole reason the Trilogy even exists. And since most games nowadays are first or third person variants, you can tell the controllers are effective for the majority, and also great for other experiences like the mentioned sports titles, once again not only of the golf, bowling, tennis, etc type, but also with the likes of Pro Evo Soccer as it allows for much greater control of the field over any soccer game before it, effectively driving the genre forward than merely upgrading the visuals and physics. In fact, from the games considered good on Wii, the only one that comes to mind as having any kind of issues with the controls is Zack & Wiki, and it's the developers to blame for that. If the remote doesn't detect complex gestures, there's no reason to try and base some of your gameplay around those. Just reduce it to minimal and basic, yet fun, use like No More Heroes does, or focus on pointer controls like Metroid Prime and Trauma Center. Tons of games like these work excellently on Wii, even ports like The Godfather and Bully and of course the fabled Resident Evil 4 are enhanced heavily in terms of fun and satisfaction.

And yes, a nunchuck has been included in the box from day one, it was never an "add-on".

The quality of art is far more important to me than the the resolution they are shown at. As far as Muramasa is concerned, when I read that Vanillaware had to compress the original resolution of their work to fit on Wii, naturally resulting in distortion and having to tweak original artwork and animation, it doesn't sit well with me at all. However, I am thankful that such a game is on the console.

Not everyone is willing to shell out 250 dollars for a new console for a single game and you can't really blame them. Not everyone works and has the money to drop $300 for a single game that at the time interests them. Me personally would I am planning on getthing the Forza3 bundle for that and Splinter Cell; I generally play the MS exclusives on PC if there is something that interests me (Gears and Halo are NOT on my list). The Wii has a few games I want and once the Fatal Frame 4 fan sub is complete, i'll import a copy of FF4 and buy a Wii.

Because it doesn't only last a few hours like Braid and it was made by a full development team that has an army of great artists in need of a paycheck instead of a small indie dev doing it on his spare time? What kind of a comparison is that? There are many small scale cheap (and/or) indie games on WiiWare as well, what the heck is your point? If today's standards mean that pieces of art like Muramasa are only considered worth a tenner when generic Hollywood blockbuster esque shit go for $60 then they have fallen to hell than your implication that they've gone up. Regardless of the system a game is on, it's completely insane to believe a given game should be a downloadable title costing no more than $15 just because of its genre or because it's 2D instead of 3D, at the same time completely refusing to realise the work that must have gone into such a title. If it's not a game for you then it's not a game for you and you don't buy it, end of story. That doesn't make the work it took any less for it to cost so much less in order for you to be willing to purchase something that's clearly not of great interest to you, whether that's because you're not a fan of the genre or because you can't appreciate the art and believe it cost less to produce.