TBH, I'm still amazed they can gouge peoples eyes out for connection AND games. That's just stupid to pay 15/mo for being allowed access to the system, and then say... another 10-15/mo for a GAME subscription for some RPG. Like Online Final Fantasy, or whatever it was called.
Games nowadays really do rob the whole feel from getting together to play. If a game doesn't have online capability, it doesn't sell. And if it does, well... you know.
Like, why bother to even MAKE a campaign or story mode if you know people aren't going to use it if it doesn't have online co-op?
Stupid, if you ask me.
Online Wii.
#17
Posted 15 November 2007 - 09:47 AM
At least the Wii is still trying to keep some of that feel of offline multiplayer. Now as soon as it has more non-party games that are worth playing, everything will be great. 
Then again Brawl by itself will fix a lot of the problems with the system. That's going to have a lot of replayability, especially since this one has a stage editor attached.

Then again Brawl by itself will fix a lot of the problems with the system. That's going to have a lot of replayability, especially since this one has a stage editor attached.
#18
Posted 15 November 2007 - 11:19 PM
So, are you not going to be able to get your Wii online?
#21
Posted 17 November 2007 - 04:08 AM
For me if a game doesn't have good multilayer then its a rental.
Multilayer is what keeps some people playing the same game for hours.
Multilayer is what keeps some people playing the same game for hours.
Fixed.
There is no 'one thing' that keeps people interested. Why do you think developers almost always try to reach out to a wide audience? Variety and numerous different options. What one person likes, others will not.
But I digress.. On with the topic at hand.
#22
Posted 17 November 2007 - 05:12 AM
For me if a game doesn't have good multilayer then its a rental.
Multilayer is what keeps some people playing the same game for hours.
Multilayer is what keeps some people playing the same game for hours.
Fixed.
There is no 'one thing' that keeps people interested. Why do you think developers almost always try to reach out to a wide audience? Variety and numerous different options. What one person likes, others will not.
But I digress.. On with the topic at hand.
hey {expletive Chuck Norris'd by Cspace} I never said all people
#24
Posted 18 November 2007 - 07:25 AM
'people' does indeed imply the entire group, yes.
Multiplayer can be fun, but I'll usually buy games based on their single-player component. There's just too many limitations imposed on the consistency of having fun in multiplayer. Too many stupid people online, too much effort to get friends together at a moments notice to play (either online or offline). Plus you can just have a more immersive experience in single-player, and there's aspects such as storyline that are pretty much entirely absent from multiplayer endeavours.
Like Maxi said, different people get different things out of games.
Multiplayer can be fun, but I'll usually buy games based on their single-player component. There's just too many limitations imposed on the consistency of having fun in multiplayer. Too many stupid people online, too much effort to get friends together at a moments notice to play (either online or offline). Plus you can just have a more immersive experience in single-player, and there's aspects such as storyline that are pretty much entirely absent from multiplayer endeavours.
Like Maxi said, different people get different things out of games.