I realize that the Wii contains the most sophisticated menu system in a Nintendo console to date, but I'd like to address a few

issues I have with it, and wonder if they can be resolved via future online updates.

First of all, I wish that there was an option to skip the menu entirely, and proceed directly to the game. It is somewhat annoying to

have to select the game manually every time, and it makes the console feel less like a “game system", which to me is a bad thing.

Secondly, there should be a way to navigate the menus with a Gamecube contoller. Currently, if I want to use my Wii in “Gamecube mode",

I need to have both a remote and a sensor bar, merely to select the Gamecube game. Isn't that ridiculous? This limits the usefulness of

the Wii as a Gamecube replacement, especially in public environments. Another minor complaint is that the Wii will not show the name of

an inserted Gamecube disk: a capability the Gamecube actually had.

I could continue, but I will end by complimenting the Wii's virtual keyboard, as that is what I typed this with, and by asking what you

think of the aforementioned limitations, and the prospect of their being addressed in future updates. Thanks.

- SkiDragon
Michigan

I agree with your first point. The DS has an option to either boot to the menu or boot a game directly. (I prefer to boot to the

menu.) Having a direct-to-game option on the Wii would be useful due to the extra startup time associated with a disc-based system and

the more complicated menu. The time it would take to hit the home button to go back to the Wii menu after a game directly boots would

probably be about the same as if you needed to boot to the menu and start the game up manually, so at that point there should be a

choice of preference.

I think Nintendo designed the system this way so people could have easy access to the channels. As it turns out, I mess around with

the channels and VC games just about as much as I do the actual Wii games. It's a wash for me, but I concur that the option would be

nice.

Your second argument about GameCube controllers not working on the Wii menu is also a beef I have with the Wii, and that you can't see

the name of the GC game you currently have inserted. Every Cube game has some sort of artwork that displays on the GameCube menu. Why

not show that on the Wii menu? It's also inconvenient to need to juggle controllers to start up a GameCube game on the Wii, though it isn't that big of a deal if you're not constantly switching out GameCube discs.

Hopefully issues like these can be addressed in future Wii firmware updates. And speaking of that, it would be nice for Nintendo to

outline what exactly those firmware updates do to the console. Microsoft and Sony are extremely detailed on what Xbox 360, PSP and PS3 owners get in their

console updates, so it would only be fair to Wii owners that they know what's being updated on the consoles they own.

Well, to start with some flowers, you are such a great site, daily reader here.

Well on to the topic, something I have thought with my Pokemon Pearl version in my hands is that, my brother wanted to play but I was

very advanced and asked me, isn't there an option to have another save file??, I said no, there isn't, so I thought, why there isnt an

option to have at least 2 save files so we can play without messing each others Pokemon's? Any thoughts on this?

Thanks

- Juancho
Mexico City

If Nintendo included multiple save files in a Pokemon game, two people would only need to purchase one copy of the game instead of two

people purchasing two copies of the game. This is one of those Wile E. Coyote reasons there are two versions of the same game. You

have Pearl, and since you know someone that also wants to play the game, they might be more enticed to buy Diamond to

complement your version. Nintendo wants as many people as possible to buy its software, consumer convenience be damned.

Hello,

This is a long question that would probably make a better RFN podcast feature topic, but I fear the voice of Johnny Metts mocking me

over the radio, so I submit it to the voiceless bag, instead. I am in my mid-30s and have been a Nintendo gamer since the NES. Once

upon a time, I had sheets and sheets of graph paper marking the location (and hidden item) of every bush in The Legend of Zelda. But

times (and the 2-D/3-D nature of games) have changed and I no longer have the hours and hours required to meticulously detail my journey

through a game (and here I think particularly of the Metroid Prime series and Twilight Princess).

Additionally, the demands on my time have exponentially increased and I sometimes have only 2-3 hours a week to spend on a game.

Perhaps because of my 'advanced' age, I find myself forgetting details, or just losing interest in a particular challenge. So, I turn

more and more to game guides. Usually, I start seeking a hint here and there, but as I enter the 30th hour of a game (too long!!!!), I

will sometimes become so hopelessly bogged down that I will have to start a game over from scratch, following the guide through almost

every point.

So, to my question at last--what are your thoughts on game guides and gamers that use them? Can I still consider myself a ‘hardcore

gamer’? Or have I lost my ‘street cred’ (or did I lose it for just using the phrase ‘street cred’). I’ll admit a little part of my

youth dies every time I crack open a guide (or, more frequently, visit a walk-through web-site), and I struggle with the decision for

every game. But I love video games and I love my money and I want to get the maximum yield (in a reasonable amount of time) with both.

I must have validation from respected gamers—Have I become a casual gamer? Should I book my cruise to play Wii with the elderly?

Thank you for taking my question (if you do) and I love your site.

- Tween20
Southington, CT

I personally have a love-hate relationship with game guides. There's an argument that people who use guides are essentially cheating

their way through a game, circumventing th game's puzzles or challenges. On the other hand, people like yourself, who only have so much

time with a game, would like to see it through as quickly as possible so there's time to move to something else. Guides let you get

from point A to point B without a fuss, and you'll still get to see the game for what it is.

The big problem I have with guides is how some people rely on them exclusively to play through a game, as if they were following directions

on what to do. I will admit that I did this a few times in Goldeneye on the N64 (Bunker on 00 Agent; knowing where all those cameras

are was helpful), but since then I swore off the practice. What's the point in playing the game if someone is holding your hand the

whole way through? There may be some parts of a game where this may be necessary, but I pity those that do it from start to finish.

In this day in age, though, guides are almost a necessary evil. Every game out there has some

point in it that will stump someone. Even the "hardcore" will come to a point in certain games where the path forward isn't immediately

obvious. I hit up GameFAQs two or three times to help me find something not-so-obvious in Super Paper Mario, but just because I referred

to a guide doesn't mean I didn't know how to go through the rest of the game on my own.

There are also practical uses for a guide. After beating the game, you could find all the secret, hidden stuff on your own. But who

has the time for it? If you still want to enjoy a game but are short on time, use a guide to find out how to get all the unlocks and

bonus goodies quickly. In the end, you're the one who still needs to do the dirty work to get the goods, but being pointed in the

general direction from a guide doesn't taint the accomplishment, in my opinion. (Just don't use a cheat code, you filthy cheater!)

The bottom line: Don't be ashamed of opening up a game guide from time to time. You can spend 5 minutes finding out where to go next

via a guide, or an hour or more figuring it out on your own. If you have the time to do it, great. If you don't, there's nothing wrong

with getting a little help. Guides are no different than asking a friend for help. Just don't let your friend play

through the entire game for you, yeah?

Hey I read the last mailbag on bringing older games to VC and am amazed at the hassle of it all especially licensed games as you

mentioned. It seems unless it is a Nintendo, 3rd party game or a certain 3rd party has the license (Konami owns the Teenage Mutant Ninja

turtles which gave the green light for Ubisoft to release TMNT the arcade game on Xbox Live.)One shocking thing is the console release

does not matter and it is the company first.

Symphony of the Night was a Playstation title yet it showed up on Live. I would think Sony would want it on there Playstation Network

before they saw there Playstation hits going to other download services now in my view with that release what is stopping Square-Enix

from releasing some of there older RPG hits from the NES and SNES (There were so many you know the big guns.) on Live or the PSnetwork.

I am sorry for all the X game questions you are getting and if people think licenses are hard translating games from other countries is

probably 10 times harder. :-) Keep up the good work NWR :-) On a side note I am amazed with the Wii's popularity aren't you? (Wendy's is

having toys in there kids meals soon based on Wii.) :-)

- Brandy
Orange City,FL

You're actually incorrect in both your observations. The TMNT license isn't owned my Konami. Mirage Studios, creators of the

franchise, has owned it since the NES games came about. Mirage licenses it out to other companies. Back in the 80s and 90s, it was in

Konami's possession. Now, it's Ubisoft. TMNT on the VC was likely tricky, due to the fact that although Konami developed and published

the game originally, they didn't have the rights to release the game anymore. Ubi had them, meaning the reason why that NES game costs

600 points is because a chunk of it is likely going to Ubisoft.

Although Symphony of the Night was released on the PlayStation, that doesn't mean it's forever a PlayStation game. Konami made it, so

they can do whatever they want with it. Other publishers have released compilations of older games (on different systems) previously, and

with the advent of digital distribution, expect to see a lot more games appear on new platforms.

Oh, and about Square-Enix. It's not going to jump into the downloadable game arena for a while, because people like buying its classic

re-releases at $40 a pop. Sad, but true.

Since Throwback Entertainment owns most of Acclaim's IPs now, it will be up to them to decide if any of Acclaim's old titles will

ever be on the Virtual Console. Do you know if they have any intention of doing do? What would they do about the Acclaim name though?

The Acclaim name now belongs to "Acclaim Games" after they purchased it.

- TJ Spyke
New York

Throwback has the primary publishing rights to a whole lot of

Acclaim games, so it would have the first say on what gets re-released where, and in what format. Throwback probably purchased the

rights to the games with the intention of somehow reselling them, but I wouldn't begin to imagine how it would go about doing it.

Virtual Console seems as if it would be the easiest route to getting older games out, but they could also be planning compilations or

re-releases in some other form. It hasn't said much on what it intends to do with all those games, so we'll need to wait and see.

And what about the name? The easy thing to would be to take out the Acclaim name from any re-released game, though I'm sure the current

Acclaim would strike a deal and allow it to stay in the older games. That's another tricky legal hoop that will need to be jumped

through to get those Acclaim (and LJN) games out in society once again. I do hope that Throwback hurries. I want to see classic (and

next-gen!) Extreme-G, and soon.

Hey guys, I have two questions this week...the first is more of a "what do you think?" type question.

Why do companies make bad games? I can understand the line of thought that "even if we make a bad game, people will still buy it"

(though I would think the potential trade-off of spending more resources on the game to increase sales would be appealing as well), and

I can understand deadlines (such as releasing a game to coincide with a movie). But really - you and I know what makes a bad game (not

from an opinion perspective, but from a definite perspective, such as the in-game camera completely not working, etc.), so the people

MAKING the game certainly have to know. I guess I just don't understand why a company would release a flawed game when a good game has

the potential to sell more. Laziness comes to mind - so fire the people who are lazy!

Second question: I read that the rights to Adult Swim games had been granted (to Activision, perhaps?) quite some time ago, and I have

been waiting for an Aqua Teen Hunger Force game ever since. Any chance of that happening, or is that a license that will never see the

light of day in video game form? (I do recall an Adult Swim game being published, I think - obviously it didn't interest me too much)

Thanks!

- j_moose
Michigan

I think it's very unfair to developers to assume that bad games are a direct result of lazy developing. The process of developing a

game can take around a year or more. Do you think developers are sitting around with their hand down their pants most of the time? Not

bloody likely.

Developers want their games to be as good as possible. Their names are attached to it, after all. A lot of work goes into games that

are "bad," and it's usually not on account of laziness. Dev teams usually work insane hours leading up to a game's completion date,

trying to fix any major bugs and making optimizations wherever possible until the publisher (or an impending movie release) says the

game is done. Sometimes this cut-off date comes when the developer would have liked to do more, and you usually hear that to be the

case more often than not in post-release developer interviews. But a game's got to be released eventually.

You make a good point, though. We know what makes a bad game. So do developers. So what's with the bad games? I think the better

question to ask in this case is, why aren't as many games good? Like any other skill, making a good game requires practical experience.

It takes a lot of know-how to create a video game from the ground up. Can you imagine the talent level required to make something

halfway decent? And don't you think there's a reason why Shigeru Miyamoto is considered a legendary game designer? Experience and

talent level go a long way towards making something great. A lot of resources help, too.

Basically, knowing how to do something, and actually doing it are two different things entirely. A developer's first game isn't going

to be a masterpiece—and in fact it could even be a very bad game—but hey, you've got to start somewhere, right?

To answer your totally unrelated second question, Midway has the rights to the Adult Swim games. (News story

artid=10299>here.) It recently announced an Aqua Teen game for the PS2, and

it's very unlikely that will come to the Wii. Speaking of Adult Swim, Capcom is making a Harvey Birdman game for the PS2. Harvey

Birdman is also an Adult Swim property, so one needs to wonder how much mileage Midway is getting out of its AS license.