Do the generic Wii remotes work well?

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Thanks, cmdrdredd. I need to buy the nunchuck things too since some of his games use them. I haven't looked much on EBay yet....just a cursory search.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,848
4,783
136
I miss when controllers were $12 for official name brand Nintendo pads and the system came with two. :p
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I miss when controllers were $12 for official name brand Nintendo pads and the system came with two. :p

Now they have lights, touch pads, motion sensors, 18 buttons, analog sticks, speakers in them, and vibration motors. Crazy...
 

MWink

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,642
1
76
Now they have lights, touch pads, motion sensors, 18 buttons, analog sticks, speakers in them, and vibration motors. Crazy...

And yet I'd still take a SNES controller over any of them!

As for the OP, I have a generic Wii remote I got from DealExtreme a few years ago. It looks very similar to the OEM controller but if you look closely you can tell it's a copy. For the most part it feels and works fine. Some of the buttons actually feel better than the OEM version. I have noticed a couple small issues with it. For one, the D-pad allows you to press all four directions at once. Also, the vibration is strong enough that the motion sensor pics it up (which messes up one game I play). Overall it's decent.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
And then games were $60-$90 too, the good ol' days.

Not sure where you bought your games, but the most expensive game I ever bought was $70 for FF3(6) the day it came out. I got 100's of hours out of that game and it still trumps many RPGS coming out today.

Everything else was much cheaper than that ($30) or rented. You know, when you could do that.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Not sure where you bought your games, but the most expensive game I ever bought was $70 for FF3(6) the day it came out. I got 100's of hours out of that game and it still trumps many RPGS coming out today.

Everything else was much cheaper than that ($30) or rented. You know, when you could do that.

Well, this was the norm in my experience. Games varied widely. Hot titles and new releases close to $90 if demand was high and stock low depending on the retailer. Prices are always $60 now for newer titles.

UGeF0.jpg

genesiscatalog-inflation-adjusted.jpg

original
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Well, this was the norm in my experience. Games varied widely. Hot titles and new releases close to $90 if demand was high and stock low depending on the retailer. Prices are always $60 now for newer titles.

UGeF0.jpg

genesiscatalog-inflation-adjusted.jpg

original



You got fucked, somehow.

I never paid more than 30 for NES and 40 for SNES.

I didnt buy FF2 or FF3 when they were new, those were the only overpriced titles I remember.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
And adjusted for inflation is always a trumped up number that fails to grasp that $40 is far different than $70, no matter what decade it is or how much you make. Meaning a person would be more willing to spend $40 now or then, vs $70 now or then so even though they may have represented the same price today, it's bunk because the human mind accepts $40 more the $70.
 
Last edited:

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
You got fucked, somehow.

I never paid more than 30 for NES and 40 for SNES.

I didnt buy FF2 or FF3 when they were new, those were the only overpriced titles I remember.

That's why, because you never bought them new. Cartridges were really expensive back then. I remember me and my brothers saving money for Phantasy Star IV, that was an expensive game.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
And adjusted for inflation is always a trumped up number that fails to grasp that $40 is far different than $70, no matter what decade it is or how much you make. Meaning a person would be more willing to spend $40 now or then, vs $70 now or then so even though they may have represented the same price today, it's bunk because the human mind accepts $40 more the $70.

WTF are you talking about? They are only saying that a game that cost $40 back then would be like spending $70 now. So they are saying that gaming software got cheaper overall and hardware got more expensive.

Nothing else is implied.
 
Last edited: