I'll go against logic with this one

[Zechs Merquise]

And that explains why you went for the Gamecube version of Twilight Princess instead? Even though the Wii version has innovative controls, neither version was going to give you what you really wanted? So you thought it more financially beneficial to get the version for the console you already have rather than pay out for another console just for the innovative controls that you aren't bothered about?

 

Although if true, with that in mind, I do wonder why you bothered with the game at all.

 

If you haven't yet, try Kameo. It's not nearly as good as Twilight Princess for gameplay, and although aesthetically derivative, it sure does look gorgeous.

 

Because it's an amazing game and the graphics are beautiful on the Gamecube. I don't not play games because of the graphics, I just prefer them when they look better!

 

Ok lets pretend for a moment that graphics dont matter.

 

Of the 20-30 Wii games that have been released thus far, how many of them would you honestly consider 'innovative' or 'new generation' or any of the other bubbly terms that Nintendo uses to defend its cost-cutting measures.

 

erm... not many. I don;t think the Wii has many good games at all as of yet. It certainly hasn't driven developers to produce new feats of wonder just yet!

[Jasper]

We will see the true Wii in a while from now. We, the early adaptors, complain about the games' bad graphics, but we still buy them. The general public, who don't buy it jsut because it's great, will buy it when the visually more appealing games get released. We're all saying that graphics matter. But yet we all buy the system. There's a question to when the games really need to look good. So here I go: When, in a console's lifecycle, must the games look best to make sure the public buys into them? Is it the beginning, with the early adaptors who buy the system and games anyway, or is it the middle, when casuals look for systems, or in the end, when people want a cheap, powerfull solution for their lack of game-console?

 

here you go, I psoed a nice new question. Now give me your answer or I will sufocate you with the New Wii 'Dildo' Remote from MadCatz.

[Flaight]

Anyone else agree or disagree?

I think your view is pretty logical. Why call this "I'll go against logic with this one"? It is mostly logical and that usually fits into people's common sense of the day. And, Nintendo has the habit of breaking away from such sense. Don't forget, it was Nintendo's NES that spread the home gaming against the so called "general opinion" at the time. Nintendo has done this before and DS is the most recent example.

 

You can be right. But if anyone can prove you wrong, it's Nintendo. Against Nintendo you never know if you're right or wrong.

[kiwikid]

With all these arguments of why couldn't Nintendo include HD and cost related issues I'm a tad confused. The way I see it, and please correct me if I'm talking thru a hole in my head is this - The main reason the PS3 is expensive is because of the Blu-ray Drive. No blu-ray on Wii (or DVD for that matter so the machine is cheaper to buy. The fact that PS3 games can do HD may push up price a little bit also. The XBOX360 is HD also and is cheaper than a Wii (just the core system) in NZ. Shouldn't that mean that the Wii could have done HD for just a fraction more cost, nothing drastic though. The Wii doesn't have 20 gig hard drive or a DVD drive or HD capabilities - I'm sure the 360 has a few more features than the Wii which I have missed. Hang on I've just thought does the core 360 have a 20gig hard drive? I can't remember. Now I'm just confusing myself. My point is that I'm sure Nintendo could have made the Wii HD for just a tiny bit extra, but they didn't, I would have been prepared to pay for it. Oh dear, perhaps I should be grateful for what I have. and stop worrying about all this.

[c0Zm1c]

Why do you have such a problem with us feeling let down that games on the Wii look like games on gamecube?

I don't have problem with you having problem, after all it's your problem and not my problem.

 

It's called an opinion

Yes, so you keep saying. And this is a forum where everyone is entitled to one - be it to state a new one, or challenge (within reason) or reinforce an existing one. If you don't like that then, well, tough.

[Nintenchris]

With all these arguments of why couldn't Nintendo include HD and cost related issues I'm a tad confused. The way I see it, and please correct me if I'm talking thru a hole in my head is this - The main reason the PS3 is expensive is because of the Blu-ray Drive. No blu-ray on Wii (or DVD for that matter so the machine is cheaper to buy. The fact that PS3 games can do HD may push up price a little bit also. The XBOX360 is HD also and is cheaper than a Wii (just the core system) in NZ. Shouldn't that mean that the Wii could have done HD for just a fraction more cost, nothing drastic though. The Wii doesn't have 20 gig hard drive or a DVD drive or HD capabilities - I'm sure the 360 has a few more features than the Wii which I have missed. Hang on I've just thought does the core 360 have a 20gig hard drive? I can't remember. Now I'm just confusing myself. My point is that I'm sure Nintendo could have made the Wii HD for just a tiny bit extra, but they didn't, I would have been prepared to pay for it. Oh dear, perhaps I should be grateful for what I have. and stop worrying about all this.

 

 

Microsoft are also making a loss on each console sold just like Sony but they can take the hit.

[c0Zm1c]

Because it's an amazing game and the graphics are beautiful on the Gamecube. I don't not play games because of the graphics, I just prefer them when they look better!

Fair enough. But seeing as those beautiful graphics are also in the Wii version along with a better control scheme, I think you've denied yourself a greater experience of the game.

[DCK]

I agree with some people here that better graphics are definetely a thing that makes better games. But if you act like Wii games look like crap, then that's blatantly hypocrite as you've been playing a sub-par system (GameCube) for years before. I know it doesn't look as good as 360 games, but that's a weak 'my **** is bigger than yours' argument. I wouldn't mind better graphics, but there's nothing wrong with what we have now.

[solitanze]

This thread is really living up to its title and is beyond logic with respect to the randomness of posts. That reminds me, gotta get around to registering a complaint about Resident Evil 4 PS2 version on http://www.gamerankings.com. Shall do it by the end of this week.

[Jasper]

With all these arguments of why couldn't Nintendo include HD and cost related issues I'm a tad confused. The way I see it, and please correct me if I'm talking thru a hole in my head is this - The main reason the PS3 is expensive is because of the Blu-ray Drive. No blu-ray on Wii (or DVD for that matter so the machine is cheaper to buy. The fact that PS3 games can do HD may push up price a little bit also. The XBOX360 is HD also and is cheaper than a Wii (just the core system) in NZ. Shouldn't that mean that the Wii could have done HD for just a fraction more cost, nothing drastic though. The Wii doesn't have 20 gig hard drive or a DVD drive or HD capabilities - I'm sure the 360 has a few more features than the Wii which I have missed. Hang on I've just thought does the core 360 have a 20gig hard drive? I can't remember. Now I'm just confusing myself. My point is that I'm sure Nintendo could have made the Wii HD for just a tiny bit extra, but they didn't, I would have been prepared to pay for it. Oh dear, perhaps I should be grateful for what I have. and stop worrying about all this.

 

In NZ, it's cheaper. And it's the core system. Microsoft barely sells core systems (according to my local game store, since green boxes are barely on the shelves or received). Nintendo could have made HD, but, like said before, they would make a loss on the system. A 20 gigabyte Hard Drive isn't necessary yet, and buy yourself a 2 Gb SD card, you'll do with that for quite a while, before Nintendo allows bigger cards to be used and you can actually have a 20 Gigabyte hard drive. But ehre's what I think: we'll hve a new Wii within four years from now.

[DCK]

The reason why Nintendo didn't go HD is because that meant a redesign of hardware, and they didn't do that because of the R&D and production costs. They stuck with GameCube-based design.

 

It's got nothing to do with storage space really. HD only needs more space when you're downloading HD content, and I doubt that'd be something Nintendo would offer.

[motion]

The reason why Nintendo didn't go HD is because that meant a redesign of hardware, and they didn't do that because of the R&D and production costs. They stuck with GameCube-based design.

 

Do you not see the inherent laziness in that? What have they been doing for the past 4-5 years??

[Jasper]

It's not lazy, motion, it's cost-effective. That's what it's about. Though, personally, I think they could hav easely opted ofr a PowerPC G5 and crammed out some HD visuals - so no, it's not about being stuck with Gamecube hardware. As long as they don't change their processor type, there's no difficulty in starting developing again. That's why Cell is hard to develop for at the moment and so is the Xbox360 - because they've flipped processors and therefore every developer needs to start from the word go again with getting to know the system. Macs ran fine with a PowerPC G4 or G5 processor and I think Nintendo could manage that too. But they're being cost-effective, and they're being attractive to developers.

 

The actual reason why Nintendo didn't go HD is because it would raise the numbers of dollars needed to be spent on games. Not every developer can afford to develop a 120 million dollar game for the PS3 or X360. It costs almost ten times as much as it costs making a Wii game, so developers easely get aboard. Nintendo has stated that they wanted to keep making games cheap. if you don't have kazilolions-budgets, but great ideas, your games can't be developed yet. So you opt for Wii and have cost-effective development and you get a revolution for free at no additional cost. That's the general idea of Nintendo. Next generation the cost od developing HD will have gone down a little, I think, and the developers can switch to Wii again while Sony (if they ever make a PS4) and Microsoft are raising the stakes again, making it expensive for new developers.

 

EDIT: "But we're both right!" (See next post)

[DCK]

It's not laziness per se. I called it that before, but it's a cost reducing strategy. If Nintendo were lazy they would've sat on their arse and released the Wii with a regular controller and died silently.

 

By taking the GameCube hardware and removing its two bottlenecks (disk space and memory size) there was not much money needed to get a decent system running. An HD console would be very hard to make given the target size and price Nintendo had put on the Revolution. Not only that, but GameCube based design also meant one of the easiest, cheapest and efficient architectures would be continued - making games for the Wii is a breeze compared to PS3 development. The aspects of design and price weigh much heavier than graphics for the market.

 

There's a lot of advantages tied to a reuse of the GameCube hardware. Importance of hardware power is overrated, most non-gamers don't give a rat's ass and half of the hardcore gamers play games for gameplay. Nicer graphics is a good thing, but there's more aspects are involved in desiging a console. Nintendo has done a much better job on that than, for example, Sony.

 

Also, once developers really tack in the additional 64 MBs of fast memory and additional shader capacity they now have at their disposal, it won't be that bad really. Mario Galaxy should be setting a standard.

 

Edit: Beat me to it Jasper

[motion]

If Nintendo were lazy they would've sat on their arse and released the Wii with a regular controller and died silently.

 

 

I think releasing the Gamecube under a different name would be a tad worse than lazy, it would have been suicidal.

[Jasper]

I think releasing the Gamecube under a different name would be a tad worse than lazy, it would have been suicidal.

 

Nah. If they made it a popular color and a good name, they would have sold even more units than the GameCube itself. But are you aware you are actually contradicting yourself? First you said they were lazy, now they're not. Now you're saying something different. Very odd.

 

Oh, what would Nintendo do next generation? Call their next console Wii (with High Defenition) like the iPods (with video)? If they become a new term, it would be great, but what's up next...

[DCK]

What I'm trying to say is that Nintendo could have released a system that on paper would be about, say, twice as powerful as the Wii is now with the same size/price, but the difference wouldn't make the costs worthwile. Graphics would be marginally better (especially considering it would have to be rendered in HD resolution), backwards compability would be lost or limited, the hardware would be difficult to program, and Nintendo would have to spend millions extra on research and at the same time earn millions less because of a lower profit margin.

 

Reuse of the GameCube hardware really isn't a bad choice. I still have a feeling they could have spiced up the good old Cube some more so I'm not 100% happy with it, but the concept is great.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Nintendo already tried releasing a beast of a machine in a hope to claim their crown back. In fact, both the N64 and Gamecube were powerful machines. It just didn't work.

 

Obviously, innovation has been working wonders with the DS. Sales have been through the roof, all this talk about non-gamers playing, finally going online, etc. Lets be honest, why wouldn't they try to replicate all those successes but in home console form? It just makes perfect sense.

 

A more powerful machine would've been nice, but at the end of the day, it would be a sort of contradiction in a sense if they were to say "innovation is the way forward" whilst also boasting latest state of the graphics.

 

With more power comes more problems. The N64 was a bitch for producing games, high costs, etc. I think the aim here is to get an innovative system, with the easy access to allow developers to create games for it. Developers have got enough to worry about when it comes to creating games, so why make it harder?

 

The problem with the last few Nintendo systems is that there just hasn't been enough games. I think they're going about it in the right way to rectify that problem.

[Pit-Jr]

No ones implying that theyre not making the right business decisions. Obviously theyre making a fortune.

 

Its just a shame that theyre making theyre fortune by serving us leftovers, on both the hardware and the software front

[Serebii]

Umm, need i remind you all that the Wii is actually technologally superior to the Cube. It has a faster processor, better GPU etc. Its not just a reboxed Cube

[Gio001]

HD etc etc.... who cares when it's so much fun, since launch day our wii has been permanently on from morning till night, myself, friends, family I'm glad it's not like the jack of all trades master of none PS3 as everybody is too interested playing games on the wii than watching movies, playing with photo's music etc. We'd have a riot in our house if we used the web to browse the net etc and not have a game on the go.

That's what a console is about innit ?

[Jasper]

Oh, come on, it's bullshit. The processor is the same with minor differences and they've added something here and there, but it's a re-souped GameCube. Don't deny that. it isn't that much more powerfull and you can't expect to much more from it. That's why developers have bin using GameCube Devkits.

 

And, yes, it is about gameplay. But don't be focused on one thing. i'm not saying HD will be the great improvement - I don't need it. We're saying it would be nice. Don't be blinded by one awesome aspect and see the big picture. I assume it could have bein bigger.

[motion]

Nah. If they made it a popular color and a good name, they would have sold even more units than the GameCube itself. But are you aware you are actually contradicting yourself? First you said they were lazy, now they're not. Now you're saying something different. Very odd.

 

Oh, what would Nintendo do next generation? Call their next console Wii (with High Defenition) like the iPods (with video)? If they become a new term, it would be great, but what's up next...

 

Nintendo not changing graphics, or controller for wii = suicidal

Nintendo not changing system but changing controller = lazy (what we have now)

Nintendo making a better system and changing controller = good sense, 10/10

 

HD etc etc.... who cares when it's so much fun, since launch day our wii has been permanently on from morning till night, myself, friends, family I'm glad it's not like the jack of all trades master of none PS3 as everybody is too interested playing games on the wii than watching movies, playing with photo's music etc. We'd have a riot in our house if we used the web to browse the net etc and not have a game on the go.

That's what a console is about innit ?

 

All well and good, if you had to choose between current Wii and the exact same maching just with HD which would you choose?

 

HD enhances gameplay, simple as that really and it wouldn't cost much to put it in.

[Serebii]

The Cube Processor clocks in at 485MHz. The Wii's clocks in at approx. 730MHz

 

Yep, the same processor indeed. FOR SHAME NINTENDO. YOU HAVE MADE TWO THINGS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IDENTICAL. HOW DARE YOU

[Gredin]

I've been bouncing around the web, since people are claiming Wii is just a compressed Gamecube.

 

(copy and paste link for a spec sheet comparison)

 

wiili.org/index.php/Gamecube-wii-hardware[/url]

 

Now, for those saying "oh noes, Wii just compressed Gamecube" check out the speeds of the processor and graphics. Why bother making a new processor and new graphics chip if you want to just re-use Gamecube technology? They didn't, they went ahead and got IBM and ATI to make new chips that use technology to allow them to be small yet efficient.