weeyellowbloke Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Oh lord, I thought these kinds of threads had dried up a long time ago, but nope same old arguments doing the rounds. I've heard rumours that everytime someone writes "but why can't we have next gen gameplay and good graphics" Nintendo drown a puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 A puppy? Every single time? I don't believe they do that. Reggie can't kill a living being. He can't hurt a fly! Okay, he can hurt it, but he will rush it to the hospital straight afterwards. Drown a puppy.. what a darned cruel thought. Anyways, I think it's important to not live with your eyes closed. Never take it for granted. Nintendo could gone for the combo revolution/graphics, and they didn't. Even though every has said it a thousand times, it's still something we shouldn't shut up about just because it has bein said before. Never close your eyes to a subject, and certainly not if it's so stuborn to die. Don't take it for granted that Nintendo didn't go HD. Question it. This is a very healthy subject and it keeps out minds sharp, so let's just keep it and talk anyway. And let everyone stop moaning and bitching about the subject. Those people keep the least itneresting subjects alive by saying they're not necessary. here's a tip: every time you post something like that in the subject, it's moved back to the top of the subject lsit and people can respond even more. So if those moaners shut up, only the good subjects remain anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gredin Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Games will start to look better, we all know they will. My question is, if Nintendo did go HD blah blah blah and sold the Wii for the same price as the PS3, would it still have sold as well as it is? I don't think so. Why? Look at last gen. Gamecube looked better than PS2, if not on par, was cheaper but sold worse. Same thing would have happened this gen if Nintendo released a behemoth of a graphics beast and charged an arm and a leg. They'd lose again. I for one have no complaint. I played Doom 3 for my PC about 6 months ago, gorgeous looking game. I was like, "hells ya, this looks gorgeous". Stopped playing after 3 hours. Why? Graphics couldn't sell subpar gameplay. When I was playing Red Steel, I never cared for the graphics of the game because I was having a blast playing it. IT WAS FUN! The gameplay engrossed me. Only at one point did I say, "wow, the developer screwed up that elevator door. Looks like N64." I shrugged it off and got right back into the game. Point? Gameplay > Graphics Nintendo has it with Wii. Another point, would we still buy Nintendo's product if they didn't have Metroid, Mario and Zelda? I for one am glad they keep making them. Sure, they need to make new killer aps, but I'm fine with getting that next Zelda and Metroid. Right now my heart is aching to get a hold of Metroid Prime 3. I will survive the droubt of triple A titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 The question we should ask is: what do consumers see? If you don't know Wii, ti's inferior graphics will not attract you. It's gameplay is very hard to show of to people. And don't forget that gameCube was cheaper with better graphics, so your price versus graphics rate isn't quite as right. The GameCube was sold for less and was more powerfull, and still the high price and worse graphics didn't scare consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 My question is, if Nintendo did go HD blah blah blah and sold the Wii for the same price as the PS3, would it still have sold as well as it is? I don't think so. Why? Look at last gen. Gamecube looked better than PS2, if not on par, was cheaper but sold worse. The only way the Wii would sell for as much as the PS3 is if it had a blueray drive included. If it didn't (and it wouldn't), the price would be a good £150 less than PS3 anyway so I believe that argument to be flawed. I think you'll find that the spec sheet for PS2 was superior to Gamecube, hence graphics were better on PS2. PS2 sold because it was a 'playstation' that everyone was going on about and was still relatively cheap-ish. Same thing would have happened this gen if Nintendo released a behemoth of a graphics beast and charged an arm and a leg. They'd lose again. I'm not calling for a behemoth, I'm calling for a slight improvement graphically and HD games. It would add £50 to the price and would still keep the amazingness of the wii innovation. I for one have no complaint. I played Doom 3 for my PC about 6 months ago, gorgeous looking game. I was like, "hells ya, this looks gorgeous". Stopped playing after 3 hours. Why? Graphics couldn't sell subpar gameplay. I agree wholeheartedly. Imagine if you played that game on the Wii (let's say in this case it would be Far Cry), rubbish graphics, rubbish gameplay. You'd have stopped in half the time. When I was playing Red Steel, I never cared for the graphics of the game because I was having a blast playing it. IT WAS FUN! The gameplay engrossed me. Only at one point did I say, "wow, the developer screwed up that elevator door. Looks like N64." I shrugged it off and got right back into the game. Very true, but you would have no doubt prefered the game if it had HD visuals. Point? Gameplay > Graphics Nintendo has it with Wii. At the moment, Nintendo see it like this: Gameplay > .......................................... > Graphics whereas in reality it should be like this: Gameplay > Graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Actually on Spec Sheets the PS2 was the weakest of the three last gen games consoles and the graphics on the games reflected as much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gredin Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 (copy and paste link, I don't have enough posts yet) businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061116_750580.htm I think that interview is really good. Gives us a lot of insight as to the decisions behind the Wii. It's relevance is towards cost of the system. Take from it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0Zm1c Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 The only way the Wii would sell for as much as the PS3 is if it had a blueray drive included. If it didn't (and it wouldn't), the price would be a good £150 less than PS3 anyway so I believe that argument to be flawed. I think your argument is flawed. The estimated production cost of the 60GB PS3 is $840. $125 of that is spent on the Blu-Ray drive, only 15% of the total production cost - a good bit less than the 37.5% you think it costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gredin Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 As it has been posted in many other forums, we have to remember that Nintendo also make their consoles to make a profit from the get go. Their market is video games and only video games, they don't have profits coming in from other mediums of retail like Sony and Microsoft have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I think your argument is flawed. The estimated production cost of the 60GB PS3 is $840. $125 of that is spent on the Blu-Ray drive, only 15% of the total production cost - a good bit less than the 37.5% you think it costs. Because obviously Sony didn't inflate the cost of the blueray drive when it hit the stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 A lot of people are talking about the price point and the power. The argument seems to be that if Nintendo had included more graphical power the price would have gone up. Well I believe the Gamecube had a starting price of £150, £30 less than the Wii, and for it's time was far more graphically impressive than the Wii. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solitanze Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 We live in an INFERIOR society. Hence Wii being inferior as is the whole entertainment industry (Including Xbox360 and Playstation 3). They are all inferior systems. They can release so much better than what were getting, but if they do, what can they release next, having the perfect product and then an attempted successor that tries to surpass its predecessor will lead to one result, DECLINE. The whole entertainment industry as a whole is INFERIOR though. Worst era of music on record, atrocious music if thats even what it is, movie quality heavily declining and the same for video games. Of course there are exceptions but generally the standard being set is mediocrity is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0Zm1c Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 A lot of people are talking about the price point and the power. The argument seems to be that if Nintendo had included more graphical power the price would have gone up. Well I believe the Gamecube had a starting price of £150, £30 less than the Wii, and for it's time was far more graphically impressive than the Wii. Try £50 less. The Gamecube was £130 at launch. You're forgetting that miniaturised technology is more expensive to produce though. The Wii isn't that much bigger than a standard PC optical drive unit, yet there is obviously much more inside its case than just an optical drive. In fact, if they hadn't run into stability issues with the drive during the console's development, it would have been even smaller. I do agree that the Wii at best seems only as powerful as the Gamecube. And I don't believe that what we've seen of other games, such as Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, proves otherwise. I don't see it as a problem myself though. It's obvious that the Wii's focus is its controllers, not its graphics. Nintendo have been telling us this for ages. Because I don't value increased visual quality as much as you graphics whores () I guess it's been much easier for me to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I just like my games to look pretty when I play them, forgive me for being a tad disappointed when after waiting 4-5 years for the Wii, the graphics show no change from the Gamecube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fukudasolokomalakikenanze Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I just like my games to look pretty when I play them, forgive me for being a tad disappointed when after waiting 4-5 years for the Wii, the graphics show no change from the Gamecube. The Wii released on the 8th December in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yes it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khilafah Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 although disappointed with the Wii graphics it is more the software that worries me. I purchased a Japanese 360 instead of a Wii yesterday (£200) as I really am unsure how the Wii Software will line-up over the next 12 months. Mario and Metroid is what will be the turning point for me. I love Zelda on my cousins Wii but Wii Sports bored me after 2 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0Zm1c Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I just like my games to look pretty when I play them I see. And that explains why you have, and will always have, such a big problem with the Wii. I suggest you just stick with your 360, if you have one? If you haven't, get one. You'll like it a lot. And when Crysis arrives, if you can afford it, you might want to get yourself a top-spec PC with a quad core CPU and DirectX10 graphics card. It'll be a graphics whore's wet dream come true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I just like my games to look pretty when I play them, forgive me for being a tad disappointed when after waiting 4-5 years for the Wii, the graphics show no change from the Gamecube. That's how I feel too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0Zm1c Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That's how I feel too. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pit-Jr Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Why do you have such a problem with us feeling let down that games on the Wii look like games on gamecube? It's called an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabookerman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 So we have established that the Wii graphics are shit, then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motion Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That the gameplay on it's first batch of games is quite good but we may be looking at a bit of a draught... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabookerman Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That the gameplay on it's first batch of games is quite good but we may be looking at a bit of a draught... I see, but then, this is like any old Nintendo console. Take away the Nintendo games, and you have a pretty poor library. At present the industry is still working on the basis on what has sold the most worldwide. Until the Wii catches up with the 360, it will be more of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts