What would you have rather had....new gameplay or amazing graphics?

[quote name='himsahealer']The Wii is a great little console with some great games already, but it's hard for me to look at the games on it. I know graphics aren't everything, but imagine Zelda:Twilight Princess on a Nintendo system with the specs of either the 360 or PS3.[/quote]

I love this post and for me it's absolutely true. I was drolling over the prospect of next-generation Zeldas and Metroids and Kid Icaras and original IP-both for the jaw dropping graphics, and for all the new gameplay we'd be getting. (I'm also perfectly comfortable saying the Gamecube's phenomenal GRAPHICS are part of why I've enjoyed it so much. Pikmen, Luigi's Mansion, Wind Waker, Starfox Adventures, Super Mario Sunshine, and Resident Evil remake are all games that had clear-cut superior graphics. Just amazing stuff that really pulled me in, and I was still oogling by the end of the game.)

I'm also afraid of the same thing in regards to mini-games and the Wiimote-that's what I've seen on the DS. It's a FANTASTIC system, but IMO it's best games, that games I want to play, really don't use the touch screen. I love Wario Ware and multiplayer Mario Party, but that's the extent of my tolerance for mini-games.

What really bothers me is this idea that a new controller is what it takes for innovation. As though we aren't constantly seeing innovation through the years using evolving controller designs.

Better hardware isn't just about better graphics-it's also about being able to do new types of games. More immersive worlds, all kinds of stuff that wasn't possible before. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy 7, Resident Evil, Panzer Dragoon Saga and Zelda OoT weren't possible on the previous systems. Deus Ex, Morrowind, and Grand Theft Auto weren't possible on the PS1 generation. Oblivion wasn't possible on the previous systems. We haven't yet seen what amazing game innovations will come about from the extra power the 360 and PS3 provide. Sure, it starts out largely with better looking games that play similarly to the old ones, but five years from now new gameplay ideas will be common that weren't really dreamed of on the PS2/Gamecube generation.

So claiming a new controller is what it takes for innovation is at best a completely untested theory, and deceitful, as new hardware DOES lead to innovation. The Wiimote MAY, but it'll take a few years for us to figure out with the Wiimote is basically a gimick, or something truly great.

But the Nintendo games I love aren't the mini-games. I love the epic games like Zelda and Mario...
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I love Nintendo, but this new direction scares me. I'm not interested in "casual" games. I don't want quick gameplay experiences, or mini-games, or what have you. I want a rich, deep experience from a game that pulls me in. The Nintendo and Gamecube games that I love are exactly contrary to what Nintendo's stance is now. In fact, I HATED console games until the NES, until Zelda and Metroid, because deep gameplay is what I've always looked for. Metroid, Zelda, Super Mario Bros., more recently Eternal Darkness, Pikmen, Paper Mario, etc. That level of innovation and great, deep gameplay is what I want from Nintendo. Not brain training games you're supposed to pick up for a few minutes a day. Not games that are essentially like Flash games you'd play on your PC for free (but don't because they're boring).

I'm not saying there isn't a market for that-that maybe it's even a good thing Nintendo is doing this, if they're successful in bringing even more people to games. I'm just saying it's not for me.

Rare and Silicon Knights have both already expressed displeasure in Nintendo's new direction. Both have said it had something to do with their split from the company.

[quote name='rickonker']All the Wii fanboys always make it sound like you can only have good graphics or good gameplay, pick one. Obviously most people would pick gameplay in that case, but why the fuck can't you have both? This is the problem I believe I, the OP, and some others have.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree. It's a false choice. Every generation has always brought us better graphics AND innovative new gameplay. Richer game worlds.

[quote name='Mookyjooky']... Of course I'd rather have better gameplay over graphics, hell, I have a DVD cover project for the Sega Saturn running, some of the crappiest graphics ever get churned out of that system... Panzer Dragoon SAGA looks like garbage, but its still one of the best games of all time... Imagine if it was made on the N64, jeezus! [/quote]

I'm being super nit-picky here, but I disagree with this specific point. Personally on the whole I hated the N64 "look"-the low resolution textures, bluryness, etc. There were some great exceptions (mostly from Nintendo and Rare), but by and large I preferred the output from both the Saturn and Playstation. I also love 2D art, which both systems had much more of.

To me personally, I think Panzer Dragoon Saga would have looked worse on the N64...or at least it would have been a huge challenge getting it on there. It's a fantastic looking game relative to when it came out, and yeah, it is just a phenomenal game.

The biggest problem with PDS is I couldn't go back to the "regular" Panzer Dragoon gameplay afterwards. I couldn't enjoy Panzer Dragoon on the X-Box because the whole time I'm just wishing it were a sequel (or even just port) of Panzer Dragoon Saga.
Same problem with the Castlevania series after Symphony of the Night. Can't go back to a normal action game after that!

[quote name='himsahealer']I seriously played the Pokemon Red and Blue when I was in like 5th grade. I am now 19. When is this series going to stop? I don't mind things that have a kiddy vibe, but these games have never been good since the Gameboy and N64 days.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. Pokemon is pretty original (oh oh, yet another game that was innovative without a new control pad...that's NOT POSSIBLE! :lol: ). I'm personally not a huge fan (though I did sink > 128 hours into the first one). But personally I'd still be more tempted by a new Pokemon game than a new world war 2 shooter, just because the gameplay and graphics/theme interest me more.

[quote name='angrywolf']I'm playing the original Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation right now for the first time and I'm having a blast, so, I couldn't care any less what the graphics look like as long as the games are FUN.[/QUOTE]

And you couldn't have played Metal Gear Solid if the industry had decided that the SNES was good enough, and they'd release a U-Force controller standard instead of a new system with a standard pad. Using most any game like that is a terrible example, because

-for it's time Metal Gear Solid had phenomenal graphics (and the direction is still one of the best games ever made)
-the gameplay wouldn't have been possible without better hardware.
 
Three things.

1. Please no one ever again say "What would Zelda look like on the 360/PS3?" There are two reasons for this. The first is that the game looks awesome already. The second is that people have bitched endlessly about how long it took the game to come out, when Nintendo frankly said point-blank "If we try to do a realistic game, it will take much longer to develop due to the graphics." Then they do just that and people still bitch.

This sort of mentality has pervaded around for a while now and it's just tired. You can't have everything. Moving Zelda onto a more powerful machine would have required a drastic overhaul for graphics, and would have pissed people off more, etc etc etc.

This is the fundamental problem with "more powur and teh graf-x." The better they can get, the longer they take to create. And on top of that, the more expensive development comes. It doesn't help that the majority of the extra horsepower available to a developer will be splurged away on graphics, and not huge revelations in gameplay.

The best solution to this is, of course, licensing engines out. Which I am amazed does not happen more in the console arena, but that is a different debate entirely.

2. I think the last people in the world to listen to in the gaming development community are Rare and Silicon Knights. That is, until they get their f*cking act together and actually release a game in less than 3-4 years per game. These are the kinds of guys who complain about Nintendo only after they took their separate paths, when in reality they were just pissing around because they were more worried about releasing an uber-looking game so that their image would be solidified in everyone's head.

But then they release something that looks pretty good, but ultimately doesn't compare to something released 1-2 years before it, and it doesn't live up to the hype it created.

3. I'm amazed people didn't read "graphics aren't important" as "graphics aren't important over gameplay, and should be considered a bonus." Especially from the Nintendo crowd. This has been standard Nintendo-think for both the company and its fans for.....ever now. I can understand the problem in semantics, but damn.

Some of you actually thought people wouldn't like the Wii to have awesome graphics? 'Cuz I would, personally, but I'd rather have 1) the system now, 2) the system at the price I paid, and 3) no more delays on games because the dev process takes longer because everyone is worried about bumpmapping grass and using....beizure curve lightmotron shaders that employ....Linguinian ....fixtures. Yeah.
 
[quote name='Puppy']
Better hardware isn't just about better graphics-it's also about being able to do new types of games.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. It seems like there are basically two types of Nintendo fans - the kind that likes them for their epic games that really draw you in, and the kind that likes the minigames and rehashes. The epic game fans are moving on to newer consoles and games that improve on what brought them to Nintendo in the first place. The other group seems like they're sticking with Nintendo in minigame hell forever.

Maybe it makes good business sense for Nintendo to go in this direction, but it's just not as exciting. In the first post I made here on CAG after getting a Wii I talked about how the controller seems great when you play Wii Sports, but then when you play Zelda it's not such a big deal. This is how it's going to be for the rest of the console's life, let's face it. One exception may be first person shooters, but so far they've sucked and there aren't many of them coming in the future.

The hype for the Wii's controller was overwhelming. It was supposed to change gaming forever. It's been less than a month and we can already tell it's not as big a deal as we thought it would be. The Wii's future release list isn't promising either. I took a risk in buying a Wii, and I'm not planning on selling it. Still, when the number one prospects for the Wii's future are Sam and Max, the Virtual Console, and the usual Nintendo franchises, is anybody really expecting Wii games to break much new ground?

The Wii and the DS are backwards-facing consoles. Retro-style games are the focus. Obviously a lot of those games were great, but when is real progress going to be made? A new controller for yet another Super Smash Bros. game isn't it.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love Sam and Max, but revolutionary it ain't.
 
Wow.

A whole month to judge console's entire lifespan.

Are you not allowed to operate certain kinds of machinery? Like can openers and pencil sharpeners?
 
[quote name='Strell']
1. Please no one ever again say "What would Zelda look like on the 360/PS3?"[/quote]

I don't think we're talking about THIS version of Zelda. It would be silly for them to scrap it and rebuild it from scratch for a next gen system. But really we're presumably talking about a Zelda game after that. And plus when I think about it, I'm thinking of more open ended worlds, etc. besides just better graphics. This Zelda looks great from what I've seen, but it's probably already about the peak of what Wii can do, and it's a launch game.

...It doesn't help that the majority of the extra horsepower available to a developer will be splurged away on graphics, and not huge revelations in gameplay.
Click to expand...

As per my earlier post, that's a false claim IMO. We continue to see new gameplay every generation. There's no reason that would change now.

The best solution to this is, of course, licensing engines out. Which I am amazed does not happen more in the console arena, but that is a different debate entirely.
Click to expand...

I think it's starting to happen more now that the consoles can run Unreal 3.0 and Doom 3 and Source and stuff like that. For whatever reason the Japanese companies don't seem to be as big on that, though they're still of course developing their own internal technology and I'm sure reusing that every game, which might even be cheaper in the long run.

2. I think the last people in the world to listen to in the gaming development community are Rare and Silicon Knights. That is, until they get their f*cking act together and actually release a game in less than 3-4 years per game. These are the kinds of guys who complain about Nintendo only after they took their separate paths, when in reality they were just pissing around because they were more worried about releasing an uber-looking game so that their image would be solidified in everyone's head.
Click to expand...

That's just bogus to say that. What proof do you have of that? Why would both companies say the same thing, and both be lying? Both specifically said they parted with Nintendo because they see the future of games as deeper, immersive gameplay, storytelling, etc., while Nintendo is moving off on this mini-game less immersive, quick play type thing.

Sorry, but developing something as amazing as Eternal Darkness earns you some trust and credit.

3. I'm amazed people didn't read "graphics aren't important" as "graphics aren't important over gameplay, and should be considered a bonus." Especially from the Nintendo crowd. This has been standard Nintendo-think for both the company and its fans for.....ever now. I can understand the problem in semantics, but damn.

Some of you actually thought people wouldn't like the Wii to have awesome graphics? 'Cuz I would, personally, but I'd rather have 1) the system now, 2) the system at the price I paid, and 3) no more delays on games because the dev process takes longer because everyone is worried about bumpmapping grass and using....beizure curve lightmotron shaders that employ....Linguinian ....fixtures. Yeah.
Click to expand...

What's bugged me and others is that because Nintendo quits the technology race, according to fanbois all of a sudden technology doesn't matter, and somehow hinders (rather than the reality-helps) gameplay. You wouldn't hear ANY of this talk from the fanbois if Nintendo had released a next generation system (and I think they at least had one in the works-Matt over on IGN kept talking about several possible designs including one with a modern GPU and two PowerPC 970 CPUs). As a fan of Nintendo-at least of "classic" Nintendo stuff, I'd MUCH rather have that system and the promise of what Nintendo could bring to the world with next gen power.
 
[quote name='Puppy']
What's bugged me and others is that because Nintendo quits the technology race, according to fanbois all of a sudden technology doesn't matter, and somehow hinders (rather than the reality-helps) gameplay. You wouldn't hear ANY of this talk from the fanbois if Nintendo had released a next generation system (and I think they at least had one in the works-Matt over on IGN kept talking about several possible designs including one with a modern GPU and two PowerPC 970 CPUs). As a fan of Nintendo-at least of "classic" Nintendo stuff, I'd MUCH rather have that system and the promise of what Nintendo could bring to the world with next gen power.[/QUOTE]

I think the Wii is overall an interesting choice. Graphics and technology can only go so far so fast. I'd reason that the PS3 is ahead in both categories where most consumers can manage. This is evident in the system's price (new technology = more $$$) and in the reaction against the system by Wii60 fans.

I trust Nintendo to make good games. I trusted them with the SNES, I trusted them with the N64. I skipped the GC generation myself, but regained that trust with the DS, and now with the Wii... I've gotten to a point where the games look "good enough" for me on the Wii. Do I need HD graphics? Nope. As long as the games are fun (and in this case, cheaper than the other 2 consoles), I'll keep playing my Wii.

It's really up to Nintendo and 3rd party developers to make the Wii a winning system based on games rather than the console itself.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I agree with this. It seems like there are basically two types of Nintendo fans - the kind that likes them for their epic games that really draw you in, and the kind that likes the minigames and rehashes. The epic game fans are moving on to newer consoles and games that improve on what brought them to Nintendo in the first place. The other group seems like they're sticking with Nintendo in minigame hell forever.

Maybe it makes good business sense for Nintendo to go in this direction, but it's just not as exciting. In the first post I made here on CAG after getting a Wii I talked about how the controller seems great when you play Wii Sports, but then when you play Zelda it's not such a big deal. This is how it's going to be for the rest of the console's life, let's face it. One exception may be first person shooters, but so far they've sucked and there aren't many of them coming in the future.

The hype for the Wii's controller was overwhelming. It was supposed to change gaming forever. It's been less than a month and we can already tell it's not as big a deal as we thought it would be. The Wii's future release list isn't promising either. I took a risk in buying a Wii, and I'm not planning on selling it. Still, when the number one prospects for the Wii's future are Sam and Max, the Virtual Console, and the usual Nintendo franchises, is anybody really expecting Wii games to break much new ground?

The Wii and the DS are backwards-facing consoles. Retro-style games are the focus. Obviously a lot of those games were great, but when is real progress going to be made? A new controller for yet another Super Smash Bros. game isn't it.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love Sam and Max, but revolutionary it ain't.[/QUOTE]

These are all GREAT points. Thinking about it, in a way Nintendo has always had these two sides. The Nintendo I love has brought us the Zeldas, Pikmins, and Metroids of the worlds. Really rich game experiences. But even back on the NES there was also the Zapper, Rob, moving forward we've got the Gameboy Printer and camera, the Virtual Boy, the bongos, etc. Some of those are neat peripherals, but largely the stuff made fro them was of a different class than the Nintendo I love.

With Wii, it seems like the "gimicky gadget" side of Nintendo has won out. I hope we still see some great, rich games, but if we do I have a feeling it will be DESPITE Wii's controller and current-gen hardware, not because of it.
That's already exactly what's happened on the DS. The games that really use the touch screen are a different type from what I want. The DS has TONS of great games, but not one of them that I care about or own uses the touch screen in any real way (or couldn't have been done as well or better on the PSP for that matter).

I guess I'm sick of being told that I shouldn't want to play a complex, involving game, that the future is a game played in bursts on a new controller.
 
Umm... why is Rare offering an opinion on anything? They're owned by Microsoft, have been long before Nintendo announced the concept of the Wii, and Nintendo was certainly not all about mini-games and whatnot with the GameCube and before. And regardless of what Nintendo the publisher wants, developers are free to make their own quality games of any type, and it's not as if Nintendo is going to say "Oh, this is a nice quality game you made here, but unfortunately we're aiming for the mini-game demographic, so a 70 hour RPG just isn't going to cut it on this system. Your game is denied."

Can we set up a sub-forum for console war-related threads? If you feel that HD graphics and whatnot provide more innovative gameplay, awesome, you are all set with two of the three consoles. If you feel that buying a new expensive console only provides you with more of the same and want to go a different route, you are all set with the remaining console. If you're somewhere in between, hi, there are three consoles to choose from, get any or all of them.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I think the Wii is overall an interesting choice. Graphics and technology can only go so far so fast. I'd reason that the PS3 is ahead in both categories where most consumers can manage. This is evident in the system's price (new technology = more $$$) and in the reaction against the system by Wii60 fans. [/quote]

"Wii60" people are just biased fanbois. It has nothing to do with technology or anything else. If Playstation 3 was a Nintendo console and Wii was a Sony console, they'd be singing the praises of PS3 and bashing Wii left and right.

I trust Nintendo to make good games. I trusted them with the SNES, I trusted them with the N64. I skipped the GC generation myself, but regained that trust with the DS, and now with the Wii... I've gotten to a point where the games look "good enough" for me on the Wii. Do I need HD graphics? Nope. As long as the games are fun (and in this case, cheaper than the other 2 consoles), I'll keep playing my Wii.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to play games with less than current-gen graphics-heck, I've owned 40+ GBA games, and Playstation 2 games have looked terrible technically for years compared to PC stuff. But I'm certainly going to be more excited about a game if it looks great in addition to playing great.
And like I keep saying, it's not just the graphics. There are already games on the next generation systems that can't ever be done on the Wii (just as there are PSP games that can't ever be done on the DS). That's going to become more and more obvious as time goes on. It's not outside the realm of possibility that a new controller will somehow lead to new types of deep gameplay, but it's a leap of faith. The evidence from every single past console cycle shows new hardware=new gameplay that wasn't possible before (or just wouldn't have been thought of because it was harder).
 
[quote name='botticus']Umm... why is Rare offering an opinion on anything? They're owned by Microsoft, have been long before Nintendo announced the concept of the Wii, and Nintendo was certainly not all about mini-games and whatnot with the GameCube and before. And regardless of what Nintendo the publisher wants, developers are free to make their own quality games of any type, and it's not as if Nintendo is going to say "Oh, this is a nice quality game you made here, but unfortunately we're aiming for the mini-game demographic, so a 70 hour RPG just isn't going to cut it on this system. Your game is denied."[/QUOTE]

Actually that WAS an issue for both Rare and Silicon Knights, as both were operating as first or second parties to Nintendo, not third parties.

And both WERE privy to Nintendo's direction long before we were for the same reason. They've both said things to the effect that they didn't feel they were a good match anymore for the new Nintendo.

The "old" Nintendo was a GREAT match for both companies though IMO as all three did polished games, and both evolutionary and sometimes revolutionary gameplay (but DEEP gameplay).
 
Strange that Nintendo second-party developers still make games like Fire Emblem even for the apparently-doomed-to-be-mini-games-galore Wii (8 such games announced over the first 5 months of games? Heavens!). Ah well.
 
[quote name='botticus']Strange that Nintendo second-party developers still make games like Fire Emblem even for the apparently-doomed-to-be-mini-games-galore Wii (8 such games announced over the first 5 months of games? Heavens!). Ah well.[/QUOTE]

Intelligent Systems? They're first party. What I'm afraid of is games like those will be the exception rather than the rule...

and regardless I'd rather have Intelligent Systems get to play with Playstation 3 class hardware than a current-gen class system.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']I can overlook the Wii graphics if Nintendo pumps out the games like they do on the DS[/quote]QFT.

The DS shows Nintendo's new philosophy's better than any keynote address or press release. The proof is in the pudding.

In two years, the DS went from at best confusing to at worst laughable, to being my overall favorite game system ever. Why? Not because it has two screens, not because it has a touch screen, but because of the games.

Some of my favorite DS games wouldn't be possible on another system with the way it uses the touch screen. Some could have easily been on a home console, PSP, or even the GBA. I suspect that the Wii will be the same way. Some of the best games will use the controller in awesome ways, some will be just rockin', classic style games.

In the end, I don't want gameplay or graphics. I want fun, of which both gameplay and graphics can and do contribute or detract. Any of the big 3 can produce "fun" and I suspect all of them will, in likely different ways.

But, for now, I can only afford the Wii in the realm of home consoles so that's what I look forward to at the moment.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']I can overlook the Wii graphics if Nintendo pumps out the games like they do on the DS[/QUOTE]

It's the main reason I bought the Wii. That, and the fact that Nintendo 1st party games are usually worth it themselves.
 
Yea and I honestly think if Nintendo made a system similar in graphics to the 360/PS3, we would get a few great Nintendo games every now and then.

But look how many games nintendo has put out on the DS. By going with the gameplay over graphics, I believe it will give Nintendo the ability to pump out the games faster. Lets face it, a lot of people buy Nintendo systems for the games made by Nintendo.

Combine this with the fact that the Wii is a lot more appealing to play by non-gamers, I see it as a great move by Nintendo. They took a chance on the DS and it worked out, and things are looking to go similar here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really see the Wii as a big DS. I wish Nintendo the best of luck in this generation.

(ps, I want Pokemon Snap on the VC....NOW!)
 
[quote name='seanr1221']
But look how many games nintendo has put out on the DS. By going with the gameplay over graphics, I believe it will give Nintendo the ability to pump out the games faster. [/quote]

I don't buy it for a second. If this was true, then we would have seen tons of first party games on the SNES, and the N64, and the Gamecube. Nintendo releases stuff at a trickle most of the time for their big systems. I seriously doubt we'll see any more games for the Wii than we would have for a Gamecube 2 (with the exception of simple Brain Age/puzzle esque games).

So far they haven't done anything to make it seem they'll be releasing games faster on the Wii.

(ps, I want Pokemon Snap on the VC....NOW!)
Click to expand...

I want a new Pokemon Snap with an open ended game world. The first game was nifty, but super short. Made me want something where you're actually out exploring, trying to find these great shots.
 
[quote name='Puppy']I don't buy it for a second. If this was true, then we would have seen tons of first party games on the SNES, and the N64, and the Gamecube. Nintendo releases stuff at a trickle most of the time for their big systems. I seriously doubt we'll see any more games for the Wii than we would have for a Gamecube 2 (with the exception of simple Brain Age/puzzle esque games).

So far they haven't done anything to make it seem they'll be releasing games faster on the Wii.
[/quote]That doesn't make any sense. The SNES, N64, and GameCube were pretty much on the "cutting edge" of console development, so it wasn't cheap relatively speaking. It wasn't as if Nintendo had the capability of making actual 3D on the SNES, but stuck to 2D so they could focus on other aspects of gaming and keep costs down. I don't think this means anything going forward with the Wii, but previous consoles aren't valid anecdotal evidence either.
 
[quote name='Strell']Wow.

A whole month to judge console's entire lifespan.

Are you not allowed to operate certain kinds of machinery? Like can openers and pencil sharpeners?[/quote]

I don't think this is a bad thing at all. In my opinion the WII isn't designed to have a long lifespan like the 360 and PS3. Once HDTV's become more available to everyone, i can see Nintendo bring out another system with the 2nd generation of motion control and the upgraded graphics. Might be wrong but that is what i am thinking.
 
imo great gameplay is the priority, but graphics should't be discarded. I haven't gotten ahold of a wii yet, been busy every sunday that my local cc has them. There is nothing wrong with trying a new approach and having minimal improvements on the graphics from the last gen. But based on the reviews of the wii games, granted it was only the launch, but it doesn't seem like there is a ton of games with great gameplay either
 
[quote name='Puppy']I don't think we're talking about THIS version of Zelda. It would be silly for them to scrap it and rebuild it from scratch for a next gen system. But really we're presumably talking about a Zelda game after that. And plus when I think about it, I'm thinking of more open ended worlds, etc. besides just better graphics. This Zelda looks great from what I've seen, but it's probably already about the peak of what Wii can do, and it's a launch game.
[/Quote]

Point taken.

As per my earlier post, that's a false claim IMO. We continue to see new gameplay every generation. There's no reason that would change now.
Click to expand...

There's nothing that absolutely confirms innovation will arise either.

That's just bogus to say that. What proof do you have of that? Why would both companies say the same thing, and both be lying? Both specifically said they parted with Nintendo because they see the future of games as deeper, immersive gameplay, storytelling, etc., while Nintendo is moving off on this mini-game less immersive, quick play type thing.
Click to expand...

I don't need proof because when you work for a company who is paying you millions to both develop your games and beef up your salary with bonuses for exclusitivity, you sing praises about them no matter what the cost is. This is standard fair in any industry. To suggest that someone on X's payroll only agrees with X and not Y and Z is so obvious it hurts my eyes. Which is why we saw a 180 degree turn the second both of those companies were out the gate.

Now maybe there is a possibility they wanted to do their own thing. But that's ludicrous - Nintendo pretty much let them do their own thing. Starfox Adventures notwithstanding, when it takes you 4-5 years to develop a game and it runs across 2 consoles, you're just not pulling your damn weight.

What's bugged me and others is that because Nintendo quits the technology race, according to fanbois all of a sudden technology doesn't matter, and somehow hinders (rather than the reality-helps) gameplay. You wouldn't hear ANY of this talk from the fanbois if Nintendo had released a next generation system (and I think they at least had one in the works-Matt over on IGN kept talking about several possible designs including one with a modern GPU and two PowerPC 970 CPUs). As a fan of Nintendo-at least of "classic" Nintendo stuff, I'd MUCH rather have that system and the promise of what Nintendo could bring to the world with next gen power.
Click to expand...

But the PROBLEM with this ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that it basically sounds like "Wahh wahh I want awesome graphics with my neato Wiimote."

Nintendo got shot down pretty heavily with the N64. It might have sold 30 million worldwide and been profitable, but it started their inevitable downfall from the perch they sat upon. So they tried to combat it with the Gamecube, which was just a powerful machine with their first-party games.

They made some mistakes, but the point is that it didn't compete well with the PS2, and could barely handle the Xbox.

Meaning there's no damn reason for them to just be the third person out there with a system that pumps out HD graphics under the delusional hope that they are going to survive based solely on Mario and Zelda. That just isn't going to happen. If they'd made a GC2, they'd be dead last this generation by an even bigger gap than the last one. But they chose something different and they've already showed huge increases in momentum, developer support, and image in the public eye.

The smartest thing Nintendo has done is totally ignore all of this ridiculous banter on the 'net from the "hardcore" sector, because inevitably we're an unhappy lot and never satisfied with what we get. No matter how high profile a game is, we can always find things about it we wish were different/fixed/polished/etc.

And I say AGAIN, to everyone who consistently says "Nintendo just wants mini-games," you are insane. Absolutely insane. We have no proof of that. There's...what, 3 games from Nintendo right now on the Wii, and one of them is massive. The best argument you have is that "well Gamestop.com only shows Warioware and Wii Play on the horizon." Wow. That's just pathetic.

It's like looking at the color of a book and deciding you don't like it.

Wait a goddamn year, like I've suggested at least a billion times on this board, and THEN we can have this discussion. Taking things to an extreme like this is amazingly shortsighted.
 
[quote name='botticus']That doesn't make any sense. The SNES, N64, and GameCube were pretty much on the "cutting edge" of console development, so it wasn't cheap relatively speaking. It wasn't as if Nintendo had the capability of making actual 3D on the SNES, but stuck to 2D so they could focus on other aspects of gaming and keep costs down. I don't think this means anything going forward with the Wii, but previous consoles aren't valid anecdotal evidence either.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, good point. I guess that could be one reason they release more on the DS and (formerly) GBA. Although it could just be they're more successful, or they're willing to do 2D games that are maybe easier to develop?

But...I don't buy that there's a sudden change now. Like that they could only release x games last year on Gamecube, but next year will get x+20 on Wii. I'd LOVE to see more Nintendo games (if they're the kinds of games I want), but I'm not holding my breath.

Plus, hypothetically it would be cheaper still to develop for PS3 but give it Gamecube level graphics, so that kind of negates the power argument.
 
[quote name='Strell']There's nothing that absolutely confirms innovation will arise either. [/quote]

To me there is. Every single generation has seen it. Atari 2600 -> NES -> SNES -> Playstation -> Playstation 2.

Every single generation has brought about tons of new gameplay that wouldn't have been possible before, and I dont' see any reason that would change now. Oblivion's already the first example of that, and there are probably more (and certainly will be within a year or two).

I don't need proof because when you work for a company who is paying you millions to both develop your games and beef up your salary with bonuses for exclusitivity, you sing praises about them no matter what the cost is. This is standard fair in any industry. To suggest that someone on X's payroll only agrees with X and not Y and Z is so obvious it hurts my eyes. Which is why we saw a 180 degree turn the second both of those companies were out the gate.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I mean normally I'd agree with you, but in both interviews they seemed candid about it, and neither bashed Nintendo, just said their goals weren't the same anymore. And both were specifically talking about why they changed. Plus nothing they said didn't make sense, and with Rare especially it was clear something was up years before the sale. So we can't prove it's not just garbage, but to me it really rang true.

Now maybe there is a possibility they wanted to do their own thing. But that's ludicrous - Nintendo pretty much let them do their own thing. Starfox Adventures notwithstanding, when it takes you 4-5 years to develop a game and it runs across 2 consoles, you're just not pulling your damn weight.
Click to expand...

IMO that's not really fair, as IMO it was Rare carrying Nintendo's weight on the N64. It was always Rare that had to prop up the holidays, that had most of the big games. They've pretty much said the low output at the end of their relationship is because of turmoil with Nintendo and then Microsoft courting them, etc. Yeah they could be lying, but it all fits together in hind site IMO.

Nintendo got shot down pretty heavily with the N64. It might have sold 30 million worldwide and been profitable, but it started their inevitable downfall from the perch they sat upon. So they tried to combat it with the Gamecube, which was just a powerful machine with their first-party games.

They made some mistakes, but the point is that it didn't compete well with the PS2, and could barely handle the Xbox.
Click to expand...

This is just me making this up out of thing air, but I've long felt the Gamecube would have done really really well if the X-Box hadn't existed. A lot of X-Box exclusives (like Sega's games) would have hit the Gamecube instead probably. It would have only been a two way race, and Nintendo would have had the clear technological superiority. It was harder to trumpet that when the X-Box was "just as good but better" in terms of hardware.

I really think without the X-Box Gamecube would have had at least 30-50% of the market world wide. I think the DS and especially Wii are sort of moves of desperation-though not just because of market position, but also because they might not have the resources (or be willing to spend them) to compete on an equal technological footing. In the case of the Playstation Portable, analysts have said Sony was the only company on Earth in a position to design and release hardware that advanced that was that small. DS struck me as a quick response and an experiment that succeeded and led to them trying to duplicate the same thing again with their "big" system.

Meaning there's no damn reason for them to just be the third person out there with a system that pumps out HD graphics under the delusional hope that they are going to survive based solely on Mario and Zelda. That just isn't going to happen. If they'd made a GC2, they'd be dead last this generation by an even bigger gap than the last one. But they chose something different and they've already showed huge increases in momentum, developer support, and image in the public eye.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right. They probably had to do this, but it's not what I wish had happened. Without Microsoft we'd all be talking about Gamecube 2, and this uber open ended adventure game Nintendo was rumored to be developing, and whether those Kid Icaras screen shots were real.

And I'm not sure if long term this is sustainable. Sony already stole half of what makes Wii unique. Long term they won't have much of a price advantage over 360 and PS3, etc. So I guess partly I'm unconcerned about that, and yeah, partly I just wish I got to see what Nintendo was going to do with next-gen hardware. Somehow I think Nintendo would do more interesting things with a Playstation 3 than Electronic Arts :D

And I say AGAIN, to everyone who consistently says "Nintendo just wants mini-games," you are insane. Absolutely insane. We have no proof of that. There's...what, 3 games from Nintendo right now on the Wii, and one of them is massive. The best argument you have is that "well Gamestop.com only shows Warioware and Wii Play on the horizon." Wow. That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...

I think it's a really valid concern. Reaction (almost unintentionally said Wiiaction there :D ) to Zelda's controls seems mixed. The first person shooters, and Splinter Cell so far evidently work worse than a control pad. Basically the "big" titles don't seem to be much different so far, and the games that do seem to use it well (ie Monkeyball, Wii Sports, probably WarioWare) are basically mini-games.
Looking at the DS IMO it's the same situation after two years. Most/all the games I care about basically ignore the touch screen, with just what I would consider shallow games really able to embrace it.
That's been my concern since the Wiimote was unvieled, and I'm getting more convinced that's what's going to happen after actually seeing the launch titles.

Wait a goddamn year, like I've suggested at least a billion times on this board, and THEN we can have this discussion. Taking things to an extreme like this is amazingly shortsighted.
Click to expand...

Absolutely a good suggestion-though I do think there is some legit room for speculation.
 
Well this is always a subject that goes on forever, but with Nintendo, I think when they really try to make something that stands the test of time, Look at how long the NES lasted and the Gameboy, Everything including companies go through up and downs no one can stay down or up forever. I think Nintendo was home console wise going down slowly until rock bottom with N64, but Gamecube marked their Slow Return to the top, will the Wii put them on top again, I doubt it so far I love the Wii and I loved the Gamecube over my PS2 and xbox I once had, I think Nintendo is going to make tremedous profit this generation then the next gen just blow everyone away, Sony wants 10 years out of the PS3 and Microsoft who knows they have the deep pockets, So in 5 years Nintendo comes out with a new console with PS3/Xbox360 power maybe aliitle more and forces Sony to rush a new console like Microsoft kinda did with 360 I really think Microsoft rushed Sony. I think Nintendo will always Survive and Thrive regain the number 1 crown again, not sure. I just hope they never again get the lack of 3rd party support like they got with the gamecube. Last Gamecube graphically held its on and they didn't get the respect it deserved, because of the misconception I think of the lesser disc format storage.
 
Yeah if the Xbox didn't exist I probably would've bought a Gamecube. But the Gamecube was always cheaper than the other two and still wound up in last place which is pretty sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top