Amir0x said:
So, let me get this right. It's a good thing that Nintendo Revolution is drastically underpowered, because if it wasn't it would just get ports and nobody would do anything new/unique for Revolution?
...
Sounds about right. :|
That's really nice about most Nintendo games, but they're just one "little" company that happens to make awesome games. Without other companies that specialize in other types of games, the system is just going to be a Nintendo generator which because means it'll be garbage that only a select few people on Earth can appreciate. Gamecube was a step up from what had happened during N64, god forbid a scenario like that occurred again.
There a trillion games that can use the extra power to do all sorts of cool shit. Heck, the added power can even be used to provide interesting applications in conjunction with revmote. It's just a poor excuse. Nintendo can make what they want, and that's fine. But they should have added more power. Note: That doesn't mean Revolution won't be an extremely successful system. "Should have" just means the system will always suffer for it, in my eyes. Which is all that matters.
I have to disagree with your statement pertaining to the Revmote as an excuse. Anyone who knows a little bit about business strategy and operations knows that if Nintendo were to create a monster console AND attempt to create shocking new gameplay innovations they would be doing something called "straddling". For a decade or more, this industry has been about two things: getting the best graphics to showcase for all the graphic-whores who will buy your game no matter what and creating a gameplay experience that will cause people to obsessively buy your game.
I'll give you two examples of games that sold a lot on these philosophies: Doom 3 = Graphics example; Grant Theft Auto 3 = Gameplay example.
Doom 3's gameplay was not 5 generations ahead by any means but it sold pretty damn well on its prettyness if I'm not mistaken (or, at least, everyone wanted to play it and pirated it in response!).
Grand Theft Auto 3's gameplay was exactly what the mainstream player wanted, but I would hardly say that it catered to hardcore graphics whores:
Yet, somehow, it managed to sell stunning numbers and take the United States by storm because it was ahead of its time. The same could be said for Resident Evil 4, because while its pretty for console standards, I really think the gameplay/horror/cinematic elements coming together are what make that game ahead of its time.
Now back to my point. For a developer of a console to make a console that addresses both of these strategies efficiently is very, very difficult. I think it is obvious where the differences between the Revolution and the Playstation 3/Xbox 360 come up. The latter are designed to give the end user one thing that he definitely wants, the most advanced technological interface available in modernity. And I think the 360 and the PS3 especially are very good at doing that and will sell for that reason (although let's hear PS3's price first, it needs to be below $450 I think).
The Revolution, however, is designed to specifically address the gameplay issues of videogames that have come up. How many less people purchased the Grand Theft Auto for the PSP just because it was Grand Theft Auto? GTA3 was a game that SERIOUSLY sold PS2's to people, I will tell you without a doubt. I worked in Electronics Boutique during the time of its release, and I won't tell you how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of PS2's I sold to people just so they could play GTA3. One could argue that PSP is too much of a barrier for people to grab GTA because its a handheld with a high price point, but I think the real reason is the gameplay is now old and its no longer worth it to people. This is what Nintendo has chosen to address, the gameplay issue. Theoretically, all their games should sell a lot of copies based on what you can do in them, your freedom of movement. If that doesn't happen, Nintendo's got it wrong, but I wouldn't count their errors before E3.
Finally, explaining why it is impossible for Nintendo or for Sony/MSFT to go both routes is that in business, "straddling" is equivalent to doing activities which are not within one's best set of activities. I will agree that Sony and MSFT have some good game studios up their sleeve that definitely edit gameplay in good ways, but I would find it hard pressed to agree with an argument that Nintendo still isn't the best at innovation in gameplay mechanics, be it new technology or whatnot. They are the people that made Super Mario 64, the people the showed how an analog could be perfect for 3D games, rumble pack, etc. Its what Nintendo does best, and the GameCube itself I think shows that tech prowess
isn't what Nintendo does best.
There have been a million studies on what is called "straddling". Nintendo creating a console that is both ridiculously high powered and Nintendo researching what could be amazing technology that pushes the whole industry forward at the same time would be straddling. One example of straddling that has occurred was when United Airlines (I believe it was them) tried to copy Southwest's low-cost strategy in the U.S. market and failed miserably, because UA was better at offering airline perks and their customers knew them for that, and Southwest was perfect at low cost. A company simply cannot straddle safely. It has to dive head-on into whatever is the root of its strength.
Thus, I think your post that Nintendo should be able to offer its consumers both does not fall within the lines of rational business expectation. I bet you Sony's new Boomerang controller will try to show that it has some cool aspects to it at E3, but I bet you it won't be done nearly as well as the Revmote. These are two entirely different strategies to reach the same end: users. I think that up until now technology has won over more users on average than gameplay, so I think Sony definitely had it damn right the past two generations. But unless, Amirox, you are a fortune teller and can predict the trends of the upcoming years, I feel it is impossible to predict which avenue will see the most explosive growth in the upcoming generation. If I had to place my bet, I think the gameplay portion has the potential for more growth, although I don't think it would be a knockout punch by any means.
If you are a person who absolutely requires technological amazement in your console and don't accept the two routes philosophy, then you won't buy Revolution. But there are millions of game boy advance users/Nintendo DS users that clearly don't necessarily care about tech power that will disagree with you, and millions more tech geeks to disagree with them. I do not know that I know of any company which has tackled both innovation in core technology and advancement of cutting-edge technology at the same time. If you can point one out, however, go ahead.
