• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Any longterm Nintendo fans find the low tech route frustrating?

Dude, you are either a hilarious troll or someone who is blinded by nostalgia. Despite what your childhood may suggest, N64 and Gamecube were not good times for Nintendo. If you think Yamauchi would have done things differently with the Wii if he had known how much money he would be making you would be wrong. If Yamauchi was still involved we would probably have even less third party support, due to the games being on some weird format. Like micro sd cards or some weird shit. That is the man who kept console cartridges alive after they were past the time, and decided that Gamecube discs needed to be that small.

I have never met someone who hated Iwata so much, or revered Yamauchi that much. I get that there is some real respect for him, but he really just was a desperate business man who tried everything to make money after realizing how small the playing card game business was. Until Gunpei Yokoi and Shigeru Miyamoto made him a billionaire.

I think you have serious interpretation issues because I never said Yamauchi is perfect and I know he made serious mistakes and I never tried to eclipse them. What I said is that his business model regarding first-pary games quality are better than Iwata. But your bias toward Iwata is making hard for you to understand this and you're finding whatever argument you make from my words and try to put words on my mouth. Now, stop writing I'm a hilarious troll or nostalgia-driven. It won't make you look cool or make you look like you're always right, so back off with this childish attitude.

Iwata's entrance may not have been successful (which is comparable to how Obama entered in a weak economy), but he sure as heck turned it around with the Wii and DS.

Yamauchi did mistakes, no doubt, and I don't even question this, but your omission of Wii's sales drop in it's late life and 3DS overpricing, forcing Nintendo to do a premature price drop that made it being sold at a loss and making Nintendo to loose money for the first time in it's history (something that never happened during Yamauchi era, despite all his wrong doings) put the credibility of your opinion in check, so don't come with this "don't just use selective historical aspects to support your assumptions" on me.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I find it interesting that a lot of the "advances" you mentioned don't have anything to do with the actual act of playing games. Downloadable games, DLC, and F2P aren't legitimate additions to gaming. They're new marketing techniques. "DLC" has always existed in the form of expansion packs. They just changed the name and the delivery method slightly. I wouldn't call these things "generational improvements" because they have less to do with the actual playing of games and more to do with sales methods.

Before the Saturn/PS1/N64 generation, consoles did not do 3d games well. That generation legitimately brought 3d to the "good enough to be playable" point.

The original Xbox already did achievements and leaderboards well, and I'm really not seeing much of a difference in the robustness of the online experience of Xbox 1 games and Xbox 360 games. I agree with you that more games are doing it now, but it's not exactly anything new.

Even though that I think motion gaming is a good idea in principle, the actual implementations of it so far have been pretty bad. I can't think of a single great title that couldn't have been done as well or better using traditional controls. I would have enjoyed the Mario Galaxy games much more using traditional controllers.

ok
 
as long as Nintendo survives and thrives, it doesnt matter to me one bit. Nintendo is a synonym with video games, I hope the company lives forever. Tech races are waste of time. And the graphics in the new upcoming Wii U games look fine.

they should change their naming strategies though, wii u is a stupid ass name
 

one_kill

Member
I think you have serious interpretation issues because I never said Yamauchi is perfect and I know he made serious mistakes and I never tried to eclipse them. What I said is that his business model regarding first-pary games quality are better than Iwata. But your bias toward Iwata is making hard for you to understand this and you're finding whatever argument you make from my words and try to put words on my mouth. Now, stop writing I'm a hilarious troll or nostalgia-driven. It won't make you look cool or make you look like you're always right, so back off with this childish attitude.



Yamauchi did mistakes, no doubt, and I don't even question this, but your omission of Wii's sales drop in it's late life and 3DS overpricing, forcing Nintendo to do a premature price drop that made it being sold at a loss and making Nintendo to loose money for the first time in it's history (something that never happened during Yamauchi era, despite all his wrong doings) put the credibility of your opinion in check, so don't come with this "don't just use selective historical aspects to support your assumptions" on me.
ok

Stumpokapow :p
 

z0m3le

Banned
Wii is the only console from Nintendo I've ever had a technical problem with, but it is mostly because it was a gamecube. If they had bumped the specs enough to give 720p version of the best GCN games, like RE4 ect... It would have been enough for me, but you must understand, I have a high end PC and so all 3 consoles look inferior, and honestly I'm not sure how the other next gen consoles will stand up to my modern high end PC, rumors put their raw specs well behind it...

Honestly the gamecube was great from a power perspective, but it lacked innovation and turned out to be the most boring of all Nintendo consoles, despite several extremely well designed and fun games. It's biggest draw for me with the GBA connection games, and while they were amazing and offered something different and fun, it was hard to get a group of 4 people together with that system. Wii felt like a redesigned gamecube (in some ways it was) it's tech was lacking but everything else was extremely satisfying, the big problem with it came from a lack of online and HD, but the system itself was more entertaining.

Wii U might actually be enough tech for me, depending on how X turns out. It shows a graphical fidelity right now that matches the top end of previous gen efforts IMO, and if polished so that the few graphical problems are fixed, I'd say it easily climbs above those games, though obviously not in all aspects and mostly because of scale and that draw distance. Playing PC games I deal with an extremely wide verity of different graphic fidelity, one game might exceed anything I've seen before, while other simple but yet fun games look like they could of existed in a lost gen between Xbox and 360. The graphics don't really bother me as long as they are not blurry, low res efforts, I'm not going to scoff at it.

Nintendo might of gotten it right this time, I'll be playing the Wii U without thinking these games are ugly, because the level of fidelity is high enough now to simply be enough, meanwhile I'll be gawking at the high end graphics my current and next pc (I'm likely to upgrade in 2 years) will product, because seriously how likely is it that hardware 1/4th as powerful can produce something my pc can't keep up with.

XB3, if the rumored specs are true, it will be a step up over Wii U. Noticeable, and yet likely below the best my PC can do, still if it's quiet and priced right, I'll likely pick it up if microsoft starts releasing new games like lost odyssey that are not pc bound. (the reason I picked up the 360)

PS4, if the rumored specs are right, (and honestly other than a few details, they match the original target specs well) it will be the powerhouse next gen, 4GB of GDDR5 will allow effects and performance that 8GB DDR3 just can't match, not to mention the extra ~50% of GPU flipflops, and if the CPU rumor is right and they have a bit more power there over XB3 too, I don't think there should be much doubt that that system takes off with graphics that just excell, and even challenge my current PC (though I am upgrading in 2 years) Honestly I'd get the PS4, but the hardware seems pricier and I just don't enjoy the exclusives PS3 had (which obviously is an opinion) I've played all of them but the only ones I enjoyed was infamous and ps allstars, I actually sold my PS3 as I had a 360 already.

This gen is going to be exciting, because Wii U isn't hampered like the Wii was, it is a modern, though clearly looks like it will be the weakest by a fair amount (as expected) system, XB3 seems to be trying a middle ground approach and with those specs should easily be able to hit a $300 price tag, leaving the Wii U at the point where it needs a price drop. PS4 seems different, more expensive but also if you are chasing graphics, should compete at some level with high end PCs, not that they will exceed those PCs, but could at 1080p perform as well. (as long as you don't benchmark the same game vs 4TFLOP GPUs+)
 
Would you mind to clarify what you mean by bar raising development games, and why you are not including the games you mentioned at the end in this category. I don't see how Iwata's alledged management vision has anything to do with this. Did the Galaxy games for example on the Wii receive less attention from their developers because of this?

Also saying Nintendo Land is "not terrible" irks me as I find it to be pretty great but let's say that this is just personal opinion on this particular point.
There are less of the Galaxy type games than before. Resource allocation bro.
 

D.Lo

Member
Yamauchi did mistakes, no doubt, and I don't even question this, but your omission of Wii's sales drop in it's late life and 3DS overpricing, forcing Nintendo to do a premature price drop that made it being sold at a loss and making Nintendo to loose money for the first time in it's history (something that never happened during Yamauchi era, despite all his wrong doings) put the credibility of your opinion in check, so don't come with this "don't just use selective historical aspects to support your assumptions" on me.
Nintendo's losses, on a macro level, are due to Japan as a whole tanking and being wedged by China. All Japanese companies are hurting, Sony and Panasonic may even actually die.

Nintendo would have pushed the Wii's second half and early 3DS much harder in the US if they were a US company who didn't have to deal with wrecked margins due to the high yen.
 

bhlaab

Member
Not really, since it's a pretty big factor in why I'm not as much of a long term Nintendo fan anymore. So thus, it doesn't bother me as much.
 

Verano

Reads Ace as Lace. May God have mercy on their soul
If nintendo can make an affordable low tech (Wii U) system , they can make an affordable high tech(next gen) system compared to how highly priced the next gen systems from MS and Sony would be. Its possible.
 

Terrell

Member
If nintendo can make an affordable low tech (Wii U) system , they can make an affordable high tech(next gen) system compared to how highly priced the next gen systems from MS and Sony would be. Its possible.

The problem there is, yeah, it EVENTUALLY paid off for Microsoft (key word in caps for a reason), but Sony got hurt pretty hard doing the balls-out cutting-edge console. It's almost like an all-or-nothing gamble when you eat a heavy subsidy on hardware, because to recover that kind of loss, you essentially have to GUARANTEE it won't tank like the Dreamcast did or Vita is in the process of doing. And Nintendo's been in the business longer than anyone to know that there's absolutely no such thing as a guarantee. People are price-sensitive, so for all we know, people will see the sticker price of the next Xbox, not bother waiting for a price drop and pick up a Wii U which isn't NEARLY as crippled hardware-wise as the Wii. But that's still a highly debatable prospect.
 

xJavonta

Banned
Yes.

Even though they make great games on their current hardware, imagine what crazy things they can achieve with even better hardware. That's what frustrates me.
 

z0m3le

Banned
The problem there is, yeah, it EVENTUALLY paid off for Microsoft (key word in caps for a reason), but Sony got hurt pretty hard doing the balls-out cutting-edge console. It's almost like an all-or-nothing gamble when you eat a heavy subsidy on hardware, because to recover that kind of loss, you essentially have to GUARANTEE it won't tank like the Dreamcast did or Vita is in the process of doing. And Nintendo's been in the business longer than anyone to know that there's absolutely no such thing as a guarantee. People are price-sensitive, so for all we know, people will see the sticker price of the next Xbox, not bother waiting for a price drop and pick up a Wii U which isn't NEARLY as crippled hardware-wise as the Wii. But that's still a highly debatable prospect.

Hardware wise, from the rumored specs, there is nothing on the XB3 that is absurdly expensive, it could be sold at a small loss for 300 USD, might not even require a loss if they made some smart deals, the layout of their board from the rumor too, also points to cheap simple design... If Wii U didn't come with a screened controller, they could of launched a very similar spec'd system last year for the same price they did.

However I don't think the Wii U is very poor in design and think it will hit a decent middle ground between 360 and XB3.
 

DeMeester

Member
I like the games Nintendo put out for what they are. I still can't help but notice that a part of me is wondering how these games would look on the supposed 720/Orbis hardware. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with my Wii U (except for the slow OS) as it is. Seeing Nintendo's latest Direct we have a lot to look forward to. Developers are still getting used to the Wii U hardware, especially the GPGPU, and we probably have to wait for the E3 of this year before we will see more games like X by Monolith Soft.
 

z0m3le

Banned
I like the games Nintendo put out for what they are. I still can't help but notice that a part of me is wondering how these games would look on the supposed 720/Orbis hardware. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with my Wii U (except for the slow OS) as it is. Seeing Nintendo's latest Direct we have a lot to look forward to. Developers are still getting used to the Wii U hardware, especially the GPGPU, and we probably have to wait for the E3 of this year before we will see more games like X by Monolith Soft.

honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with X's fidelity even on my high end PC, it's a pretty nice step up from some of the low res textures that haunted last generation, of course it's not finished yet, so we will have to wait and see... I'm just not drawn in by graphics from consoles because I know everything looks better on PC and I have one. (luckily this doesn't hurt my enjoyment of the actual games)
 
All consoles before wii where high tech or atleast contemporary. Incl. nintendos. Even the famicom was high tech when it released back in 1983.

Wii is the departure here. and not a continuation of some old ideas.

Anyway. Id say nintendos main goal was always selling their own software. And the console where just a delivery system for this. This is why they never have worked hard to get third parties. And in the past even limited third parties ability to release games with quotas on the nes and them selecting a dream team with n64.

This is also why they keep their own game release shedule at a minimum. So they can maximise profit on each game.
 

DeMeester

Member
honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with X's fidelity even on my high end PC, it's a pretty nice step up from some of the low res textures that haunted last generation, of course it's not finished yet, so we will have to wait and see... I'm just not drawn in by graphics from consoles because I know everything looks better on PC and I have one. (luckily this doesn't hurt my enjoyment of the actual games)

I have the same feeling of wanting X on my gaming rig as well, but I've only started playing PC games often on a decent PC since 2004 while my memories of console gameplay brings me all the way back to the mid-eighties. So it's also primarily my nostalgic reasoning that's playing part. Besides, we'll always be confronted with certain titles being released on a specific platform only. Maybe somewhere in the future this will change, but I don't see this happening soon.
 

Terrell

Member
All consoles before wii where high tech or atleast contemporary. Incl. nintendos. Even the famicom was high tech when it released back in 1983.

I agree that Nintendo should not be worried about being the highest in tech but being contemporary with what the market wants. If the Wii were doing the same visual effects and polys as Gamecube but pushing them in HD, that would have made it contemporary.

However, saying that Nintendo has a history of being strong in hardware is a bit wrong.


The Famicom/SNES was the weaker system compared to the Master System, with the only feature that it held over the Master System being its ability to scroll visuals.
Aside from that, it was quite weak, but a sales success.
All consoles of the time were easily bested by arcades and PCs, which were not on the bleeding edge themselves at the time but more in line with the newer available tech.

With the Super Famicom/SNES, it was the weaker console, but supplemented the deficiency with a larger color palette and better sound card than the Mega Drive/Genesis. Devs in Japan seemed to care more about the color palette and sound card.
Aside from those things, it was weaker by a fair margin, but was a sales success.
PCs were already doing 3D graphics and arcades still held the visual advantage.

With N64, they tried to reach for the highest tech... and ended up with severe delays getting it produced, also making some of the wrong choices on what should and should not be sacrificed. Devs and gamers preferred FMVs and the more cinematic experience afforded to them by CD media, which was not a new technology at the time, but had matured to a point where it had become a standard.
N64 would have been last place had Sega not buggered up the Saturn.
This was the generation where the gap almost closed between arcades/PCs and home consoles, but PC graphics saw a huge surge and eclipsed the console once again. The arcade market never widened the gap, which became permanently closed at the start of the next generation.

GameCube is the only time where they found a good middle ground. More powerful than their immediate competition but weaker than the newcomer with deep pockets. Disc format hampered them, but worse than that, they were hampered by an image problem that (get this) no amount of great tech could surmount.
It failed in the marketplace, selling the lowest amount of any Nintendo hardware in history aside from the Virtual Boy.
The arcade's position as ahead of the console curve was dying, as the arcade market was floundering and costs were being cut, using modded home console hardware to power arcade cabinets. Eventually, the arcade market in North America reached the point it's at now, near-death, because it held no advantage over home console hardware anymore.
The PC still had every advantage over home consoles possible.


In summary, Nintendo has a history of not going for broke on specs. In fact, MOST companies have a history of that, Sony included. Nintendo just picked a few feature sets in A/V hardware that people legitimately cared about in the first 2 gens and said to hell with the rest of it. Their market position softened when they went for the highest tech and sacrificed the wrong things to make that happen.

Wii represented a change in strategy, where graphic fidelity was literally the last thing on the table. It was a success, but at an obvious cost.

Wii U brings them somewhere closer to what we saw with the NES/SNES, where they're picking the A/V features they give a shit about and spending the rest of their time improving how you use it.
 
master system came out in 1985 2 years after famicom.

Ofcourse its better.

compare the famicom to say c64 and you will see that it was a very capable hardware when it was released. No slouch at all.

Snes had a weak cpu. But was still good contemporary hardware. certainty more powerful than genesis.

n64 was cutting edge.

game cube is and was one of the most balanced systems ever designed.

All of them where contemporary hardware. And good for its time.

Unlike the wii and the wiiu.
 

z0m3le

Banned
master system came out in 1985 2 years after famicom.

Ofcourse its better.

compare the famicom to say c64 and you will see that it was a very capable hardware when it was released. No slouch at all.

Snes had a weak cpu. But was still good contemporary hardware. certainty more powerful than genesis.

n64 was cutting edge.

game cube is and was one of the most balanced systems ever designed.

All of them where contemporary hardware. And good for its time.

Unlike the wii and the wiiu.
I expect the other two systems to be much more powerful, but Wii U seems to fit more comparable to modern hardware than Wii ever could, for instance, there are quite a few gaming laptops that lack the power Wii U is rumored to have. Wii wasn't using modern tech, it was a turbo charged gamecube with add ons, quite literally. In those terms it held up really well.

Also just to touch on SNES, it's big feature was transparencies, which was something genesis lacked iirc. Also FX chip allowed for simple 3D games, like Star Fox.
 

Terrell

Member
master system came out in 1985 2 years after famicom.

Ofcourse its better.

compare the famicom to say c64 and you will see that it was a very capable hardware when it was released. No slouch at all.

Snes had a weak cpu. But was still good contemporary hardware. certainty more powerful than genesis.

n64 was cutting edge.

game cube is and was one of the most balanced systems ever designed.

All of them where contemporary hardware. And good for its time.

Unlike the wii and the wiiu.

LOLno. I've been a Nintendo fan my whole life, and even I know that bolded statement is bullshit.

And my mistake, I should have compared the Famicom to the SG-1000, Sega's first console and the Master System's predecessor, released on the same day as the Famicom, which had a faster CPU and vastly larger RAM pool, with Nintendo once again favoring a larger color palette and sound output. Sega matched and exceeded the color palette and sound output with the MarkIII/Master System.
 
LOLno. I've been a Nintendo fan my whole life, and even I know that bolded statement is bullshit.

And my mistake, I should have compared the Famicom to the SG-1000, Sega's first console and the Master System's predecessor, released on the same day as the Famicom, which had a faster CPU and vastly larger RAM pool, with Nintendo once again favoring a larger color palette and sound output. /QUOTE]

looking at the sg-1000 games on youtube. they look like shite. bad scrolling, shite sound.

Overall famicom looks like it was supperior.


star force famicom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV5_RtCFLlA

star force sg-1000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4HLB3hlxqw
 

Shion

Member
Who said anything about using the "latest and mightiest tech available"?

Let's not try to pretend as if "not using the latest and mightiest tech available = Wii". No one wants a $799 console anyway.

Durango and Orbis aren't going to use the "latest and mightiest tech available" either (such a move wouldn't make sense anyway). The only console that ever did that was probably the Neo Geo (and maybe the 360). From VCS to PS3, every other console could have been more powerful at the time of its release.

The point is that:

• NES was a generational leap over the VCS.
• SNES was a generational leap over the NES/Master System.
• N64 was a generational leap over the Mega Drive/SNES.
• GameCube was a generational leap over the Saturn/PS1/N64.

During these days Nintendo was ambitious and pushed both game design and technology in their games. Their hardware was always either on par or better than what the competition offered. Nintendo was never a generation behind the rest of the industry (tech-wise). I don't remember Nintendo ever rebranding the SNES as N64 back in the 90s.

Both Wii and Wii U represent a shift for Nintendo in a lot of ways. Using revisionism to prove the opposite won't work.
 
Who said anything about using the "latest and mightiest tech available"?

Let's not try to pretend as if "not using the latest and mightiest tech available = Wii". No one wants a $799 console anyway.

Durango and Orbis aren't going to use the "latest and mightiest tech available" either (such a move wouldn't make sense anyway). The only console that ever did that was probably the Neo Geo (and maybe the 360). Form VCS to PS3, every other console could be more powerful at the time of its release.

The point is that:

• NES was a generational leap over the VCS.
• SNES was a generational leap over the NES/Master System.
• N64 was a generational leap over the Mega Drive/SNES.
• GameCube was a generational leap over the Saturn/PS1/N64.

During these days Nintendo was ambitious and pushed both game design and technology in their games. Their hardware was always either on par or better than what the completion offered. Nintendo was never a generation behind the rest of the industry (tech-wise). I don't remember Nintendo ever rebranding the SNES as N64 back in the 90s.

Both Wii and Wii U represent a shift for Nintendo in a lot of ways. Using revisionism to prove the opposite won't work.

The Wii was a generational leap in tech as well. But not in terms of graphical powers. As said by Iwata in 2001. Graphical capabilities had reached a level where they don´t support new gameplay mechanics. Nintendo is about innovation and if everyone is offering the same, the only differentiator is the content & price. So they developed another leap in tech.. just not the tech you would like to see.
 

Terrell

Member
Who said anything about using the "latest and mightiest tech available"?

Let's not try to pretend as if "not using the latest and mightiest tech available = Wii". No one wants a $799 console anyway.

Durango and Orbis aren't going to use the "latest and mightiest tech available" either (such a move wouldn't make sense anyway). The only console that ever did that was probably the Neo Geo (and maybe the 360). Form VCS to PS3, every other console could be more powerful at the time its release.

The point is that:

• NES was a generational leap over the VCS.
• SNES was a generational leap over the NES/Master System.
• N64 was a generational leap over the Mega Drive/SNES.
• GameCube was a generational leap over the Saturn/PS1/N64.

During these days Nintendo was ambitious and pushed both game design and technology in their games. Their hardware was always either on par or better than what the completion offered. Nintendo was never a generation behind the rest of the industry (tech-wise). I don't remember Nintendo ever rebranding the SNES as N64 back in the 90s.

Both Wii and Wii U represent a shift for Nintendo in a lot of ways. Using revisionism to prove the opposite won't work.

I never said that it wasn't the case. Wii was bizarre for a lot of reasons, and no one can dispute that.

But let's put out a hypothetical... had Nintendo done a console that was capable of outputting at a Gamecube level in high definition, that would have been a generational leap, too. And yet STILL would have been eclipsed by Microsoft and Sony.

Because this past generation was more than just a standard generational leap. We had 2 companies so desperate to destroy their competition that they shot for the coolest and flashiest tech physically possible in a console box and paid for the privilege of bringing it to you at something that regular people could possibly afford.

Was it the bleeding edge? No, a console never CAN be, heat and power consumption restraints confirm that to be the case. But at the time of their respective releases, PlayStation/N64 and PS2/Gamecube were WELL below what was possible even for current graphics hardware of the time in consoles.

The reason that Nintendo was meeting the generational leap in the past is because none of its competitors were making hardware over $300 (and the ones that were, like the 3DO, were dying off faster than than you could find them at retailers). The market operated on a certain expectation that it would be behind the curve technically while hitting certain benchmarks at an affordable pricepoint. MS and Sony changed the rules of the game and re-defined how far of a leap a new generation is supposed to be.

This past generation, given that substantial generational leaps and being more powerful than their competitors was doing them no good and the cost of entry to keep pace with them was going to be WAY too high if their competition's spec sheets were any indication, they decided to say "fuck it, let's do something crazy." I mean, honestly, what choice were they given when historical precedent told them not to spend that kind of cash to keep up with Sony and MS?

And now we have the Wii U. It's a generational leap and can sit with the 8th generation, but it's on the absolute lowest end of that spectrum. Given how much catch-up they had to do this time around, they did a respectable job.

And you have to wonder what's going on with MS and Sony. Technically, to be a proper generational leap, they'll have to come close to matching the change in fidelity from PS2/Xbox to PS3/360 in order to meet expectations, and.... I think a lot of people are going to walk away disappointed. Either because this generation won't hold up to those lofty expectations or they will and it'll cost you a left testicle to get in on it.
 

El-Suave

Member
If the graphical leap towards the next generation won't be nearly as big as it has been in the past, Nintendo should be safe. They've arrived at a place where people should be happy with how their first party offerings and third party exclusives look. It probably helps that some if not most of their portfolio benefits very little from new technologies. Cartoony games relatively always look better than photorealistic titles on lower tech hardware.
The only frustrating aspect is that they won't get (m)any new multiplatform titles.
 

Lizardus

Member
If the graphical leap towards the next generation won't be nearly as big as it has been in the past, Nintendo should be safe. They've arrived at a place where people should be happy with how their first party offerings and third party exclusives look. It probably helps that some if not most of their portfolio benefits very little from new technologies. Cartoony games relatively always look better than photorealistic titles on lower tech hardware.
The only frustrating aspect is that they won't get (m)any new multiplatform titles.

And this will be mostly because of the relations between N and third parties, not hardware differences.
 
Looking at Skyward Sword and Metroid Prime 3, nah, I like the low tech route, less stupid filters and an ironically cleaner picture. Looking at the lack of 3rd party support as a result, I kinda care. Looking at my mid-high PC, I dont give a damn.
 

XaosWolf

Member
Technically, to be a proper generational leap, they'll have to come close to matching the change in fidelity from PS2/Xbox to PS3/360 in order to meet expectations, and.... I think a lot of people are going to walk away disappointed. Either because this generation won't hold up to those lofty expectations or they will and it'll cost you a left testicle to get in on it.
Exactly my stance on the next-generation of consoles. I'm eagerly looking forward to E3 for (hopefully) some specs.

It'll be good to see if these new consoles line up with the seeming expectation of them being a huge graphical leap, a technical powerhouse and also relatively cheap.
 
And this will be mostly because of the relations between N and third parties, not hardware differences.

Oh come one if there would be a easy way (eg. the same effort to go from PC -> 360 -> PS3 and vice versa ports, we saw that it works with the Wii-U/PS3/360) every third party developer would shower the Wii with their games. The current economy forces EA, Ubisoft, etc. to make 1 game for as many plattforms as possible. The Wii had the userbase (of course the demographic and interest might be a little different) but lacked the hardware to let developers port their games with minor adjustments - everything above that costs a lot of money. I doubt that has anything to do with relations.

I personally bought a Wii on launch (actually was the first at the store ...) and lost interest over time because only the first party games were not enough. I like GTA, Demons Souls, Battlefield, ... and even though with each new Nintendo console released the "third party support" gets stronger (at least that is what I "hear") it is not enough. I can afford one console and I decided to rather miss out on the few Nintendo first party games then the majority of third party games.

The Gamecube had the power but Nintendo messed up with third parties - that changed with the Wii/Wii-U but the hardware lacks what EA and Co need. I don't count GHz or Flops but I will be one of the consoles closest together not the one that has been singled out (again?). Nintendo has always had a certain different philosophy and their inventions and ideas to the gaming world have been really important - but so did Sony and MS with their hardware, online systems and third party support.

I find the "low" tech route frustrating especially because it is just a choice to make more money and please shareholders. Saving on everything possible when it comes to hardware and cutting corners that will haunt Nintendo with the release of the PS4 and 720.
 
What I dislike about Nintendo is the repeat. It's like each gen is just a repeat of the last with the games they make. The tech part is also an issue, but less so for me.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I have never met someone who hated Iwata so much, or revered Yamauchi that much. I get that there is some real respect for him, but he really just was a desperate business man who tried everything to make money after realizing how small the playing card game business was. Until Gunpei Yokoi and Shigeru Miyamoto made him a billionaire.

It's tangential to your main point... but I disagree about Yamauchi. I think the man was ruthless and business-driven and if it weren't Yokoi or Miyamoto, he would have found other creatives. I think Yamauchi made them, more than the other way around.
 

M3d10n

Member
The thing about Nintendo is that they will sacrifice power over other priorities if they deem it necessary. The Wii U isn't more powerful fro two reasons:

1) Nintendo wanted it as small as possible. Microsoft and Sony never managed to shrink the 360 and PS3 this much.

2) The system must include a Gamepad and remain affordable.

If Nintendo had made a console as big as the 360 and using only wiimotes, it would certainly be quite more capable. But that wasn't their strategy.
 
I don't really care about Nintendo any more TBH, to me, these days they're more of a toy company than a real video game company since that pile of shit Wii.

What really pisses me off though, is their low-tech approach has given MS & Sony an excuse to also lower the baseline for their next consoles.

I've no doubt that the Xbox & PS4 would have been even more powerful had Nintendo been providing serious competition.

As it is, the Xbox & PS4 wont even be as powerful as a high end PC when they launch later this year, that's pretty unprecedented, consoles are supposed to be more powerful than anything else available for at least a couple of years after they launch.

So yes, their low tech does frustrate me...
 

-MB-

Member
I don't really care about Nintendo any more TBH, to me, these days they're more of a toy company than a real video game company since that pile of shit Wii.

What really pisses me off though, is their low-tech approach has given MS & Sony an excuse to also lower the baseline for their next consoles.

I've no doubt that the Xbox & PS4 would have been even more powerful had Nintendo been providing serious competition.

As it is, the Xbox & PS4 wont even be as powerful as a high end PC when they launch later this year, that's pretty unprecedented, consoles are supposed to be more powerful than anything else available for at least a couple of years after they launch.

So yes, their low tech does frustrate me...

Got news for you, games ARE toys.
 

Currygan

at last, for christ's sake
I don't really care about Nintendo any more TBH, to me, these days they're more of a toy company than a real video game company since that pile of shit Wii.

What really pisses me off though, is their low-tech approach has given MS & Sony an excuse to also lower the baseline for their next consoles.

I've no doubt that the Xbox & PS4 would have been even more powerful had Nintendo been providing serious competition.

As it is, the Xbox & PS4 wont even be as powerful as a high end PC when they launch later this year, that's pretty unprecedented, consoles are supposed to be more powerful than anything else available for at least a couple of years after they launch.

So yes, their low tech does frustrate me...


are you for real?
 

D.Lo

Member
Saving on everything possible when it comes to hardware and cutting corners that will haunt Nintendo with the release of the PS4 and 720.
I love how Nintendo have:
  • Just WON a generation against all predictions from gaming press, and with jack all help from 3rd parties and their 'test' games
  • Made far more money than any other company over said generation (easy to make more than negative money like Sony though)
  • While simultaneously comprehensively winning the handheld generation with a console everybody also wrote them off for (DS)
  • Have managed to launch another very successful platform (3DS) which was the highest selling platform of the year worldwide
  • Take back the only part of Japan Sony was competitive in (PSP) with it
...and they remain doomed and don't know what they're doing.
 
I don't really care about Nintendo any more TBH, to me, these days they're more of a toy company than a real video game company since that pile of shit Wii.

What really pisses me off though, is their low-tech approach has given MS & Sony an excuse to also lower the baseline for their next consoles.

I've no doubt that the Xbox & PS4 would have been even more powerful had Nintendo been providing serious competition.

As it is, the Xbox & PS4 wont even be as powerful as a high end PC when they launch later this year, that's pretty unprecedented, consoles are supposed to be more powerful than anything else available for at least a couple of years after they launch.

So yes, their low tech does frustrate me...

You DO realise that video game consoles (No matter wich brand) ARE toys. Nothing more or less. No matter what MS/Sony PR tries to tell you.

Sony nearly went bankrupt with PS3, wich is propably the reason why they don't make an "Over the top spec monster" and not Nintendo...

Microsofts RROD wich, was also caused by trying to build the most high tech console, could be reason why MS isn't going all out on hardware! Again, not Nintendo being the reason here

In case you haven't noticed. All companies are in it to make money, not to lose money because their fans want a beast of a console...
 
I love how Nintendo have:
  • Just WON a generation against all predictions from gaming press, and with jack all help from 3rd parties and their 'test' games
  • Made far more money than any other company over said generation (easy to make more than negative money like Sony though)
  • While simultaneously comprehensively winning the handheld generation with a console everybody also wrote them off for (DS)
  • Have managed to launch another very successful platform (3DS) which was the highest selling platform of the year worldwide
  • Take back the only part of Japan Sony was competitive in (PSP) with it
...and they remain doomed and don't know what they're doing.

I understand the point, but sometimes I think there's an over reliance on history to make the point. The fact that Nintendo went their own direction and it paid off big time is a clear indicator that having the most horsepower isn't necessary to win the console sales race. If someone says "you need to be tehnically competitive to have a chance to win," it's fair to cite the Wii as your rebuttal and move on.

However, on the flip side, the fact that that play worked once doesn't automatically mean it'll work again. As for the 3DS, I don't necessarily think it makes for the best argument of how Nintendo's "still got it" in terms of dominating the market. It's doing great in Japan, and everywhere else it's doing just okay, and that's all after significant efforts to steer the system back on course after an unsuccessful launch.

The 3DS serves as a good indicator going forward for the Wii U that -- even if it struggles -- Nintendo has some tricks up its sleeve to make sure it doesn't flounder. But it doesn't paint them as marketing geniuses incapable of making mistakes.
 
You DO realise that video game consoles (No matter wich brand) ARE toys. Nothing more or less. No matter what MS/Sony PR tries to tell you.

Sony nearly went bankrupt with PS3, wich is propably the reason why they don't make an "Over the top spec monster" and not Nintendo...

Microsofts RROD wich, was also caused by trying to build the most high tech console, could be reason why MS isn't going all out on hardware! Again, not Nintendo

In case you haven't noticed. All companies are in it to make money, not to lose money because their fans want a beast of a console...


a) Bold = that's your opinion. toys?

sony... vita was top spec handheld and ps4 will probably be top spec console.

..


the low tech nintendo has gone for is why I'm longer a fan. Couldn't play the wii on my HDtv. just looked like ass.
 
Despite being a generation behind last gen nintendo still produced some of the best looking games for me even including the HD consoles. Frankly i think their art styles puts most other devs to shame. They may be on weaker HW again but i can pretty much guarantee their games will look fantastic again.

Sure i wish they went for more power but i think i'll end up being very happy with their output on the wii U. The problem for me is i think this is going to affect the chances of the console being a big success and that is a bad thing for me.
 

AOC83

Banned
I love how Nintendo have:
  • Just WON a generation against all predictions from gaming press, and with jack all help from 3rd parties and their 'test' games
  • Made far more money than any other company over said generation (easy to make more than negative money like Sony though)
  • While simultaneously comprehensively winning the handheld generation with a console everybody also wrote them off for (DS)
  • Have managed to launch another very successful platform (3DS) which was the highest selling platform of the year worldwide
  • Take back the only part of Japan Sony was competitive in (PSP) with it
...and they remain doomed and don't know what they're doing.

It´s pretty obvious that they on´t know what they are doing when you look how they handled the WiiU and the last years before the WiiU. The Wii was more luck than anything else.
 
I love how Nintendo have:
  • Just WON a generation against all predictions from gaming press, and with jack all help from 3rd parties and their 'test' games
  • Made far more money than any other company over said generation (easy to make more than negative money like Sony though)
  • While simultaneously comprehensively winning the handheld generation with a console everybody also wrote them off for (DS)
  • Have managed to launch another very successful platform (3DS) which was the highest selling platform of the year worldwide
  • Take back the only part of Japan Sony was competitive in (PSP) with it
...and they remain doomed and don't know what they're doing.

Haven't won yet, 360 and ps3 will only be about 10-15million behind at the end of 2013. Ps3 will most likely live on for a few more years.
 
a) Bold = that's your opinion. toys?

sony... vita was top spec handheld and ps4 will probably be top spec console.

..


the low tech nintendo has gone for is why I'm longer a fan. Couldn't play the wii on my HDtv. just looked like ass.

Sorry but games = toys. You play games on your system... Not hardware specs...
 
It´s pretty obvious that they on´t know what they are doing when you look how they handled the WiiU and the last years before the WiiU. The Wii was more luck than anything else.
41X4YJYNAGL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU03_.jpg


You should probably read this book.
 
Top Bottom