Support NeoGAF

[Wazzim]

In my opinion, but completely unrelated to the question for that has been answered many times before, the graphical limitations of both DS and Wii make for beautiful games. The powerful 360 and PS3 have been raped by the Unreal Engine and space marines so many times it's disgusting and the limitations that the Wii and DS bring in the graphics department make for extraordinary games.

wat

 

[Marleyman]

Evolve? As in, go bankrupt or get bought up? There was no "evolution" among American developers, just consolidation. American developers had the advantage because their engineering based approach could handle technology better, but the majority of developers still suffered. And overall, during this generation, American companies didn't exactly do super well, so I have no idea why it's always the Japanese that have to learn.

They did consolidate and suffer a bit, but the tech definitely helped some of them evolve. Not every company is going to succeed when tech costs what it costs these days; survival of the fittest seems to be the case for Western developers.

 

[Alexios]

Errr, please, go ahead and state what's wrong with them. They're pretty much spot on.

There are high and low budget games that go for $50 for the Wii just as there are high and low budget games that go for $60 on the PS360. Lower budget games costing as much as higher budget games is not a Wii specific or Nintendo specific phenomenon and to imply such is silly. Do people really think Super Mario Galaxy cost a few bucks to make because it's not HD? Even Wii Fit or Brain Age likely cost more than most think due to all the R&D involved, not just on the game developers but also with the experts outside gaming they had to involve in the process. Iwata didn't randomly decide what (body/brain) exercise is good for you and how to best present them.

 

[apana]

I'm pretty sure they don't understand how to use graphics. Microsoft and Sony are hi tech companies, so they know how to fit all the graphics into their systems. Nintendo just likes to make plastic accesories that they sell to soccer moms, they aren't experts on how to fit all those graphics inside their systems.

 

[mclem]

We know nothing of the efficieny of the design of the innards/PCB of the 3DS. Just like the PSP/360/PS3 were well known to be innefficiently designed from launch(AKA loads of uneccesary chips, devices etc on the devices), the 3DS just as well may be and if Nintendo had designed it more efficiently from the start a larger battery may have been able to be fitted(currently less than half of the back is covered by the battery).

E.g. Nintendo may be able to in the future reduce the size of the analog extension and thus be able to fit a much larger battery in a future 'Lite' revision.

If we know nothing of it, how can you state categorically that Nintendo delivered a system "vastly below what they should"?

 

[Alexios]

I'm pretty sure they don't understand how to use graphics. Microsoft and Sony are hi tech companies, so they know how to fit all the graphics into their systems. Nintendo just likes to make plastic accesories that they sell to soccer moms, they aren't experts on how to fit all those graphics inside their systems.

How do I fit graphics card?

 

[theBishop]

I've seen a lot of people replying to this post, but I just can't see anything wrong or untrue in it. And I LOVE what Nintendo did this generation, genius move on their part.

Maybe the budget part is not completely true; it's true that the games themselves cost less to make, but the R&D behind them is enormous, and that was money well spent. One can hate Wii Fit as much as he wants (game world destroyer, etc), but the budget that went to make that game must have been enormous, the presentation of that game is brilliant.

I don't think the R&D has been a factor in Wii development since 2007. I doubt the Wii Sports budget can really be described as "enormous", if it was, then that immediately benefits Wii Sports Resort and any other sequels they make in the future.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Come on man. Don't you just want to pay more for movies with big budgets? Transformers? That movie surely deserves more than some crap piece of non-CGI imaginery.

The nerve of The Blair Witch Project, charging full price movie tickets for a movie made with a budget of only $35,000 and a final budget of $750,000?!?!?!?
Toy Story 2 had a budget of 90 MILLION and cost exactly the same!!!!
It wasn't ingenuity, smart budgeting, or creativity, but PURE GREED that made them make 331 times the amount of money they put in! They should've sold it for $.10 per ticket!!!!

 

[Wazzim]

I'm pretty sure they don't understand how to use graphics. Microsoft and Sony are hi tech companies, so they know how to fit all the graphics into their systems. Nintendo just likes to make plastic accesories that they sell to soccer moms, they aren't experts on how to fit all those graphics inside their systems.

you might want to add "/s" , some people may think you're serious.

 

[Always-honest]

Nicer visuals would be welcome, but it's not why people in general play Nintendo games.

ofcourse not. But they're a full gen behind. That's a lot. The gap has never been as big.
and with move and Kinect they will have to come with something very awesome (like the wiimote was) to compete.

I hope they'll surprise us. And the four years developments in hardware worldwide will give devs a lot more to work with than the Wii hardware i think.

 

[Tiktaalik]

The largest reason is probably because they simply do not want to spend that much money and resources on graphics. Even when Nintendo had the Gamecube hardware, which was strongly competitive with the PS2 and Xbox, their games had a simpler look than many of the competitors. I think Nintendo often strategically steers toward designing franchises in a simple, clear style so that they don't need to invest a great deal in graphics in order to get something to look acceptably good.

 

[mclem]

What dumbfounds me is the fact that people think this is somehow an evil, heartless strategy. How dare they sell people products they want at prices they're willing to pay? The fiends!

The implication, I think, is that this is some sort of confidence trick, that I can see through, but dammit, they shouldn't be allowed to prey on poor innocent people who know no better!

YOU CAN HAVE BETTER HARDWARE FOR THE SAME PRICE! WHY AREN'T YOU BUYING AN XBOX?

Does the Xbox run the games I want to play?

No...

Then, er, what's your point?

THE XBOX IS BETTER! BUY THE XBOX!

 

[Mr_Brit]

If we know nothing of it, how can you state categorically that Nintendo delivered a system "vastly below what they should"?

I'm talking about the physical design layout of the system in that post not the technical/graphical capablities, if you're going to reply to me at least read what I was replying to.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

The largest reason is probably because they simply do not want to spend that much money and resources on graphics. Even when Nintendo had the Gamecube hardware, which was strongly competitive with the PS2 and Xbox, their games had a simpler look than many of the competitors. I think Nintendo often strategically steers toward designing franchises in a simple, clear style so that they don't need to invest a great deal in graphics in order to get something to look acceptably good.

Mario Sunshine
Pikmin
F-zero
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Smash Bros Melee
Simpler look?
Really?

 

[Wazzim]

The implication, I think, is that this is some sort of confidence trick, that I can see through, but dammit, they shouldn't be allowed to prey on poor innocent people who know no better!

YOU CAN HAVE BETTER HARDWARE FOR THE SAME PRICE! WHY AREN'T YOU BUYING AN XBOX?

Does the Xbox run the games I want to play?

No...

Then, er, what's your point?

THE XBOX IS BETTER! BUY THE XBOX!

Xbox has Kinect now, no reason to buy a Wii over it for the innocent people. duh

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Long thread so I don't know if it's been said already, but I think the main problem is asset production costs. Games now cost millions of dollars due to making the art content so high quality. That in turns make projects much more risky and innovation goes south.

 

[mclem]

I'm talking about the physical design layout of the system in that post not the technical/graphical capablities, if you're going to reply to me at least read what I was replying to.

I wrote what you were replying to.

 

[Warm Machine]

If Nintendo really wasn't interested in graphics or visuals and only cared about "fun" then why did they just release a new system with its key feature being a purely visual one?

 

[mclem]

If Nintendo really wasn't interested in graphics or visuals and only cared about "fun" then why did they just release a new system with its key feature being a purely visual one?

I suspect it's because it's a visual feature that - crucially - comes for very nearly free for developers. They need to set up two cameras, and that's about it. Instant graphical pizazz that didn't exist on previous systems without vastly inflating development costs.

 

[jman2050]

If Nintendo really wasn't interested in graphics or visuals and only cared about "fun" then why did they just release a new system with its key feature being a purely visual one?

Because they could afford to.

 

[manueldelalas]

I don't think the R&D has been a factor in Wii development since 2007. I doubt the Wii Sports budget can really be described as "enormous", if it was, then that immediately benefits Wii Sports Resort and any other sequels they make in the future.

I agree with you (the enormous budget I was referring was the one of Wii Fit, Wii Fit plus's budget must have been much smaller compared to the original's).

 

[Warm Machine]

I suspect it's because it's a visual feature that - crucially - comes for very nearly free for developers. They need to set up two cameras, and that's about it. Instant graphical pizazz that didn't exist on previous systems without vastly inflating development costs.

True but that is a pretty weak reason to build a whole new piece of hardware and business infrastructure for. Really the 3DS is an excuse to up the graphics capabilities and throw on a visual feature to the DS. The design is primarily one that improves visual cpabilities. For Nintendo that is a pretty shallow reason to release new hardware to those who previously said they always innovate for gameplay.

 

[Alexios]

Less R&D costs goes for almost any sequel, I don't see them being cheaper as a rule though. The industry runs on standard pricing rates, not just Nintendo. Low budget runs tend to have more to do with franchise importance and sales potential than actual lower development costs, though these often co exist.

True but that is a pretty weak reason to build a whole new piece of hardware and business infrastructure for. Really the 3DS is an excuse to up the graphics capabilities and throw on a visual feature to the DS. The design is primarily one that improves visual cpabilities.

So the PS3 and 360 also had poor reasons? There are plenty new gameplay opportunities with the 3DS. Maybe they're not in the name (AUGMENTED REALITY AND MOTION CONTROLS DS would hardly be catchy) but so what? They show it all off with the built-in mini games so it's definitely pushed in their marketing and the system as a whole.

 

[theBishop]

ofcourse not. But they're a full gen behind. That's a lot. The gap has never been as big.
and with move and Kinect they will have to come with something very awesome (like the wiimote was) to compete.

I hope they'll surprise us. And the four years developments in hardware worldwide will give devs a lot more to work with than the Wii hardware i think.

The biggest issue in my opinion is software. Nintendo can easily put out a box that matches whatever Sony and Microsoft do. They all buy from the same vendors. IBM developed the CPU in every current console. What they can't do is ramp up a development on software which pushes that hardware.

Their vanguard "hardcore" studio Retro just put out a 2d sidescroller. I love 2d gameplay, but when the time comes to make a next-next-gen Metroid Prime that's BETTER than the other First Person Adventures in 2016 (paging Ken Levine...), they'll be starting from zero.

 

[Speevy]

Mario Sunshine
Pikmin
F-zero
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Smash Bros Melee
Simpler look?
Really?

Yeah those games are mostly very clean, with a modest amount of effects being thrown around. Compare each with RS3 and RE4.

Also, Amusement Vision made F-Zero GX.

 

[Throwaway123456789]

I have to admit, I would like Nintendo to release their own Scurvy Box 360 for the next generation. I'm fine with the Wii though, I'm playing a PS2 game right now and don't mind the quality. All I really want is more space on game so that they can do more. Game mechanic and world wise, not Kojima fill 40 GB worth of music on it and say I filled it with my vision.

What? Nintendo has more space to work with on their discs than the 360 developers - and that's not counting the fact that Wii games uses less space as a whole due to not having HD assets.

 

[EatChildren]

If Nintendo really wasn't interested in graphics or visuals and only cared about "fun" then why did they just release a new system with its key feature being a purely visual one?

Because the are interested in graphics and visuals, but are also in the business of developing products that put them in the most profitable market positions. There was no point trying to compete in the hardware race with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, so they developed a weaker system with a gimmick that made it unique. Blue ocean = profit.

3DS is exactly the same, or so they hope. Yes, it's a visual gimmick, but it's one that largely cannot be found elsewhere. It's a gimmick and it makes the system unique. In their eyes it is Blue ocean 2.0, and hopefully profit.

Nintendo's stance on hardware, whether it be graphical or input or gimmick or a flying fucking horse, is entirely subjective to how they can impliment the hardware into the market, whether it is profitable, and whether they believe they can develop unique software that takes advantage of these systems.

In some crazy alternate future where the hardware race is dead and burried, if Nintendo saw that there was a highly profitable opening for a high end piece of hardware, they'd persue it.

 

[Durante]

I suspect it's because it's a visual feature that - crucially - comes for very nearly free for developers. They need to set up two cameras, and that's about it. Instant graphical pizazz that didn't exist on previous systems without vastly inflating development costs.

But there are a lot of such visual features that come for free with more powerful graphics hardware. Like resolution, texture filtering, anti-aliasing and frame rate. And a ton more that only require minimal developer effort and no changes to assets, like better lighting and shadows or more opportunities to do interesting non-photorealistic rendering effects.

 

[Alexios]

But there are a lot of such visual features that come for free with more powerful graphics hardware. Like resolution, texture filtering, anti-aliasing and frame rate. And a ton more that only require minimal developer effort and no changes to assets, like better lighting and shadows or more opportunities to do interesting non-photorealistic rendering effects.

Yes, the 3DS also has many of those (compared to the DS).

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Yeah those games are mostly very clean, with a modest amount of effects being thrown around. Compare each with RS3 and RE4.

Also, Amusement Vision made F-Zero GX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RPCB79cC0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEtngkWt2zY
At this point it's opinion anyway.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I agree with you (the enormous budget I was referring was the one of Wii Fit, Wii Fit plus's budget must have been much smaller compared to the original's).

Searched and Found this quote;

In 2003, Nintendo declared that $34 million was spent on R&D. This figure steadily climbed to $103 million in 2006 and the following year bumped dramatically to $370 million.

Any figures for the following years?

 

[The Lamp]

I think their lack of embracing a proper online infrastructure is a more pressing matter.

This.

It's 2011...and their main handheld system still doesn't have an easy friend request/search system like Steam/XBL/PSN.

If the Wii's successor doesn't have a decent online infrastructure I will have given up hope.

 

[cpp_is_king]

But Sony and Microsoft have been doing fine...

Their business models are built around 3rd party developers. Nintendo makes it extremely difficult and unpleasant to be a 3rd party developer.

 

[Alexios]

Their business models are built around 3rd party developers. Nintendo makes it extremely difficult and unpleasant to be a 3rd party developer.

Yes, how dare they make games that sell more?!

 

[Tiktaalik]

Mario Sunshine
Pikmin
F-zero
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Smash Bros Melee
Simpler look?
Really?

Err yes. Well maybe not FZero but that was handled by Sega.

Pikmin and Wind Waker are the perfect examples of adopting a cleaner, less complex look that is cheaper to make.

Compare with games of this era such as MGS3, RE4, FF12 which were highly (or overly) detailed.

Even Twilight Princess, probably the most big budget of all these games adopted a slightly unrealistic, stylish style which allowed for less complexity.

I'm not equating "simple" to "bad." Nintendo was very smart to make these choices. The look of these games suits them quite well, which is the whole point.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Ok I didn't know how else to title it, but, what I mean is, why doesn't Nintendo's systems push graphics like Microsoft and Sony do with theirs? It can't be because they don't have the technology....what is the reason then?

Because they did before and they got trounced hard.

That's really the long and short of it.

 

[Throavium]

I think their lack of embracing a proper online infrastructure is a more pressing matter.

This. Also, I would be glad to play Mario Galaxy 2 over again with a standard controller.

 

[Mael]

LOL at the one implying that Nintendo don't know how to build a game system against guys at MSFT....you know the people that designed their system so well it kept falling dead.
That was so innocuous that they fired the guy at the head of the division and put 1Mil aside to deal with the repercussion...

Because the are interested in graphics and visuals, but are also in the business of developing products that put them in the most profitable market positions. There was no point trying to compete in the hardware race with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, so they developed a weaker system with a gimmick that made it unique. Blue ocean = profit.

3DS is exactly the same, or so they hope. Yes, it's a visual gimmick, but it's one that largely cannot be found elsewhere. It's a gimmick and it makes the system unique. In their eyes it is Blue ocean 2.0, and hopefully profit.

Nintendo's stance on hardware, whether it be graphical or input or gimmick or a flying fucking horse, is entirely subjective to how they can impliment the hardware into the market, whether it is profitable, and whether they believe they can develop unique software that takes advantage of these systems.

In some crazy alternate future where the hardware race is dead and burried, if Nintendo saw that there was a highly profitable opening for a high end piece of hardware, they'd persue it.

The most blatant example of that is actually the 3DS.
And again lol at anyone thinking that 3DS is Blue Ocean.
Seriously it's more expensive, only upgrade the visuals and everything around it makes it more difficult to deal with than the last iteration of their handheld (price of games for example).
Unless they go a different route for their next living room console, it's quite clear they don't a shit about disruption and BOS any more.

Err yes. Well maybe not FZero but that was handled by Sega.

Pikmin and Wind Waker are the perfect examples of adopting a cleaner, less complex look that is cheaper to make.

Is this rewriting history 101?
And why the fuck would people want to play SMG2 with a "proper" controller?
That's like wanting to play Mario 64 with the pre dual shock ps1 controller, the games were made around a controller and you want to have a harder time playing it?

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Err yes. Well maybe not FZero but that was handled by Sega.

Pikmin and Wind Waker are the perfect examples of adopting a cleaner, less complex look that is cheaper to make.

Compare with games of this era such as MGS3, RE4, FF12 which were highly (or overly) detailed.

Even Twilight Princess, probably the most big budget of all these games adopted a slightly unrealistic, stylish style which allowed for less complexity.

I'm not equating "simple" to "bad." Nintendo was very smart to make these choices. The look of these games suits them quite well, which is the whole point.

I equate simpler with WII sports and the like, maybe mario party.
But it's a subjective word, means different things to different people.

 

[Speevy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RPCB79cC0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEtngkWt2zY
At this point it's opinion anyway.

Rebel Strike

 

[The Technomancer]

Unless they go a different route for their next living room console, it's quite clear they don't a shit about disruption and BOS any more.

More like where is the new ocean? The casual market was heavily untapped by the Big Three, thats why Nintendo made their move. But now that everyone is making games for just about every demographic out there? They can't go after a new market, so they have to recapture either or both of the old ones with something new that no-one else is doing.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Rebel Strike

NOOOOOOO I've lost
I wish factor 5 were still making games

 

[theBishop]

More like where is the new ocean? The casual market was heavily untapped by the Big Three, thats why Nintendo made their move. But now that everyone is making games for just about every demographic out there? They can't go after a new market, so they have to recapture either or both of the old ones with something new that no-one else is doing.

The obvious answer (though not necessarily the only answer) is mobile gaming. And we know how Iwata feels about it.

 

[Orayn]

More like where is the new ocean? The casual market was heavily untapped by the Big Three, thats why Nintendo made their move. But now that everyone is making games for just about every demographic out there? They can't go after a new market, so they have to recapture either or both of the old ones with something new that no-one else is doing.

Rest assured, they'll be rocking the boat. The GC was their only console that wasn't a widely emulated game-changer, and with the 3DS we can see that Nintendo clearly isn't content to rest on their laurels.

 

[Haint]

Really, 500-some-odd replies to discuss this? They're present philosophy is dead simple--low risk and profit driven at any cost. Everything they do is based on this creed. They demand profit on the hardware. They demand the lowest budget software possible, and multimillion sells. Anything that bucks these trends exists only to increase a perception of variety, fill out a release calendar, placate their creative talent, and pull in a few million "Core" customers. Even if they only sell 1 piece of hardware and 1 piece of software to these customers across the entire generation, they profited on both.

 

[Treefingers]

In my opinion, but completely unrelated to the question for that has been answered many times before, the graphical limitations of both DS and Wii make for beautiful games. The powerful 360 and PS3 have been raped by the Unreal Engine and space marines so many times it's disgusting and the limitations that the Wii and DS bring in the graphics department make for extraordinary games.

It has nothing to do with technical limitations though. If Nintendo made an HD console they'd still make beautiful looking games because they have great artists & designers.

You see a lot of indie developers making really nice looking games (like Fez for example) - there are technical limitations due to budget but that's not why they look so great, it's because the developers know that good-looking visuals doesn't mean make everything as realistic and gritty as you can & throw any sense of art style out the window.

Anyway this whole topic is pretty dumb, the simple answer to the OP's question is money.

 

[Alexios]

Really, 500-some-odd replies to discuss this? They're present philosophy is dead simple--low risk and profit driven at any cost.

Yes, the Wii and DS were so low risk, everyone knew they'd dominate the market, nobody thought they're crazy and will get owned by Sony/MS.

Their.

The obvious answer (though not necessarily the only answer) is mobile gaming. And we know how Iwata feels about it.

How is that not part of the casual market? Do you wan Nintendo to make a phone next, or do you want them to go third party and make software for phones? Neither fits them.

 

[Flachmatuch]

They did consolidate and suffer a bit, but the tech definitely helped some of them evolve. Not every company is going to succeed when tech costs what it costs these days; survival of the fittest seems to be the case for Western developers.

No. They consolidated *a lot* and now generic corporate control techniques (temps, outsourcing, monopoly rights (IP) based business models, technology as a barrier to entry, buying up competitors etc etc) are clearly starting to overwhelm market-specific knowledge. The other side of the coin is the Apple Store model, which is also very far from flawless, but that's a different issue.

As for survival of the fittest etc: you can't seriously believe that. It wasn't the "worst" companies that died or got bought up, but the ones that weren't big enough to survive, or, like Blizzard, that were worth buying up for long term reasons, and this only leads to consolidation and a monopoly, not competitive, market. Not development or evolution, just the same tired pattern of consolidation into a monopoly (or at least non-competitive) market that happens in every industry.

There are high and low budget games that go for $50 for the Wii just as there are high and low budget games that go for $60 on the PS360. Lower budget games costing as much as higher budget games is not a Wii specific or Nintendo specific phenomenon and to imply such is silly. Do people really think Super Mario Galaxy cost a few bucks to make because it's not HD? Even Wii Fit or Brain Age likely cost more than most think due to all the R&D involved, not just on the game developers but also with the experts outside gaming they had to involve in the process. Iwata didn't randomly decide what (body/brain) exercise is good for you and how to best present them.

The point is that the company does not depend on single games being blockbusters to exist from year to year, and that as a platform owner it supports an ecosystem that allows other companies this luxury also.

Note the poster doesn't deny he doesn't understand how a business is run.
Worse he doesn't deny this generation of games is made possible by generous subsidies by the platform holders who likely colluded to 'scale up' the cost of doing business as I outlined in this post. to drive out specialized firms like Nintendo.

No, I don't really have a problem with corporations making a profit.

And if you aren't writing angry letters to Microsoft about their overpriced accessories or shoddy manufacturing standards to cut costs in the near term, then you've accepted that it is ok to make profits at all costs.

Really what it comes down to is supporting a specialized games manufacturer with no agenda of putting their next proprietary format in your living room or dominating the world with their technology. That has to count for something.

So, what exactly is wrong with the original post? Maybe it's me, but I think I understand your problem less than before your explanation

 

[The Technomancer]

Rest assured, they'll be rocking the boat. The GC was their only console that wasn't a widely emulated game-changer, and with the 3DS we can see that Nintendo clearly isn't content to rest on their laurels.

Oh yeah, I have absolutely no clue what they could do next, but by the same token if you had said "glasses free 3D" to me two years ago, I would have called you crazy.

 

[Alexios]

The point is that the company does not depend on single games being blockbusters to exist from year to year, and that as a platform owner it supports an ecosystem that allows other companies this luxury also.

No objections here.