Do you think Nintendo should have made a more powerful console?

I think they should have. I mean, Nintendo doesn't need it to make great games, but if they made it as powerful as 360/PS3 we would probably see a lot more quality multiplatform games. I can't imagine what Nintendo would pull off with the hardware. That combined with wiimotion plus would be amazing.

To be honest the graphics for the most part are great, especially on a tube TV through component cables, but on an HDTV it looks really muddy so the main thing I would probably want is HD since tube TVs are now becoming obsolete.

I mean graphics don't really matter but it gets to the point where it kinda dampers the experience on an HDTV with it's muddiness. Maybe I just have to stop looking for it and just enjoy the game though.

If I wanted one of the other consoles, I would have bought one.

Which I did.

I think it would've been better for certain reasons, but I'm also glad the games aren't $60 either. I'm pretty broke, and when the console dropped, $250 was all I could spend. Not to mention, a new way to play games....

I was sold

I think they should have. I mean, Nintendo doesn't need it to make great games, but if they made it as powerful as 360/PS3 we would probably see a lot more quality multiplatform games. I can't imagine what Nintendo would pull off with the hardware. That combined with wiimotion plus would be amazing.

To be honest the graphics for the most part are great, especially on a tube TV through component cables, but on an HDTV it looks really muddy so the main thing I would probably want is HD since tube TVs are now becoming obsolete.

I mean graphics don't really matter but it gets to the point where it kinda dampers the experience on an HDTV with it's muddiness. Maybe I just have to stop looking for it and just enjoy the game though.

brandontwb

You kind of forget the GameCube. The GameCube was more powerful than the PS2 and the GC didn't have games that the PS2 and the Xbox had. Wii would probably have the same faith if it was similar to the PS3 and 360. Developers would still complain about their games don't sell as the Nintendo games.

No. A lack of power isn't the wii's problem.

I used to be into PC games until Ati and Nvidia ruined everything with their idiotic hardware race. I bought a Wii because Nintendo clearly stated that they thought that technology alone should NOT be the driving force behind the video game industry.

I used to be into PC games until Ati and Nvidia ruined everything with their idiotic hardware race. I bought a Wii because Nintendo clearly stated that they thought that technology alone should NOT be the driving force behind the video game industry.

LordQuorthon

The only time you really notice that the Wii is not on the same level is when you play a multi-platform game, but I think most people playing the Wii are playing Wii-exclusive games, so who cares if it's a little weak?

i would definately like it if all the wii games had graphics on par with the ps3/360. LoG-Sacrament

I'm not sure I would. Both the PS3's and the 360's are stuck with games that have great pixel shader stuff, with the textures and all that crap, but, because of the hardware, developers have to choose between shaders/textures/etc, and colors, at least according to an article I read. That's why walls are detailed and you can see the pores on your character's face but, at the same time, everything is either brown or gray. I have nothing against realistic graphics but, until realism is... Well, truely real, with BLUE skies, GREEN grass and all those colors I actually see in real life, I think developers should have used all those megabytes and megahertz that the 360 and PS3 hardware provides to polish cartoony/anime graphics, instead of trying to be "realistic" by designing brown/gray worlds and characters. I could easily put up with two or three more generations of cartoony/anime graphics before getting realistic graphics. At this stage, in terms of realism, graphics seem to be on a very awkward and almost pubescent-like stage.

I do like how some PS3/360 games look, though. Games like Mirror's Edge, Vesperia, Prince of Persia and Street Fighter 4, but the thing I like about them is that they don't try to be realistic. And it's not a coincidence that some of those games could be tweaked a little bit to make them run on the Wii without losing too much of their personality.

well no honestly , games werent meant to be reality , it was supposed to be what people can play to get escapism adding realistic graphics and gameplay defeats the purpose ,

and just think how much would a wii cost, with all the bc it has it could have costed 499,99 like the ps3 and fail ,, that would spell the end of nintendo , and even gaming ,

nintendo even made it very clear that graphics shouldnt be the driving force behind games industry also they pointed out a fact proven true so many times, 3 or more ocnsoles aimin at one thing is not gonna work any more ,

I think they should have. I mean, Nintendo doesn't need it to make great games, but if they made it as powerful as 360/PS3 we would probably see a lot more quality multiplatform games. I can't imagine what Nintendo would pull off with the hardware. That combined with wiimotion plus would be amazing.

To be honest the graphics for the most part are great, especially on a tube TV through component cables, but on an HDTV it looks really muddy so the main thing I would probably want is HD since tube TVs are now becoming obsolete.

I mean graphics don't really matter but it gets to the point where it kinda dampers the experience on an HDTV with it's muddiness. Maybe I just have to stop looking for it and just enjoy the game though.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]i would definately like it if all the wii games had graphics on par with the ps3/360. LordQuorthon

I'm not sure I would. Both the PS3's and the 360's are stuck with games that have great pixel shader stuff, with the textures and all that crap, but, because of the hardware, developers have to choose between shaders/textures/etc, and colors, at least according to an article I read. That's why walls are detailed and you can see the pores on your character's face but, at the same time, everything is either brown or gray. I have nothing against realistic graphics but, until realism is... Well, truely real, with BLUE skies, GREEN grass and all those colors I actually see in real life, I think developers should have used all those megabytes and megahertz that the 360 and PS3 hardware provides to polish cartoony/anime graphics, instead of trying to be "realistic" by designing brown/gray worlds and characters. I could easily put up with two or three more generations of cartoony/anime graphics before getting realistic graphics. At this stage, in terms of realism, graphics seem to be on a very awkward and almost pubescent-like stage.

I do like how some PS3/360 games look, though. Games like Mirror's Edge, Vesperia, Prince of Persia and Street Fighter 4, but the thing I like about them is that they don't try to be realistic. And it's not a coincidence that some of those games could be tweaked a little bit to make them run on the Wii without losing too much of their personality.

Other than the resolution issue, could Super Mario Galaxy look that much better?

Other than the resolution issue, could Super Mario Galaxy look that much better?

LordQuorthon

Key words: THAT and MUCH.

I think they should have. I mean, Nintendo doesn't need it to make great games, but if they made it as powerful as 360/PS3 we would probably see a lot more quality multiplatform games. I can't imagine what Nintendo would pull off with the hardware. That combined with wiimotion plus would be amazing.

To be honest the graphics for the most part are great, especially on a tube TV through component cables, but on an HDTV it looks really muddy so the main thing I would probably want is HD since tube TVs are now becoming obsolete.

I mean graphics don't really matter but it gets to the point where it kinda dampers the experience on an HDTV with it's muddiness. Maybe I just have to stop looking for it and just enjoy the game though.

brandontwb

^LOL, perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but I couldn't resist. :P Anyways, Nintendo knew what it was doing. Perhaps it didn't think the Wii would take off the way it did, but it's proven its point. Sheer power alone doesn't make a video game system, and for Nintendo to attract new consumers at this point in time, making a system on the level of its HD counterparts wasn't really an option. I chuckle a bit whenever I hear the whole multiplatform game thing, as if it would have made the Wii that much more of a system. For starters, that's probably all we would be getting right now, and given the history of third party success (or lack thereof) on Nintendo systems, especially with the GameCube, not even mutliplats would have been promised to the system at all times. As bad as third party support has been on the Wii during stretches, at least the system is getting a number of exclusive games with some potential.

As for everything else, it's a matter of preference, really. For the moment, I can honestly say I can deal with the Wii in the visuals department for a few more years as long as the majority of developers can get their acts together and make games that justify the system's power. Yeah, I just basically said that developers aren't even tapping into the Wii's power at this point. :P That's really the only complaint I have at the moment; if Nintendo can make great looking games on the system, I'm sure SOMEONE ELSE out there can put up something that looks decent.

Key words: THAT and MUCH.

LordQuorthon

No, I would rather pay less money, and have worse graphics. Also, games are $50 instead of $60.

I love the Wii the way it is.

While I do think that "they focused on innovation rather than just technical upgrades" is a valid point, I can't see why they couldn't do both. Seriously the PS3 and Xbox 360 were basically very upgraded versions of the past consoles, with advancing technology I doubt much work was put into improving them. The Wii took hard work to make, but after all was said and done they could have made better servers and given everything a bigger graphical upgrade. I actually think the graphics are good enough (last generation was the point at which we reached them not needing to be any better than they already are, improvements are optional), but of course amazing graphics are what makes a great game amazing often times. Seriously it may already have great graphics, but imagine Metroid Prime 3 with, say, the same graphical quality as a game like Gears of War or COD 4? Obviously not NECESSARY, but other than needing to put more detail and time into graphical design, nothing significant is added to the development process.

Well that's debatable, Nintendo has always been an awesome industry, they really don't need all that hardware to have excellent games. But then again, it would be cool if Nintendo did came out with a more powerful system then the PS3 & X360, just to stick it to the fanboys :P.

$60 games and $400 console prices is one of the reasons I bought a wii.

$60 games and $400 console prices is one of the reasons I bought a wii.

goblaa

I don't think they should have because it would've increased the price of the system and making the cost a barrier to a lot of the people that have driven their success so far. Price might've been a big factor because it was so affordable compared to the competition. If the system $100 more expensive, for example, it would've been out of reach for more people. Besides, it's doing great with its current power. I've heard it's just a Gamecube with motion controls, but hey, the Gamecube was a great system and had excellent graphics. I guess they felt the system was powerful enough to support the kinds of graphics they put into their games. Will graphics even be a concern for them when it comes time to create Wii's successor? Probably not, at least not as much as the competition.

I think Nintendo knows what they're doing and will only upgrade the graphics if that means also improving the gaming experience itself.

If Nintendo was able to find a way to create a low-priced HD console (like PS3 Slim without the BluRay player), I'm sure they would've made a more powerful console. Either the PS3 Slim is missing a lot of stuff, or Nintendo is on it's way with a $250 Wii HD. Another possibility would be a Wii price cut to $200 with Wii Sports Resort packed in to help expand the installed base of the Wii Motion Plus. Either way, Nintendo is in good shape.

I guess with PSOne outselling the N64, Nintendo learned that the more powerful system doesn't always win the console war.

I would have liked it, if they made it more powerful not in the graphics department, but in the, more things on screen department. Like, Overlord, you can have I believe 300 minions, where the Wii version you can only have 100. And the ability to have more people online, and the ability to have huge worlds like oblivion. I don't know if those 2 go hand in hand, but it would be cool.

I think what Nintendo did is brilliant, from a business stand point. They gave us a next gen system for a cheaper price then the other guys, they gave us games that we have come to know and love from them (whether anyone wants to admit it or not) and they left room to grow massively not only for the veterans that have remained loyal to them but for new comers to grasp onto and feel comfortable. Granted the other systems are doing amazing things with graphics and XBox has that device coming out that is pretty much a premitive VR, that might all be just show. Nintendo hasn't jacked up the prices of their games and those that are expensive, well you don't have to buy them.

Lets face it, each console is unloaded piles of crap for games on their fans and yet through that we find unexpected gems that we grow to love and then they throw us a bone and release a Mario or Final Fantasy or whatever and thats all in well but problem is that when you are already pushing the enevolpe of things you can do with your games and system you have to wait for the industry itself to grow.

Nintendo is smart to stay a little behind because when the time comes and Playstation and XBox make the next big leap, owners of those systems will have to take out a loan to purchase one and have to wait years upon years for a major title, all the while Nintendo fans will be sitting back with their system cheaper then the competition, games that will use the tech it has to pump out good games and still that comfortable area of growth they still have in front of them. Granted thes just a nice way of saying "let's see what they do and then see what we can do" but that doesn't sound bad to me.

I'm in no hurry to jump into the virtual reality booth and bust some heads, and happy with Nintendo gaming right now

From a business standpoint... no.

But I think they should because the system suffers a lot due to the lack of multiplatform games. Last gen the Gamecube had a great library of first-party titles and awesome multiplatforms (Sands of Time, Soul Calibur II and Resident Evil 4 come to mind) but the Wii is lacking in that aspect for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a multiplatform game it ends up being a lazy downgraded copy of the better originals.

Didn't help them win the last two rounds (by appearrences) so they just went their own direction. I own a 360 and have Command and Conquer 3, Dead Rising, Dead Space, Resident evil 5, Halo 3 and believe all these games can be replicated on the Wii, their just visual enhancements of previous gen games. Big name third parties make a mockery of the Wii with their crappy efforts.

Maybe some HD output is all that is needed. I mean, the original Xbox could do it so why not the Wii? I think that they should have so we could get some decent games instead of developers complaining how the iPhone is more powerful than the Wii (which it clearly isn't) and they can't create good games on the system. Then again if the Wii had tons of quality games from a wide variety of genres to begin with i wouldn't see the need for a more powerful system.

More powerful console means less powerful games, so NO.

I'm fine with the graphics the Wii has, and the Wii is cheaper without HD, so I don't think Nintendo should have made a more powerful console.

Yes but not PS3/360 powerful. That would have been stupid. Just a moderate upgrade, 1.2 GHz processor, stronger GPU (with sgader support damn it), 128 ram. That would have been fine and not broken the bank. Right now they aren't geting the support they need because you can just port last gen games.
With the specs I'm suggesting the console could have run something like Half Life 2 moderately well and that would have been more than enough to pose them for complete dominance.

Well that's debatable, Nintendo has always been an awesome industry, they really don't need all that hardware to have excellent games. But then again, it would be cool if Nintendo did came out with a more powerful system then the PS3 & X360, just to stick it to the fanboys :P.

BigBen11111

Fanboys are not worth the energy!:evil:

I think they should have. I mean, Nintendo doesn't need it to make great games, but if they made it as powerful as 360/PS3 we would probably see a lot more quality multiplatform games. I can't imagine what Nintendo would pull off with the hardware. That combined with wiimotion plus would be amazing.

To be honest the graphics for the most part are great, especially on a tube TV through component cables, but on an HDTV it looks really muddy so the main thing I would probably want is HD since tube TVs are now becoming obsolete.

I mean graphics don't really matter but it gets to the point where it kinda dampers the experience on an HDTV with it's muddiness. Maybe I just have to stop looking for it and just enjoy the game though.

brandontwb

Yes but not PS3/360 powerful. That would have been stupid. Just a moderate upgrade, 1.2 GHz processor, stronger GPU (with sgader support damn it), 128 ram. That would have been fine and not broken the bank. Right now they aren't geting the support they need because you can just port last gen games.

With the specs I'm suggesting the console could have run something like Half Life 2 moderately well and that would have been more than enough to pose them for complete dominance.ActicEdge

im sure HL2 runs on the wii as it is.It runs on the old xbox(which as an older class processor).COD4 is a more taxing engine and it runs on the wii.

Anti-aliasing or HD resolutions is all I'd want...

3 consoles having almost the same games? that's so boring

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Yes but not PS3/360 powerful. That would have been stupid. Just a moderate upgrade, 1.2 GHz processor, stronger GPU (with sgader support damn it), 128 ram. That would have been fine and not broken the bank. Right now they aren't geting the support they need because you can just port last gen games.

With the specs I'm suggesting the console could have run something like Half Life 2 moderately well and that would have been more than enough to pose them for complete dominance.intro94

im sure HL2 runs on the wii as it is.It runs on the old xbox(which as an older class processor).COD4 is a more taxing engine and it runs on the wii.

It also looks like crap. COD4 also looks like crap on the wii. I'm talking about running HL2 at some decnt setting here.

$60 games and $400 console prices is one of the reasons I bought a wii.

goblaa

Thats why I have a Wii and PS3.

[QUOTE="intro94"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I [QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="intro94"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Yes but not PS3/360 powerful. That would have been stupid. Just a moderate upgrade, 1.2 GHz processor, stronger GPU (with sgader support damn it), 128 ram. That would have been fine and not broken the bank. Right now they aren't geting the support they need because you can just port last gen games.

With the specs I'm suggesting the console could have run something like Half Life 2 moderately well and that would have been more than enough to pose them for complete dominance.ActicEdge

im sure HL2 runs on the wii as it is.It runs on the old xbox(which as an older class processor).COD4 is a more taxing engine and it runs on the wii.

It also looks like crap. COD4 also looks like crap on the wii. I'm talking about running HL2 at some decnt setting here.

i think the Wii should definately be more powerful. i mean, we could still keep our wii-exclu. games, and then have our multiplat games and they could live up to PS3/360, or closer than they are. i dont mean in terms of graphics,(i think we gotta wait some time until they get groundbreaking graphics) but i mean like supporting more people online and having more game modes and having more everything. along those lines.

i think the Wii should definately be more powerful. i mean, we could still keep our wii-exclu. games, and then have our multiplat games and they could live up to PS3/360, or closer than they are. i dont mean in terms of graphics,(i think we gotta wait some time until they get groundbreaking graphics) but i mean like supporting more people online and having more game modes and having more everything. along those lines.

Noskillkill

This is what I was talking about. People always say that they want the Wii to be more powerful, but the reason why they want that generally is basically because they want the games that the other two consoles are getting. That's kind of like buying a Volkswagon and then complaining that it wasn't a Ferarri.

If you want the games that the powerful consoles are getting, then buy one of those consoles. :P And if one's complaint is that those consoles are too expensive... well, there's why the Wii was not built powerful.

The wii is the first console to be underpowered in comparison to other consoles. Nintendo always had the strongest console (with the exception of the gamecube being the second). So im pretty sure they will do something next gen. they just tried something different this time around which they acknowledged.

The wii is the first console to be underpowered in comparison to other consoles. Nintendo always had the strongest console (with the exception of the gamecube being the second). So im pretty sure they will do something next gen. they just tried something different this time around which they acknowledged.

painguy1

Actually, the NES was underpowered compared to the Sega Master System, and the Super NES was underpowered compared to the Neo-Geo. So really the N64 was the only console of theirs that was the strongest of the generation.

Historically speaking, in four out of the five generations starting with the NES the most underpowered console won the sales battle, and in none of the five generations did the graphically strongest console win. Methinks that Nintendo has figured out what works - why would they go back to what wasn't working in the next generation?