What excuse does Nintendo have for having weaker graphics than the competition?

I've always been a fan of Nintendo, and I understand their ideas of gameplay have been revolutionary (touch screen, motion sensor) but what is their excuse for the Wii having by far the weakest graphics out of the three current game consoles (that, 360 and PS3)? Shouldn't the graphics for its games be up to par with those of the games available for other consoles as well?

That said I will always be loyal to Nintendo and have always had fun with the Wii, but this has only made me more curious as to what excuse Nintendo has for its games not having graphics that live up to the competition.

Take it to system wars.

Less game development costs/time, less expensive hardware.

Well, the way I see it:

Less powerful console = easier to develop games for = less expensive = more units sold

More units sold is a pretty good "excuse" for a business.

I personally don't give a damn if the Wii has the worst graphics. Gameplay has always left a bigger, better impression than graphics on me.

Less game development costs/time, less expensive hardware.

_BlueDuck_

For the rest of it, read this. Here's an excerpt:

This may sound paradoxical, but if we had followed the existing Roadmaps we would have aimed to make it "faster and flashier." In other words, we would have tried to improve the speed at which it displays stunning graphics. But we could not help but ask ourselves, "How big an impact would that direction really have on our customers?" During development, we came to realize the sheer inefficiency of this path when we compared the hardships and costs of development against any new experiences that might be had by our customers.Genyo Takedo

For my oldish quasi-counterargument, read this, which uses the first Force Unleashed game as an example. Unfortunately that game didn't use the Wii's motion controls to their potential to make up for the lack of hardware....

Excuse 1#: In the previous generation the gamecube was far more powerfull than the ps2 yet people went all nuts over the weaker consoles.

Excuse 2#: gameplay and actual effort make game good, not just pretty graphics.

Excuse 3#: Unlike the current competition, we only receive profits from video games, on the other hand both sony & microsoft are company that make profit with more than just games.

Excuse 4#: We almost went bankrupt last gen so we might as well take it easy lol

thats all i can think of anyways, the Wii is by far better than the competition, it might lack the graphical power, but it has a great library of games that don`t only consist of first person shooters clones.

When you are effortlessly outselling your competition, you do not need to have excuses for anything.

1. back in 2006 the competition was uber expensive while the Wii wasn't that expensive.

2. Not everyone had an HDTV so what was the point of going HD?

Gamecube worldwide sales: 21.7 million

Wii worldwide sales: 72.9 million

I don't think you really need an excuse for a console that is a massive success. :P

Nintendo lost alot of money with the GC, and they decided to make the Wii inorder to recover. Everygen Nintendo has always had the strongest console (exception with the GC which had a better CPU than the xbox, but a weaker GPU). Its only this gen where Nintendo has done this. Im sure that next gen they will have a strong system again. The graphical leap next gen wont be that large which basically allows Nintendo to catch up to the competition in terms of hardware.

The Wii was a console of right now

With SD sets all the rage the weaker hardware was ok

The problem came when HD sets are now the majority in people's homes. This means that the weaker hardware shows it's faults and media options like Netflix are also of a lower quality then people xpect to see.

So it depends how you look at it

Pre 2008 the Wii easily overcame it's faults with weaker hardware

Post 2008 Nintendo lost it's edge and has been bleeding money and market share because it's hardware can't produce what people expect out of current tech

Everygen Nintendo has always had the strongest console (exception with the GC which had a better CPU than the xbox, but a weaker GPU).

painguy1

Not true

If you had payed attention to gaming news over the last 5 years or so you would have known why. Obviously it was a good choice. Besides the most powerful console rarely has won a console race. The only possible exception is the SNES/Genesis (the SNES was arguably more powerful) generation and the SNES barely won it. I think Nintendo made a good choice.

The GameCube was underlook...so they pump it with steroids and added motion control...they were hoping that devs would take advantage with it being similar to GC but that didn't really pans out as they thought it would...but they did break into mums, dads, grandpas & grandmas market. :)

The Wii is pretty much GC on steroids :P

this seems like a SW topic

but Nintendo has said they aren't in direct competition with the other systems. they went after the casual market (which generally doesn't care about graphics), and it paid off big time.

so i suppose their excuse would be the profit they've made

The Wii was a console of right now

With SD sets all the rage the weaker hardware was ok

The problem came when HD sets are now the majority in people's homes. This means that the weaker hardware shows it's faults and media options like Netflix are also of a lower quality then people xpect to see.

So it depends how you look at it

Pre 2008 the Wii easily overcame it's faults with weaker hardware

Post 2008 Nintendo lost it's edge and has been bleeding money and market share because it's hardware can't produce what people expect out of current tech

Jaysonguy

Bleeding money? They 'lost' money this last quarter to offset the difficult yen exchange. In terms of how they are doing financially, bleeding couldn't be farther from the truth.

Pre-2008 the Wii still captivated people with Wii Sports and a few other titles with motion control. In 2008, the Wii had the best hardware sales of all-time. Then, during that holiday, Nintendo dropped two trashy titles in Animal Crossing and Wii Music. After the slip in momentum, 3rd parties finally found a window to bail and claimed "slowing Wii interest" as their Punched Time Card. At this point in 2010, Western 3rd parties and 90% of Japanese have abandoned Nintendo, leaving the Wii without a software leg to stand on. Tech, had nothing to do with it. New Super Mario Bros set the sales charts ablaze at the very end of 2009.

To answer the topic of this thread, Nintendo did not wish to compete with Sony and Microsoft in the power struggle. IIRC, Miyamoto said its like 3 dinosaurs fighting over the same scraps. So instead of a Triple Threat Match, Nintendo focused on interface rather than console power. the alternative would've been to go Beyond the PS3, which would've made their console at least $1000 to make- unsellable. The lower specs encourage smaller development times and budgets, along with smaller barriers of entry. The whole point was to be a cheaper alternative. If you look at numbers, it worked perfectly. A farther look back at the situation would outline a disaster of idiotic proportions from 3rd parties.

As far as I was aware, Nintendo didn't lose anymoney on the GameCube. They just didn't make as much money as they had hoped as the console didn't sell as well. They weren't underselling the console, which means they were never selling it at a loss. First party games still sold quite well too, considering the number of consoles sold. Had they followed continued down this road with their follow-up console though, they may well have made a loss as things become more expensive to develop and manufacture, but i'm pretty sure this wasn't the case back then.Raiko101

That said I will always be loyal to Nintendo and have always had fun with the Wii, but this has only made me more curious as to what excuse Nintendo has for its games not having graphics that live up to the competition.

Tigerman950

i think nintendo put too much time into the motion controls and decided to cut corners in the graphics which made the hardcore people mad.

too bad it copuld have been an even better console...but might not have sold well.

Well, the way I see it:

Less powerful console = easier to develop games for = less expensive = more units sold

More units sold is a pretty good "excuse" for a business.

I personally don't give a damn if the Wii has the worst graphics. Gameplay has always left a bigger, better impression than graphics on me.

Well, the way I see it:

Less powerful console = easier to develop games for = less expensive = more units sold

More units sold is a pretty good "excuse" for a business.

I personally don't give a damn if the Wii has the worst graphics. Gameplay has always left a bigger, better impression than graphics on me.

Keeping up with the competition was killing them. Nintendo were considered a total also-ran in terms of home consoles, more people were interested in what Sony and Microsoft were gonna do and Nintendo were almost becoming an afterthought, and so rather than trying to out-graphic the competition (which didn't work so well for the Gamecube) they brought out the Wii and now they're selling consoles again. The inferior graphics also allowed them to have a much lower price than the other two when the Wii was released, which helped them considerably as well.

Well, the way I see it:

Less powerful console = easier to develop games for = less expensive = more units sold

More units sold is a pretty good "excuse" for a business.

I personally don't give a damn if the Wii has the worst graphics. Gameplay has always left a bigger, better impression than graphics on me.

Bleeding money? They 'lost' money this last quarter to offset the difficult yen exchange. In terms of how they are doing financially, bleeding couldn't be farther from the truth.

DaLegendKilla92

Not at all

They've make no growth at all going on 2 years now, the only company in this field to do so

They've had to resort to 99 dollar consoles and such just to keep up, they haven't been making money and the hardware they're making is less then half of what the used to be selling it for.

Nintendo has been in trouble since the summer of 2008, I don't know how you can say things have been fine

Excuse 1#: In the previous generation the gamecube was far more powerfull than the ps2 yet people went all nuts over the weaker consoles.

Excuse 2#: gameplay and actual effort make game good, not just pretty graphics.

Excuse 3#: Unlike the current competition, we only receive profits from video games, on the other hand both sony & microsoft are company that make profit with more than just games.

Excuse 4#: We almost went bankrupt last gen so we might as well take it easy lol

thats all i can think of anyways, the Wii is by far better than the competition, it might lack the graphical power, but it has a great library of games that don`t only consist of first person shooters clones.

Kyousuk3z

Excuse 4 been not true, Nintendo made a profit with Gamecube and the GBA, which sold more than both the Gamecube and Xbox combined.

Excuse 1#: In the previous generation the gamecube was far more powerfull than the ps2 yet people went all nuts over the weaker consoles.

Excuse 2#: gameplay and actual effort make game good, not just pretty graphics.

Excuse 3#: Unlike the current competition, we only receive profits from video games, on the other hand both sony & microsoft are company that make profit with more than just games.

Excuse 4#: We almost went bankrupt last gen so we might as well take it easy lol

thats all i can think of anyways, the Wii is by far better than the competition, it might lack the graphical power, but it has a great library of games that don`t only consist of first person shooters clones.

Kyousuk3z

That´s what I think

This gen Nintendo made a good choice, but the Wii's life must be coming to an end. I think Nintendo is trying one last campaign with the Wii before focusing its resources on the next console. NSMBWii, SMG2, MoM, TLoZ:SS, DKR, and Kirby are most likely the last big Wii projects from Nintendo.

Nintendo's choice allowed for improvements like 480P widescreen, WiFi, Wireless motion controls, and improved memory storage while leaving it backwards compatible, cheaper to develop for, and a they maintained a low price point.

Nintendo has found itself in a bit of a crisis as third party companies have not given alot of quality support for the Wii, and few companies have even acknowledged motion plus exists.

My question is: how will Nintendo respond if the public sees the system as less capable graphically, less powerful, and inferior with its motion controls (which without motion plus, it will be).

Hopefully, Nintendo has a rabbit in their hat.

same here, even though i bought i PS3 this gen, i still had to have the wii simply because of how loyal i am to nintendo and there games. i thought of the same idea, why didnt nintendo make its system as good as the ps3 and 360 technically this time. nintendo has always been a little behind in tech with their systems, starting from n64. i could imagine a wii that is as good technically as the other systems, and being able to play the same games as the other systems, but its just nintendos way to stay behind in tech. i dont know ecaxtly why they chose to do it, but i dont care much anymore.

EDIT: dont forget that the nitnendo has still made great choices with the wii such as the multiple controler support, full backwards compatibility, etc. hopefully next gen (which i hope will be a looooong time from now, at least 2 - 3 years min) nintendo will step it up, not by copying the other companies, they still need to innovate, but they also need to upgrade their system to be more competitive. and when they do that, hopefully more third party developers will decide to make good games for nintendo, possibly the same games as the other companies get.

My question is: how will Nintendo respond if the public sees the system as less capable graphically, less powerful, and inferior with its motion controls (which without motion plus, it will be).

mrfokken

Think about it for a moment, and it's not hard to figure out. Both the Wii and the DS have been known as less powerful, graphically capable systems since their respective launches, and how much has that really hurt either system? Heck, people forget that this is the very same company that released the GameBoy, which spent a great deal of its life in monochrome display when competing handhelds were going with color, for crying out loud. I think Nintendo's knows how to deal with this particular shortcoming very well. And when it comes to the whole motion control point, first off, we don't know how popular the upcoming motion-controlled accessories will be, and second, they're WAY behind the curve of the Wii when it comes to software, which will be a major factor. The two motion control alternatives have to actually PROVE that they're superior to the Wii not only tech-wise, but with forward-thinking content to push the concept forward, and that remains to be seen from a mainstream perspective.

The rabbit in Nintendo's hat is the power of the Wii brand and the record-breaking software it has produced. It'd take more than a couple of add-ons with supposedly "superior" motion tech to even compare to what the Wii has done, much less duplicate or overcome it. Nintendo just has to make sure it keeps the Wii experience fresh for current and future owners.

They dont have the money to compete exspecially after the GC they were not willing to take that big of a chance and it paid off anyway.wooooode

This is a common misconception, but it remains a misconception. The decision to go with an underpowered console was a conscious and deliberate design choice, not simply a default option that they went with because they somehow couldn't afford to make a stronger console.

I enjoy Nintendo's ambition and innovation to start something new, I was right there from the start.

I'm not going to lie though... the games are ugly. Nintendo has always maxed out their consoles capabilities, but I'm tired or 3rd parties not taking advantage of the systems power, and I'm tired of no software appealing to me.

I agree that gameplay comes before graphics, but after being spoiled by visually appealing games as of late and the horribly designed Wii games most developers release, it's disgusting... Nintendo needs to release a new console in the next few years imo. They've been getting better at working with 3rd parties, but they need to do even better and

Unfortunately as much as I love Nintendo, I think their rollercoaster ride will end over the next few years either way. They will always dominate software sales for their console, and I just fear that the simplistic Mii avatar/games may have tainted their image to a certain extent with the general public. My friends have a Wii, all they play is Wii sports with no urge to try anything else besides Resort

This is a common misconception, but it remains a misconception. The decision to go with an underpowered console was a conscious and deliberate design choice, not simply a default option that they went with because they somehow couldn't afford to make a stronger console.

GabuEx

That is correct.

Also, the Super Nintendo was not the console with the best technology back in the day. It had a better sound chip than the Genesis and whatnot, but the 3DO and CDi were miles ahead of the Genesis and the SNES; and so was the Neo Geo. People like to act as if those three consoles never existed, but they existed, they were far more powerful than the Super Nintendo and the Genesis, but they still sucked tremendously... Well, the Neo Geo was cool in its own way, but the other two were horrible.

[QUOTE="wooooode"]They dont have the money to compete exspecially after the GC they were not willing to take that big of a chance and it paid off anyway.GabuEx

This is a common misconception, but it remains a misconception. The decision to go with an underpowered console was a conscious and deliberate design choice, not simply a default option that they went with because they somehow couldn't afford to make a stronger console.

That's incorrect

The only thing that Nintendo was set on was the form factor and the price, in order to reach the size they wanted they had to downgrade the quality of the components in the console in order to reach their goal.

If NIntendo could have built a console the size of the Wii with power that rivaled the others they would have

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This is a common misconception, but it remains a misconception. The decision to go with an underpowered console was a conscious and deliberate design choice, not simply a default option that they went with because they somehow couldn't afford to make a stronger console.

Jaysonguy

That's incorrect

The only thing that Nintendo was set on was the form factor and the price, in order to reach the size they wanted they had to downgrade the quality of the components in the console in order to reach their goal.

If NIntendo could have built a console the size of the Wii with power that rivaled the others they would have

That's incorrect.

Given the fact that Nintendo was the company that had the most revenue going out of last gen, there was nothing stopping it from producing hardware similar in power to the other consoles. Nintendo just saw that the model wasn't working and opted to focus on a different and more efficient way of looking at the technolgies available to create new gaming experiences. Nintendo didn't "downgrade" anything from what the previous gen had offered; they just didn't make as huge as a leap as the other console makers did, which can be argued as being larger graphical leaps than anything else we've seen in this industry to date.

Nintendo believed that both the Wii and DS were going to succeed or fail based on the new interfaces they provided, not how powerful they were as systems. As JordanElek's quote of Gendo Takedo shows, this was something Nintendo obviously looked into, and when it came down to it, simply going with graphics as a selling point wasn't what the company saw as something that was going to work.

That's incorrect

The only thing that Nintendo was set on was the form factor and the price, in order to reach the size they wanted they had to downgrade the quality of the components in the console in order to reach their goal.

If NIntendo could have built a console the size of the Wii with power that rivaled the others they would have

Jaysonguy

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's incorrect

The only thing that Nintendo was set on was the form factor and the price, in order to reach the size they wanted they had to downgrade the quality of the components in the console in order to reach their goal.

If NIntendo could have built a console the size of the Wii with power that rivaled the others they would have

Sepewrath

He's saying they went for a low power console from the start

Nintendo didn't go for a low power console from the start. They wanted a small console that could be sold for a certain price, the only way the could do that was to use weaker components.

Nintendo only had weak hardware because that's what the could afford putting in the console. If they could have afforded better hardware we'd see that in the console instead.

He's saying they went for a low power console from the start

Nintendo didn't go for a low power console from the start. They wanted a small console that could be sold for a certain price, the only way the could do that was to use weaker components.

Nintendo only had weak hardware because that's what the could afford putting in the console. If they could have afforded better hardware we'd see that in the console instead.

Jaysonguy

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's incorrect

The only thing that Nintendo was set on was the form factor and the price, in order to reach the size they wanted they had to downgrade the quality of the components in the console in order to reach their goal.

If NIntendo could have built a console the size of the Wii with power that rivaled the others they would have

Jaysonguy

He's saying they went for a low power console from the start

Nintendo didn't go for a low power console from the start. They wanted a small console that could be sold for a certain price, the only way the could do that was to use weaker components.

Nintendo only had weak hardware because that's what the could afford putting in the console. If they could have afforded better hardware we'd see that in the console instead.

The only problem is that that world of cheaper technology doesn't exist, so your hypothetical situation might as well be "if money didn't exist, then Nintendo could've made bananas for everyone instead of video games."

Please don't get me wrong. I like my Wii and am not promoting the Move.

Think about it for a moment, and it's not hard to figure out. Both the Wii and the DS have been known as less powerful, graphically capable systems since their respective launches, and how much has that really hurt either system? Heck, people forget that this is the very same company that released the GameBoy, which spent a great deal of its life in monochrome display when competing handhelds were going with color, for crying out loud. I think Nintendo's knows how to deal with this particular shortcoming very well.Madmangamer364

Yes, but they dealt with that by having better and more diverse games, Something Sony knows a lot about (think PS2).

And when it comes to the whole motion control point, first off, we don't know how popular the upcoming motion-controlled accessories will be

Madmangamer364

No, we don't. However, with a 399 bundle that includes a game, and with what will be a huge ad campaign from Sony for the holidays, Sony just might give Nintendo a run for their money in units sold. Especially when casual gamers really don't have anything to compare the Move to other than Nintendo's regular motion controller. I don't see many stores demoing Motion Plus games for the Wii.

second, they're WAY behind the curve of the Wii when it comes to software, which will be a major factor. The two motion control alternatives have to actually PROVE that they're superior to the Wii not only tech-wise, but with forward-thinking content to push the concept forward, and that remains to be seen from a mainstream perspective.Madmangamer364

Most of the Wii's library of games use the motion controls poorly. They replace button presses with waggle. Only a handful seem inovative and well done. I do like the Motion Plus, but besides Red Steel 2, Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods, and Wii Sports Resort, no one really takes advantage of it. (Yes, I know Conduit 2 will use it too) Even Nintendo lacks support for it. They chose to use it for Zelda, (I can't wait) they did not use it for SMG2, Metroid, DK, Kirby, etc. Meanwhile, Sony will be using better tech than the regular Wiimote for games like SOCOM 4, Heavy Rain, Time Crisis, Resident Evil 5, Little Big Planet 2, NBA 2k11, etc. The point is, they seem to have better support for their motion controller than Nintendo does for Motion Plus right now. It is not really an argument for what each controller could do, it is an argument of who will support it. While I wouldn't say that Move is better tech than Motion Plus, it is certainly better than the regular Wii motion controls and those are what greater than 99% of Wii games use.

The rabbit in Nintendo's hat is the power of the Wii brand and the record-breaking software it has produced. It'd take more than a couple of add-ons with supposedly "superior" motion tech to even compare to what the Wii has done, much less duplicate or overcome it. Nintendo just has to make sure it keeps the Wii experience fresh for current and future owners.

Madmangamer364

I agree that Nintendo needs to keep things fresh, but the power of the Wii brand is now 4 years old and no longer the "IN" thing to have. Wiis seem to always be in stock, while PS3s are hard to find. With a new buzz about motion controls and demos for Move in retail stores, the Wii won't seem as fresh. Thus, Nintendo needs a bigger rabbit than simple name recognition and a vitality sensor.

Well actually HD is still not the standard, it just has enough of an install base where you know say 4 out of every 10 possible consumers will use the feature.

"Most of the Wii's library of games use the motion controls poorly. They replace button presses with waggle. Only a handful seem inovative and well done. I do like the Motion Plus, but besides Red Steel 2, Grand Slam Tennis, Tiger Woods, and Wii Sports Resort, no one really takes advantage of it. (Yes, I know Conduit 2 will use it too) Even Nintendo lacks support for it. They chose to use it for Zelda, (I can't wait) they did not use it for SMG2, Metroid, DK, Kirby, etc. Meanwhile, Sony will be using better tech than the regular Wiimote for games like SOCOM 4, Heavy Rain, Time Crisis, Resident Evil 5, Little Big Planet 2, NBA 2k11, etc. The point is, they seem to have better support for their motion controller than Nintendo does for Motion Plus right now. It is not really an argument for what each controller could do, it is an argument of who will support it. While I wouldn't say that Move is better tech than Motion Plus, it is certainly better than the regular Wii motion controls and those are what greater than 99% of Wii games use."

Well don't forget its a peripheral and its a peripheral that you could get for 10 bucks as a bundle. While with Move, you have to buy those games and spend another 100 bucks for the peripheral. And the support is not much different than you got with the stock wiimote which came with the system. The Wii had RE4, Corruption, Mario Kart and so on. The HD consoles will always have far better 3rd party support, but its not different enough from the stock controller or even the under utilized 10 dollar add on at a very high entry fee to really mean much in the long run.