I don't understand the Nintendo argument "We don't want good graphics"

Some time ago, I was in General Games Discussion talking about what I except from Nintendo's next console, and one of the things was a much more powerful machine to deliver graphics on par with its competition. I was immediately jumped on by a few people saying that "You shouldn't have bought a Wii if you wanted graphics" and "graphics don't make a game good" and "Nintendo just makes fun games." :| I KNOW all that. I bought my Wii, and I have fun with it, but I would have appreciated it if the games looked better, especially on my HDTV (and I wish I kept my old TV for the older games now that I think about it.

So I asked them a question. Why shouldn't Nintendo put more effort into its graphics? They didn't really have an answer for me. They just said, "We don't want graphics. We just want fun games." Everybody should want fun games... but, everyone SHOULD want good graphics too, right? Why just lay on your back and accept whatever Nintendo throws your way? Why not expect more from them? Am I the only one that doesn't want Nintendo to be complacent?

For those particular Wii owners who don't want Nintendo to focus in the graphics department next generation, please try to help me understand your point of view, because I'm simply not getting it.

Read this

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

Some time ago, I was in General Games Discussion talking about what I except from Nintendo's next console, and one of the things was a much more powerful machine to deliver graphics on par with its competition. I was immediately jumped on by a few people saying that "You shouldn't have bought a Wii if you wanted graphics" and "graphics don't make a game good" and "Nintendo just makes fun games." :| I KNOW all that. I bought my Wii, and I have fun with it, but I would have appreciated it if the games looked better, especially on my HDTV (and I wish I kept my old TV for the older games now that I think about it.

So I asked them a question. Why shouldn't Nintendo put more effort into its graphics? They didn't really have an answer for me. They just said, "We don't want graphics. We just want fun games." Everybody should want fun games... but, everyone SHOULD want good graphics too, right? Why just lay on your back and accept whatever Nintendo throws your way? Why not expect more from them? Am I the only one that doesn't want Nintendo to be complacent?

For those particular Wii owners who don't want Nintendo to focus in the graphics department next generation, please try to help me understand your point of view, because I'm simply not getting it.

JustPlainLucas

You are correct. There is no reason why Nintendo couldn't make the same, equally fun games with better graphics. Having said that, I think the issue is that many Ninty fans fear that if graphics were more of a focus then the game quality would be reduced overall as the time and effort for creating games with better graphics would come at the cost of time and effort for focus on gameplay etc.

Well in 2005 or 4 when they were making it I can see where they were coming from I mean who thought that HD would have taken off in such a short time like it has? Next gen. I think they will push the tech.

Read this

TalesofRaGnArOk

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying. They just don't want to admit that they'd like it because they can't get it. Anyways, its not like 360/PS3 are all graphics. They have better games IMO actually in terms of gameplay.

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying.

ColdP1zza

Why? I'm a PC gamer, and whilst good graphics are nice. I can still go back and play NES/SNES/PS1 games etc without a problem.

Read this

TalesofRaGnArOk

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

I understand what your saying, but the turn off for me is the word should. Nobody need tell anybody else what they should want from any form of entertainment. Now I don't see the big deal with graphics, personally. I love the look of Halo 3 and ODST, and I love Uncharted's graphics. But I really get a kick out of Madworld's Sin City like style when I'm chainsawing people in half. I also love the look of Metroid prime trilogy. I think Nintendo has done a great job with their console offering, and the graphics have been enjoyable as have the games I play on the Wii. But here in the rubber room we're all on meds.............cainetao11

I don't think the argument is "we don't want good graphics." The argument is that graphics are not a primary concern. Even Wii owners complain when a game looks like crap on their system so they clearly DO care about graphics. The most hardcore of the Nintendo fanboys claim that graphics don't matter. But you know how fanboys are, if the Wii was the most powerful system then they'd be singing a completely different tune.

I think Nintendo was concerned about how well the Wii would be received (success was no guarantee) and they wanted to abstain from any type of hardware arms race with Sony and Microsoft. That's why they just bulked up GameCube tech and sent it out the door. That way, if Wii fell flat on it's face, they wouldn't have dug themselves into a finacial hole that was unrecoverable years later like Sega had with the Saturn. I think Nintendo's next console will be a far greater leap hardware wise because now they can actually afford to risk making that leap.

To sell a new product, there has to be a reason why the consumer would want this new thing.

In terms of consoles and videogames. Usually companies decide to offer improved visual hardware. Consumers accept this, and this how the videogame industry thrives and progresses.

However, improved graphics isnt the only reason why a company can sell a new product. Nintendo's next console offers something more than what the gamecube does, the motion-technology.

Wii-haters are people who think that the only thing that justifies paying for new consoles is improved graphical capabilities. Wii-lovers are people who embrace that a graphical update is not the only reason to buy a new console.

im still not a wii fan despite of this, because motion controls as they stand today are a crap selling point. But hey, it seems to work for all those soccermoms.

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying.

ColdP1zza

Eh. I guess.

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying. They just don't want to admit that they'd like it because they can't get it. Anyways, its not like 360/PS3 are all graphics. They have better games IMO actually in terms of gameplay.

ColdP1zza

] The way I see it is, "We're stingy with our money, so we won't put any in our machine to make the graphics better, and instead spin some marketing and say 'It's all about gameplay'". Seems to be working... JustPlainLucas

The way I see it, is that they're a company, a company wants to make money, if either Sony or Microsoft knew they could get away with doing the same thing, they would have done it without hesitation, Nintendo just beat them to the punch.

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

lundy86_4

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

I understand what your saying, but the turn off for me is the word should. Nobody need tell anybody else what they should want from any form of entertainment. Now I don't see the big deal with graphics, personally. I love the look of Halo 3 and ODST, and I love Uncharted's graphics. But I really get a kick out of Madworld's Sin City like style when I'm chainsawing people in half. I also love the look of Metroid prime trilogy. I think Nintendo has done a great job with their console offering, and the graphics have been enjoyable as have the games I play on the Wii. But here in the rubber room we're all on meds.............cainetao11

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

dylanmcc

I think that arguement is interpreted a different way.

Like if a game is fun who cares how good it looks?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Nintendo scratched next-gen visuals in order to bring motion controls. For Nintendo to R&D those motion controls, plus the power of a PS3/360, would have cost a small fortune. They tried to break a new market, who are generally much more casual gamers.

I think the idea that it's not all about graphics is what makes the Wii special. It;s about gameplay aswell.

dylanmcc

I explained my take on it, whether it's right or not is all up in the air. I think one big reason is money. They R&D motion controls and push it out into an untested market, if they had sunk money into making a system as powerful as the 360/PS3 aswell, there's no telling how it would have faired. It could have rocketed, or it could have flopped.

Anyways, whether i'm right or not, only Nintendo knows :P

They wanted to take over the "business" from Sony. They wanted to be on top. So what better way than to sell a console that costs a lot less than $200 to make at the beginning of the generation (due to its dated hardware), sell it for $250 to the non-gaming crowd with little more than a cheesy gimmick and make billions?

I've never understood either Nintendo's position on using overclocked Gamecube hardware and sacrificing visual fidelity, or the fanboy position of "we don't need good graphics." I'm sorry I can't help.

Ok,Mabey it's just me,but aside from Super smash bros. Brawl.I havent played a high quality wiigame yet(not counting Mad World).& i only say that because i think the gamecube controller accesibility saved it.I feel the motion controls are never accurate enough.And Wii motion plus....everyone who bought a wii should get that for free!So yes,i think Nintendo should focus on better graphics.Cause coming from a hordcore gamer(& long time nintendo fan)This motion sensing is as about as amusing as the power glove.

[QUOTE="ColdP1zza"]

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying.

lundy86_4

Why? I'm a PC gamer, and whilst good graphics are nice. I can still go back and play NES/SNES/PS1 games etc without a problem.

That's different, I play classic games all the time as well. I'm not talking about last gen or any other gen, I mean this generation of consoles. And when I say they are lying about not caring about good graphics, I mean that they want the graphics of the PS3/360 but don't admit it. I know I definately did when I was a Wii only-owner. I doubt any Wii-only owner does not want HD graphics. Why would you not want your games to look better.

&l

You're missing the point. You asked why Wii owners don't want good graphics, so its flawed from the start. No one ever said that. What we did say was that we think graphics are more important than gameplay. Miyamoto himself says "But what I don't think is necessarily true is that the graphics itself is something that's going to make the gameplay experience better. So we're still going to focus on the gameplay, but we'll take advantage of the technology as it comes out." That is why Nintendo isn't putting much effort into graphics. They aren't out to try and make futuristic graphics - they go with the norm. Next generation they WILL have HD graphics because that's what the norm is/will be. What they do try to make is original gameplay, and Wii owners are perfectly fine with that.

The bigger question is: How can the ps3/360 top themselves now? They've forced themselves into a corner which dictates that the next gen versions will HAVE to have better graphics than the previous, otherwise consumers will complain. I don't see anything great about having better graphics.t;/p>

They wanted to take over the "business" from Sony. They wanted to be on top. So what better way than to sell a console that costs a lot less than $200 to make at the beginning of the generation (due to its dated hardware), sell it for $250 to the non-gaming crowd with little more than a cheesy gimmick and make billions?

I've never understood either Nintendo's position on using overclocked Gamecube hardware and sacrificing visual fidelity, or the fanboy position of "we don't need good graphics." I'm sorry I can't help.

foxhound_fox

Seriously?

Come on, you're a lot more smarter than me and you should know this by now:

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying. They just don't want to admit that they'd like it because they can't get it. Anyways, its not like 360/PS3 are all graphics. They have better games IMO actually in terms of gameplay.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
But why not have both? 360 and PS3 have gameplay AND grahics- Wii has just gameplay. I don't understand the 'it's just about fun not graphics' argument too, because it makes it sound like games with good graphics aren't fun. Which makes no sense.

dylanmcc

Nintendo didn't scratch next-gen visuals for motion controls. The Wii just wasn't meant for the hardcore. Ever heard of the PS3's motion wand or project natal?

[QUOTE="ColdP1zza"]

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying. They just don't want to admit that they'd like it because they can't get it. Anyways, its not like 360/PS3 are all graphics. They have better games IMO actually in terms of gameplay.

JustPlainLucas

Some may be satisfied with the Wii but if they could have had HD graphics with their console as well, they would take it.

Because the definition of a disruptive product is one that, in terms of technology, is "good enough", not "cutting edge" but, at the same time, provides something that your competition doesn't have. And no, it's not "teh waggle". It's the content, the software, "teh cashul app33l", in System Wars' lingo. There are a lot of examples: MP3s will never sound as good as CDs, but they managed to disrupt that market because they are extremely portable and easy to share, which the CD did not provide. In the case of MP3s, the disruption was so big that even lossless formats, like FLAC, which has been available for some time now, is simply ignored by regular folks.

The way I see it, is that they're a company, a company wants to make money, if either Sony or Microsoft knew they could get away with doing the same thing, they would have done it without hesitation, Nintendo just beat them to the punch.

But why not have both? 360 and PS3 have gameplay AND grahics- Wii has just gameplay. I don't understand the 'it's just about fun not graphics' argument too, because it makes it sound like games with good graphics aren't fun. Which makes no sense.

dylanmcc

That's cool. I enjoy the game I'm playing. I don't wish for any changes, I accept the enjoyment I get at the moment I get it. Not wanting is what makes my life less stressfull. I never once thought that Madworld, SMG, NMH, TP, Metroid would be so much better in HD because I was already enjoying being engrossed with the game. cainetao11

Well yeah we know that the Wii was much more focused for innovative gameplay so Nintendo didn't put an effort to graphx. Thing is that, it is already too late to do something about that, because of the limitations of Wii's hardware. Probably next Nintendo system does a better job in that department.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

The way I see it, is that they're a company, a company wants to make money, if either Sony or Microsoft knew they could get away with doing the same thing, they would have done it without hesitation, Nintendo just beat them to the punch.

JustPlainLucas

At $350? It might not have sold as well during the beginning, the $250 price point was a main selling point since it was the cheapest out of all the competitors.

Still, I see no reason to do anything about it now, the Wii more than satisfies my craving for niche games, I can see how a mainstream gamer would not be satisfied by owning just a Wii, but if you're someone who enjoys a lot of niche games, then the graphics wouldn't really hinder anything.

My main point though, is that we can't condemn Nintendo for being a company.

You're missing the point. You asked why Wii owners don't want good graphics, so its flawed from the start. No one ever said that. What we did say was that we think graphics are more important than gameplay. Miyamoto himself says "But what I don't think is necessarily true is that the graphics itself is something that's going to make the gameplay experience better. So we're still going to focus on the gameplay, but we'll take advantage of the technology as it comes out." That is why Nintendo isn't putting much effort into graphics. They aren't out to try and make futuristic graphics - they go with the norm. Next generation they WILL have HD graphics because that's what the norm is/will be. What they do try to make is original gameplay, and Wii owners are perfectly fine with that.

The bigger question is: How can the ps3/360 top themselves now? They've forced themselves into a corner which dictates that the next gen versions will HAVE to have better graphics than the previous, otherwise consumers will complain. I don't see anything great about having better graphics.t;/p>

TalesofRaGnArOk

And there you have it. Some Wii gamers are satisfied with their systems and games. What on earth could be wrong with that? Is it that you don't understand this? I don't understand why one of my buddies is a chubby chaser. But he loves fat women. It's cool. Let go of the idea that your going to understand others preferences. cainetao11

Some may be satisfied with the Wii but if they could have had HD graphics with their console as well, they would take it.

ColdP1zza

i forgot what poster it was on here but he said its perfectly "nintendo tricked people into buying a white gamecube"stereointegrity

At $350? It might not have sold as well during the beginning, the $250 price point was a main selling point since it was the cheapest out of all the competitors.

Still, I see no reason to do anything about it now, the Wii more than satisfies my craving for niche games, I can see how a mainstream gamer would not be satisfied by owning just a Wii, but if you're someone who enjoys a lot of niche games, then the graphics wouldn't really hinder anything.

My main point though, is that we can't condemn Nintendo for being a company.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

The way I see it, is that they're a company, a company wants to make money, if either Sony or Microsoft knew they could get away with doing the same thing, they would have done it without hesitation, Nintendo just beat them to the punch.

JustPlainLucas

It's easy to say that 3 years after the Wii has become a runaway success. It surprising how people forget the GBA/GC days when Nintendo was in dead last, barley making a profit. Nintendo isn't Microsoft and Sony, when they're down, they can't just rely on their other businesses to support their gaming division because all they do is video games. You say say they could have made it as powerful as the HD consoles and sold it for $350 and people would have still bought it en masse but that flys in the face of what everyone at they time believed. Everyone believed that Sony was going to dominate again and that Nintendo would be a 3rd place also-ran. The shortages and Nintendo's struggle to satisfy demand even after a year from launch is testament that even Nintendo was surprised by Wii's unexpected success. A lot of us forget that last generation people were suggesting Nintendo leave the console market and become a 3rd party or that they'd soon be bought by Microsoft or Apple, the company's console division was not doing well and the handheld front was about to see its first real threat in the form of the PSP. Those were uncertain times for Nintendo as a company.

i dont even want HD graphics i just wanted a secure online that works......and they couldnt even do thatstereointegrity

It's easy to say that 3 years after the Wii has become a runaway success. It surprising how people forget the GBA/GC days when Nintendo was in dead last, barley making a profit. Nintendo isn't Microsoft and Sony, when they're down, they can't just rely on their other businesses to support their gaming division because all they do is video games. You say say they could have made it as powerful as the HD consoles and sold it for $350 and people would have still bought it en masse but that flys in the face of what everyone at they time believed. Everyone believed that Sony was going to dominate again and that Nintendo would be a 3rd place also-ran. The shortages and Nintendo's struggle to satisfy demand even after a year from launch is testament that even Nintendo was surprised by Wii's unexpected success. A lot of us forget that last generation people were suggesting Nintendo leave the console market and become a 3rd party or that they'd soon be bought by Microsoft or Apple, the company's console division was not doing well and the handheld front was about to see its first real threat in the form of the PSP. Those were uncertain times for Nintendo as a company.

It's easy to say that 3 years after the Wii has become a runaway success. It surprising how people forget the GBA/GC days when Nintendo was in dead last, barley making a profit. Nintendo isn't Microsoft and Sony, when they're down, they can't just rely on their other businesses to support their gaming division because all they do is video games. You say say they could have made it as powerful as the HD consoles and sold it for $350 and people would have still bought it en masse but that flys in the face of what everyone at they time believed. Everyone believed that Sony was going to dominate again and that Nintendo would be a 3rd place also-ran. The shortages and Nintendo's struggle to satisfy demand even after a year from launch is testament that even Nintendo was surprised by Wii's unexpected success. A lot of us forget that last generation people were suggesting Nintendo leave the console market and become a 3rd party or that they'd soon be bought by Microsoft or Apple, the company's console division was not doing well and the handheld front was about to see its first real threat in the form of the PSP. Those were uncertain times for Nintendo as a company.

Enjoy your overly shiny graphics and we'll enjoy variety for the eye.

[QUOTE="Master_Hermes"]

It's easy to say that 3 years after the Wii has become a runaway success. It surprising how people forget the GBA/GC days when Nintendo was in dead last, barley making a profit. Nintendo isn't Microsoft and Sony, when they're down, they can't just rely on their other businesses to support their gaming division because all they do is video games. You say say they could have made it as powerful as the HD consoles and sold it for $350 and people would have still bought it en masse but that flys in the face of what everyone at they time believed. Everyone believed that Sony was going to dominate again and that Nintendo would be a 3rd place also-ran. The shortages and Nintendo's struggle to satisfy demand even after a year from launch is testament that even Nintendo was surprised by Wii's unexpected success. A lot of us forget that last generation people were suggesting Nintendo leave the console market and become a 3rd party or that they'd soon be bought by Microsoft or Apple, the company's console division was not doing well and the handheld front was about to see its first real threat in the form of the PSP. Those were uncertain times for Nintendo as a company.

JustPlainLucas

Being profitable doesn't necessarily mean they had enough money to compete with Microsoft and Sony at a hardware arms race, especially when everyone thinks you're going to come in at last place again. Even today, Microsoft and Sony can still outspend Nintendo on tech, they're just bigger companies. Coca-Cola sells a hell of a lot more soft drinks than PepsiCo but PepsiCo is the larger, richer company because they do much more than just soft drinks (Snack foods, KFC, Taco Bell, etc..).

Enjoy your overly shiny graphics and we'll enjoy variety for the eye.

MerisYaki

Hmm.. I was always under the assumption that Nintendo was always well off, and they only thing they were suffering with was marketshare, and even though they were dead last, they were still profitable for what they were doing.JustPlainLucas

Being profitable doesn't necessarily mean they had enough money to compete with Microsoft and Sony at a hardware arms race, especially when everyone thinks you're going to come in at last place again.

Master_Hermes

When a Wii owner says they don't care about graphics, they are lying. They just don't want to admit that they'd like it because they can't get it. Anyways, its not like 360/PS3 are all graphics. They have better games IMO actually in terms of gameplay.

ColdP1zza

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]Hmm.. I was always under the assumption that Nintendo was always well off, and they only thing they were suffering with was marketshare, and even though they were dead last, they were still profitable for what they were doing.foxhound_fox

Being profitable doesn't necessarily mean they had enough money to compete with Microsoft and Sony at a hardware arms race, especially when everyone thinks you're going to come in at last place again.

Master_Hermes

They made less profit then they did during the N64 era and the GameCube lost a lot of market share compared to its predecessor, that's a trend Nintendo didn't want to continue. Again, making a profit doesn't mean you can still compete with much larger companies. Also, market share isn't some unimportant barometer of success. Less market share means less opportunity for profit, and GameCube is a great example of that. During that generation a vast majority of Nintendo's profits didn't come from GameCube but from Gameboy Adavance and even that business was under threat from a coming Sony Portable. It's never been the case that Nintendo was on the verge of going out of business, the case was whether or not Nintendo could keep losing market share in the console space and still make a sustainable profit. Most, including Nintendo, didn't believe they could.

I have to agree with the TC. Sure, gameplay is more important than graphics, but graphics sure as hell help. Nintendo has done a good job at getting many people to buy their systems, & focusing on the casual market, but I think that it's time for them to get on the ball here. By next gen, more consoles would be more powerful than this gen, & we shouldn't have any games that are in less than 720p whatsoever, as more greater graphics & power are on the rise.

If Nintendo's next gen console isn't up to snuff in the graphics & power department, then lots of people are going to ignore it, because not many of them are going to keep buying the same console with just a minimal upgrade which Nintendo just keeps on doing. They can't keep on going like this forever & still expect to win with just the same old tech, & they have plenty of money to do so.

It rly pisses me off how no one even understands what HD means. Rly guys do a little research before asking questions like this. Im tired of this "Oh wii doesnt have good graphics junk". Its called buisness & nintendo has proven that THEY dont need graphics to make a great game. I can say the same for third party devs on any other console including the Wii. But seriously i suggest all of you who question the Wii's hardware to do some serious research before making topics like this. its obvious not many understand console hardware.

It rly pisses me off how no one even understands what HD means. Rly guys do a little research before asking questions like this. Im tired of this "Oh wii doesnt have good graphics junk". Its called buisness & nintendo has proven that THEY dont need graphics to make a great game. I can say the same for third party devs on any other console including the Wii. But seriously i suggest all of you who question the Wii's hardware to do some serious research before making topics like this. its obvious not many understand console hardware.

painguy1