Iwata comments on high end graphics

Apparently TC prefers wii sport's graphics to sonic generation's.

topgunmv

Why are you being sarcastic? I'm not.

And lol, Sonic Generations is exactly how I picture Nintendo's 1st party games in HD. I really like that.

Anyway I think Nintendo should deliver games in every size and graphical complexity. I love the look of games like Rhytm Heaven but I think limiting franchises like Metroid or Zelda to that would be a huge shame and simply a waste of two great franchises with a ton of potential.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]Mario 64 -11M Mario Galaxy - 6.4 Mmexicangordo

I wish he had used actual sales of the games though instead of outdated Wikipedia as a source.

Anyway I think Nintendo should deliver games in every size and graphical complexity. I love the look of games like Rhytm Heaven but I think limiting franchises like Metroid or Zelda to that would be a huge shame and simply a waste of two great franchises with a ton of potential.

JLF1MarkII

Depends what you mean by potential.

If we take Zelda for example, do you think huge and open areas is the way to go? Or do you prefer the streamlined and focused areas in SS?

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Wasn't Mario 64 a pack-in with N64's?JLF1MarkII

I wish he had used actual sales of the games though instead of outdated Wikipedia as a source.

Even I think you're reading too much into this (but then again, most of your posts have been anti-Nintendo so I shouldn't be surprised). Because that is not what I got out of that quote. He never said they were against high graphics. He said that the graphics aren't the reason their games get noticed and praised so well, it's the gameplay. He also said graphics can help.

nintendoboy16

I never said they were, I said they just didn't want to put an acceptable level of visuals in all their games they even call what they do the "Cheap" look.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]Mario 64 -11M Mario Galaxy - 6.4 Mmexicangordo

I wish he had used actual sales of the games though instead of outdated Wikipedia as a source.

I'm open to other more recent/reliable numbers if someone has them. Those numbers should also include sources from where the numbers come from...which is why I used Wikipedia.

Depends what you mean by potential.

If we take Zelda for example, do you think huge and open areas is the way to go? Or do you prefer the streamlined and focused areas in SS?

SuperFlakeman

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

Depends what you mean by potential.

If we take Zelda for example, do you think huge and open areas is the way to go? Or do you prefer the streamlined and focused areas in SS?

JLF1MarkII

OH, I agree. HOWEVER, the original concept behind Zelda was exploration. The very nature and inspiration behind it was Miyamoto exploring caves and whatnot as a child. New technology already makes that possible. I don't think nintendo would ever make a game as unfocused and broken as Skyrim, but I like the idea of a huge world with many nooks and crannies. Perhaps not every weapon would even be necessary to find, but instead could make a given puzzle easier/non existent because the player went out and found something special.

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Then why can't nintendo have extraordinary rich graphics?

GD1551

You are also misunderstanding the topic.

No I'm not. What I got from that article was that "we don't want to make better visuals because it's too expensive".

This is what I got out of that as well but I was telling myself "no it's not that". But I guess I might as well face up to reality. I guess that's why things like "massive gameplay volume" and "extraordinary rich graphics" doesn't "appeal" to them. Translation of "doesn't appeal"--too expensive and not worth our time. I hope I'm wrong and hey maybe I am but I see I'm just going to have to lower my expectations because I just don't want to set myself up for disappointment. I'll just wait to be pleasantly surprised....hopefully. All I ask is that you give me a damn Mario game in HD damn it! I'm salivating :P

OH, I agree. HOWEVER, the original concept behind Zelda was exploration. The very nature and inspiration behind it was Miyamoto exploring caves and whatnot as a child. New technology already makes that possible. I don't think nintendo would ever make a game as unfocused and broken as Skyrim, but I like the idea of a huge world with many nooks and crannies. Perhaps not every weapon would even be necessary to find, but instead could make a given puzzle easier/non existent because the player went out and found something special.

Heirren

Nintendo already next gen.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

OH, I agree. HOWEVER, the original concept behind Zelda was exploration. The very nature and inspiration behind it was Miyamoto exploring caves and whatnot as a child. New technology already makes that possible. I don't think nintendo would ever make a game as unfocused and broken as Skyrim, but I like the idea of a huge world with many nooks and crannies. Perhaps not every weapon would even be necessary to find, but instead could make a given puzzle easier/non existent because the player went out and found something special.

JLF1MarkII

I want a similar surface world as the one in SS, but with one big change. Instead of giving us various missions, a few new areas and altering some landscape temporarily as the phase 2 of the game, I think it would be cool and smart if the overworld itself gets permanently deformed/changed due to certain events, much like WoW's Cataclysm expansion.

This way, the world is first used in its normal state for phase 1 of the game, typically the first 3 dungeons, then as the world altering mechanic (wolf, dark/light, past/present), they could instead permanently change the entire world after you pass a certain point. That way they simultaneously double the content and keep it streamlined.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Wasn't Mario 64 a pack-in with N64's?ZIMdoom

I wish he had used actual sales of the games though instead of outdated Wikipedia as a source.

I'm open to other more recent/reliable numbers if someone has them. Those numbers should also include sources from where the numbers come from...which is why I used Wikipedia.

[QUOTE="JLF1MarkII"]

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

Depends what you mean by potential.

If we take Zelda for example, do you think huge and open areas is the way to go? Or do you prefer the streamlined and focused areas in SS?

Heirren

OH, I agree. HOWEVER, the original concept behind Zelda was exploration. The very nature and inspiration behind it was Miyamoto exploring caves and whatnot as a child. New technology already makes that possible. I don't think nintendo would ever make a game as unfocused and broken as Skyrim, but I like the idea of a huge world with many nooks and crannies. Perhaps not every weapon would even be necessary to find, but instead could make a given puzzle easier/non existent because the player went out and found something special.

I want a similar surface world as the one in SS, but with one big change. Instead of giving us various missions, a few new areas and altering some landscape temporarily as the phase 2 of the game, I think it would be cool and smart if the overworld itself gets permanently deformed/changed due to certain events, much like WoW's Cataclysm expansion.

This way, the world is first used in its normal state for phase 1 of the game, typically the first 3 dungeons, then as the world altering mechanic (wolf, dark/light, past/present), they could instead permanently change the entire world after you pass a certain point. That way they simultaneously double the content and keep it streamlined.

SuperFlakeman

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

I want a similar surface world as the one in SS, but with one big change. Instead of giving us various missions, a few new areas and altering some landscape temporarily as the phase 2 of the game, I think it would be cool and smart if the overworld itself gets permanently deformed/changed due to certain events, much like WoW's Cataclysm expansion.

This way, the world is first used in its normal state for phase 1 of the game, typically the first 3 dungeons, then as the world altering mechanic (wolf, dark/light, past/present), they could instead permanently change the entire world after you pass a certain point. That way they simultaneously double the content and keep it streamlined.

JLF1MarkII

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

there is no nintendo main series game that declined in sales....all of them sold mastadon number of copies

JLF1MarkII

Metroid has lower sales.

In quality though, most of them have fallen.

Metroid never had many sales to begin with idk how much it sold but pretty sure it was a million copies....

oh yea becase SMG2 is not one of the highest rated games of all time amirite?

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

hey whatever they good at keep capitolizing on it whoever has a problem with there games just dont play them its really simple

GD1551

Is english not your first language? You sentsnces just seem to run and run...

english is my first language, im pretty sure we all could read and i really dont care how my sentences look on the internet. besides im not getting graded on how i type stay on topic

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

there is no nintendo main series game that declined in sales....all of them sold mastadon number of copies

ZIMdoom

Nice straw man fallacy. I never said the games don't sell well. I said sales have been dropping over the gens, which is fact.

Mario World- 20 million

Mario 64 -11M

Mario Galaxy - 6.4 M

Zelda - 6.5M

Link to the past (my personal favorite of all time) - 4M

Ocarina (considered best Zelda game of all time) - 7.6 M

Twilight Princess - 5.8M

Name any main Nintendo franchise (on console) and I wil be confident it no longer sells like it used do. Sure, it sells very good, but the trend is downward. And if the Wii sold better than any Nintendo console since maybe the SNES, why are their main series seing declining sales? I would possibly even argue that even if they sold the same number as past gens, it is still a step down because of the larger market they now have.

No matter how you try and spin it, the number (or percentage) of people buying Nintendo's games is going down.

how you skip the GC era and went to everything that fit your arguement?

SS is at 3.5 mill and is on the rate of being the highest selling LOZ of all time( iwata stated) andNSMBW is at 20 said million also

i really dont get your point your acting like they stop selling completely when every nintendo main series outsold every GC era main series.

POkemon black is the highest selling pokemon game as well.

ill give you that they have a bigger install base but you cant generalize that every new consumer wants those type of games

what if im tired at looking at pixelated 60 dollar releases with limited potential (no mods, etc.) that are still coming out in 2012? if im getting half a game, can it at least look good so that it may make me believe i didn't waste money?

not really interested in starting a war, but ffs, this is why i switched to pc. my 2007 games still look better than any console game, are MUCH cheaper, have modding capabilities, and usually more active communities.

also, direct response to iwata: this is why you guys missed out on so many successful games that were only on the usual 3 systems. obviously, this didn't impact the sales of your system to the point where you guys aren't in first place, but your audience would be on an unbelievably wider scale than the other two consoles if only you beefed up the gpu.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

You are also misunderstanding the topic.

T-razor1

No I'm not. What I got from that article was that "we don't want to make better visuals because it's too expensive".

This is what I got out of that as well but I was telling myself "no it's not that". But I guess I might as well face up to reality. I guess that's why things like "massive gameplay volume" and "extraordinary rich graphics" doesn't "appeal" to them. Translation of "doesn't appeal"--too expensive and not worth our time. I hope I'm wrong and hey maybe I am but I see I'm just going to have to lower my expectations because I just don't want to set myself up for disappointment. I'll just wait to be pleasantly surprised....hopefully. All I ask is that you give me a damn Mario game in HD damn it! I'm salivating :P

Actually he[Iwata] is stating that the company[nintendo] is now very aware that consumers crave the next gen visuals, and that they must give that to them. However, he also stated that it won't be the focus on all releases. Good game design comes first--bravo to nintendo for that.

Good art-style is better than technically impressive graphics anyway. I pick Wind Waker style graphics over Crysis type graphics any day.

While I agree that gameplay > graphics anyway, I hope with the Wii U the 1st party titles will start to evolve a little more in terms of enriching the graphics, textures etc. hard to esplain

I don't think an SMG style Mario can be done in native 1080p 60fps on a $399 2012 console, but that would be ideal for me too.

720p 60 fps is what I'm expecting at least, and that's awesome.

SuperFlakeman

Why not? It would just clean up SMG even more than Dolphin does.

The only thing separating SMG2 and Metroid: Other M from 360/PS3 games was the 480p resolution and low-res textures. Had they been displayed in 1080p with some more detailed textures, they would have been on par with the majority of HD games. I understand what Iwata is saying, but they easily have the potential to produce amazing looking games. They just limited themselves with the Wii's hardware.foxhound_fox

You're correct. SMG1, SMG2, Skyward Sword, and more simply look stunning running at higher resolutions. Throw in some AA and it looks f**king fantastic. I'm loving playing through it with Dolphin. Runs almost flawlessly.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

Love how the game always looks like a watercolor painting.

I want a Mario game on HD, and cartoonish HI-RES textures. at 1080p and 60fps.

And if the WiiU can do that Im sold