Before I start, I've always liked Nintendo games. IMO, Nintendo first party games are the only games that I KNOW are pretty much going to be awesome. I can pretty much bet the next Zelda will be awesome, I pretty much know the next Mario will be, same with Super Smash and so forth. However, I can't be the only one who thinks that Nintendo should drop the Gimmick of the Wii motion sensing in favour of crazy-nice graphics. Maybe I'm just a graphics whore, but the best word to describe what i mean is: Shame. It's really a shame that such amazing games, ESPECIALLY Zelda, look the way they do. Zelda looked okay, it looked like a really good Gamecube game, and since it was developed for that, than yeah, it should. But seriously, if they went all out with the Zelda graphics next game, it won't look much better, the hardware is really similar. I'm dying to play a Zelda/Mario/SuperSmash etc with amazing graphics. Also, Zelda got a 8.8, that's fair and probably deserved since it's getting a tad bit outdated with no character speech and the lousy (Last Gen) graphics. But if that game had had really nice, or just really sharp graphics, I'm thinking easily a 9.1 or 9.2. Graphics improve the way you feel about games, I know it does for me. If Gears looked like God of War, it wouldn't have gotten near the score it did. Half of it's gimmick was the amazing graphics. That was a sick game, and yeah I have a Xbox 360, but seriously, what score would it have gotten with just okay looking graphics? I know this has just been a rant, but I want to hear others opinions. I really want more feedback of YOUR opinions. A comment saying I'm dumb or stupid is stupid in itself. If you think I'm wrong, post your opinion of what you think. I've shared this with others, but it's pretty long and most of the time they don't know what I'm getting at. So let's hear the opinions!
My opinion is that they could have kept the whole motion-control/attract more non-gamers approach without resorting to a last-gen GPU, CPU, and memory set. Especially considering that they started making a profit on day 1.
My opinion is that they could have kept the whole motion-control/attract more non-gamers approach without resorting to a last-gen GPU, CPU, and memory set. Especially considering that they started making a profit on day 1.Teufelhuhn
It wouldn't have attracted casuals without the 250$ price tag, If it had next gen controls with next gen hardware, it would have been the most expensive.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]My opinion is that they could have kept the whole motion-control/attract more non-gamers approach without resorting to a last-gen GPU, CPU, and memory set. Especially considering that they started making a profit on day 1.88Ghost89
It wouldn't have attracted casuals without the 250$ price tag, If it had next gen controls with next gen hardware, it would have been the most expensive.
They could have boosted the specs and kept the $250 price tag. It would have just been less profitable.  Â
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]My opinion is that they could have kept the whole motion-control/attract more non-gamers approach without resorting to a last-gen GPU, CPU, and memory set. Especially considering that they started making a profit on day 1.Teufelhuhn
It wouldn't have attracted casuals without the 250$ price tag, If it had next gen controls with next gen hardware, it would have been the most expensive.
They could have boosted the specs and kept the $250 price tag. It would have just been less profitable.  Â
It wouldn't have made that great of a difference. Like someone else said in this topic, Nintendo went graphics for a long time and their sales only went down. I think when Nintendo wins this gen it will get it's 3rd parties back and it will have the Wii 2 with HD graphics and it's improved wiimote.
well zelda looks good for a cube game.. and by the way how can u be dissapointed with the graphics when u havent really seen the wii's graphics, all u have seen are canned cube games, and ps2 ports...
Okay, granted the cost would go up, but let's just analyze that. Nintendo could sell it's console at a loss, like Xbox 360 and PS3 does, or so that it breaks even. The $250 would still be able to be obtained. Even $299.99 would still be pretty cheap. Also, I think it was losing before because the Playstation -V- N64 war had PS1 with the CD's and Nintendo was still reppin' the Cartridges, which was more expensive and developers had a harder time developing for. So I mean, it's easy to say that they were trying to be graphics hogs, but they really weren't, they just had a bad format. Would it have been possible to nix this 1080i/p and just have the new Nintendo console with 720P? HDefinition isn't even the norm yet and when it is, 720P will be the most used resoulution yes? I'm not trying to say Nintendo is making mistakes, but with better spec's the system would do even better. Right now the only thing you can gripe about is that essentially, Wii is a Gamecube with a remote. Obviously there is more to it than that, but you can't help but feel a little pissed off that Mario is still looking the same.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]My opinion is that they could have kept the whole motion-control/attract more non-gamers approach without resorting to a last-gen GPU, CPU, and memory set. Especially considering that they started making a profit on day 1.Teufelhuhn
It wouldn't have attracted casuals without the 250$ price tag, If it had next gen controls with next gen hardware, it would have been the most expensive.
They could have boosted the specs and kept the $250 price tag. It would have just been less profitable.
Nintendo doesn't have eight separate sales divisions to keep themselves afloat. And no, reducing profits to half what they currently are is NOT acceptable.
Okay, granted the cost would go up, but let's just analyze that. Nintendo could sell it's console at a loss, like Xbox 360 and PS3 does, or so that it breaks even. The $250 would still be able to be obtained. Even $299.99 would still be pretty cheap. Also, I think it was losing before because the Playstation -V- N64 war had PS1 with the CD's and Nintendo was still reppin' the Cartridges, which was more expensive and developers had a harder time developing for. So I mean, it's easy to say that they were trying to be graphics hogs, but they really weren't, they just had a bad format. Would it have been possible to nix this 1080i/p and just have the new Nintendo console with 720P? HDefinition isn't even the norm yet and when it is, 720P will be the most used resoulution yes? I'm not trying to say Nintendo is making mistakes, but with better spec's the system would do even better. Right now the only thing you can gripe about is that essentially, Wii is a Gamecube with a remote. Obviously there is more to it than that, but you can't help but feel a little pissed off that Mario is still looking the same.heydawg321
But the problem is that Nintendo can't afford loss like Sony and Microsoft can.
Before I start, I've always liked Nintendo games. IMO, Nintendo first party games are the only games that I KNOW are pretty much going to be awesome. I can pretty much bet the next Zelda will be awesome, I pretty much know the next Mario will be, same with Super Smash and so forth. However, I can't be the only one who thinks that Nintendo should drop the Gimmick of the Wii motion sensing in favour of crazy-nice graphics. Maybe I'm just a graphics whore, but the best word to describe what i mean is: Shame. It's really a shame that such amazing games, ESPECIALLY Zelda, look the way they do. Zelda looked okay, it looked like a really good Gamecube game, and since it was developed for that, than yeah, it should. But seriously, if they went all out with the Zelda graphics next game, it won't look much better, the hardware is really similar. I'm dying to play a Zelda/Mario/SuperSmash etc with amazing graphics. Also, Zelda got a 8.8, that's fair and probably deserved since it's getting a tad bit outdated with no character speech and the lousy (Last Gen) graphics. But if that game had had really nice, or just really sharp graphics, I'm thinking easily a 9.1 or 9.2. Graphics improve the way you feel about games, I know it does for me. If Gears looked like God of War, it wouldn't have gotten near the score it did. Half of it's gimmick was the amazing graphics. That was a sick game, and yeah I have a Xbox 360, but seriously, what score would it have gotten with just okay looking graphics? I know this has just been a rant, but I want to hear others opinions. I really want more feedback of YOUR opinions. A comment saying I'm dumb or stupid is stupid in itself. If you think I'm wrong, post your opinion of what you think. I've shared this with others, but it's pretty long and most of the time they don't know what I'm getting at. So let's hear the opinions!heydawg321
agreed, I am still holding back from getting a wii even though my 2 bros have them already.
If only nintendo have spent an extra $50-80 on a better GPU. I don't need it to surpass the gpu on the 360 or ps3 but close to them would be nice. Then I would be sold on getting a wii for $300-350.
Log in to comment