WiiU not about graphics, but experiences

. And Twilight Princess wasn't as good as windwaker, and Skyward Sword, even as much as I hated on TP over the years, made TP look MUCH better, I actually like TP a lot more because of how just bleh Skyward Sword was for me.

VendettaRed07

I'd rather have a game that has decent graphics and great gameplay than a game with superb graphics but lack-luster gameplay. Some of my favorite games of this generation are Minecraft, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, and none of those have amazing graphics, but they're all some of the most fun games I've ever played. In fact, I've actually played Super Smash Bros. Brawl more than any of my PlayStation 3 games, and Minecraft more than any other game besides a couple N64 games.

I know I'm sorta side-tracking, but Nintendo hasn't ever really been about having the best graphics, it's always been about making the games that are the most fun.

AjaxNeron

Huh? Can you name me one generation except this one where nintendo was behind the curve so badly in terms of visuals?

[QUOTE="AjaxNeron"]

I'd rather have a game that has decent graphics and great gameplay than a game with superb graphics but lack-luster gameplay. Some of my favorite games of this generation are Minecraft, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, and none of those have amazing graphics, but they're all some of the most fun games I've ever played. In fact, I've actually played Super Smash Bros. Brawl more than any of my PlayStation 3 games, and Minecraft more than any other game besides a couple N64 games.

I know I'm sorta side-tracking, but Nintendo hasn't ever really been about having the best graphics, it's always been about making the games that are the most fun.

GD1551

Huh? Can you name me one generation except this one where nintendo was behind the curve so badly in terms of visuals?

I take it you didn't read my other post.

Also, GameCube wasn't as visually advanced as PS2 and Xbox, but I found a lot of the games to be more fun.

While i get that its not all about graphics and it should be about 100% gameplay what is so wrong about having both? why not have a system that has cutting edge graphics with innovative game play? thats how you would know for a fact you have an amazing system.

While i get that its not all about graphics and it should be about 100% gameplay what is so wrong about having both? why not have a system that has cutting edge graphics with innovative game play? thats how you would know for a fact you have an amazing system.

killblade37

While i get that its not all about graphics and it should be about 100% gameplay what is so wrong about having both? why not have a system that has cutting edge graphics with innovative game play? thats how you would know for a fact you have an amazing system.

killblade37

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="AjaxNeron"]

I'd rather have a game that has decent graphics and great gameplay than a game with superb graphics but lack-luster gameplay. Some of my favorite games of this generation are Minecraft, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, and none of those have amazing graphics, but they're all some of the most fun games I've ever played. In fact, I've actually played Super Smash Bros. Brawl more than any of my PlayStation 3 games, and Minecraft more than any other game besides a couple N64 games.

I know I'm sorta side-tracking, but Nintendo hasn't ever really been about having the best graphics, it's always been about making the games that are the most fun.

AjaxNeron

Huh? Can you name me one generation except this one where nintendo was behind the curve so badly in terms of visuals?

I take it you didn't read my other post.

Also, GameCube wasn't as visually advanced as PS2 and Xbox, but I found a lot of the games to be more fun.

Huh?

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="super600"]that too many people are spending too much time looking at Wii U specifications rather than the games and the entertainment the system will offer consumers once its released this holiday season.Wiiyou

But graphics enhance the experience. Nintendo will go the way of the dinosaurs soon if they don't get with the times. The Wii was not a next gen system, just a last gen game cube with tacked on motion controls.

Wii U will probably be a current gen system and will compete with the next gen one's, but I don't expect Nintendo to be very successful next gen. The Wii was really just a fad.

I can understand Wii, but Wii U/PS3 level of power is enough for their simple, colorful and clean visuals.

Think about it, Mario can't look much better than what he is now. He basically looks like he does in bullshots, you wouldn't care/notice the difference:

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice.. The thing is Nintendo games will barely benefit from increased hardware power in the future.

If SMG2 is my favorite game ever and the most visually pleasing game of the gen, and that was accomplished in 60 fps on Wii, pfft, just imagine their games on Wii U. So you can imagine the anticipation for EAD Tokyo's Wii U 3D Mario presumably releasing Nov 2013.

[QUOTE="Wiiyou"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] What games? I don't see any.parkurtommo

Jeesus, how large is your gaming budget? There are more games for other platforms to get too, that's $60 for each game.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Wiiyou"] Pikmin3, Rayman and ZombiU ?SuperFlakeman

Jeesus, how large is your gaming budget? There are more games for other platforms to get too, that's $60 for each game.

I can understand Wii, but Wii U/PS3 level of power is enough for their simple, colorful and clean visuals.

Think about it, Mario can't look much better than what he is now. He basically looks like he does in bullshots, you wouldn't care/notice the difference:

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice.. The thing is Nintendo games will barely benefit from increased hardware power in the future.

If SMG2 is my favorite game ever and the most visually pleasing game of the gen, and that was accomplished in 60 fps on Wii, pfft, just imagine their games on Wii U. So you can imagine the anticipation for EAD Tokyo's Wii U 3D Mario presumably releasing Nov 2013.

SuperFlakeman

Everything can be improved, to think that something can't get any better is just naive.

Also, LoZ TP already had a few big fields, and they were graphically hideous, nintendo's franchises (most of them) could greatly benefit from better hardware.

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Just 3?parkurtommo

Jeesus, how large is your gaming budget? There are more games for other platforms to get too, that's $60 for each game.

It depends on your taste too!

P-100, NSMB U, Scribblenauts: Unlimited, Nintendo Land.

It's already better than Wii's lineup and there's apparently more.

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

I can understand Wii, but Wii U/PS3 level of power is enough for their simple, colorful and clean visuals.

Think about it, Mario can't look much better than what he is now. He basically looks like he does in bullshots, you wouldn't care/notice the difference:

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice.. The thing is Nintendo games will barely benefit from increased hardware power in the future.

If SMG2 is my favorite game ever and the most visually pleasing game of the gen, and that was accomplished in 60 fps on Wii, pfft, just imagine their games on Wii U. So you can imagine the anticipation for EAD Tokyo's Wii U 3D Mario presumably releasing Nov 2013.

parkurtommo

Everything can be improved, to think that something can't get any better is just naive.

Also, LoZ TP already had a few big fields, and they were graphically hideous, nintendo's franchises (most of them) could greatly benefit from better hardware.

Are you kidding? Yeah it was mind blowing to see him run in 3D but the graphics were incredibly rough and hardware power clearly showed that it held back on what you could do on N64 and even PS2 creatively.

It's not the same thing.

On TP: Exactly. They were big and thus ugly. I'd like to think that Nintendo will continue with the same area designs as SS. I mean you have seen a dungeon room in Zelda HD already, I could live with those graphics for 20 more years, it looks so sharp, clean and stunning with its lightning effects and whatnot. More detail than that is redundant.

To me, 3D games have reached that point were they'll look good period. Improvement is nice, but not mandatory. Think 16 bit 2D games. Games like Super Contra, Castlevania 4, Yoshi's Island, still look gorgeous and playable, even though you can do better today. In that same way, I think Wii U is for 3D games what SNES was for 2D.

If it's not about graphics and tech, if it's truly "gameplay uber alles" then stick with the Wii. O no wait, you dropped that console like a rock....

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice..

SuperFlakeman

That's a baseless assumption, if not outright lie. Zelda games were always getting bigger and more open until the Wii happened.

Windwaker was bigger then Majora/Ocarina which were bigger then Link to the Past, which was bigger then Zelda 1. (Haven't played much of Zelda 2)

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

[QUOTE="Wiiyou"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] What games? I don't see any.parkurtommo

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]

Its the Wii all over again.

Grey_Eyed_Elf

Not in terms of hardware capabilities unless the 720 and PS4 are like 15X to 20X more powerful then the WiiU which won't happen this gen.

I don't make these predictions for nothing you know.I just don't see next gen being a PS2-PS3 leap in terms of graphics, but the leap will still be noticeable.

[QUOTE="Wiiyou"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] What games? I don't see any.parkurtommo

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

locopatho

Lol the sea?

That's like the sky of SS.

The areas themselves were even more segmented than SS' (the islands). Some of them were completely pointless, just there for the "sense of adventure" I guess.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Wiiyou"] Pikmin3, Rayman and ZombiU ?inb4uall

360 has a lot of games for your information.

Isn't graphic a significant part of the experience?

KiZZo1

Graphics is just an extra.It's not a must.I can apperciate good looking games like Crysis while still being able to enjoy games with good gameplay like SMG2 and Sonic Colours.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

SuperFlakeman

Lol the sea?

That's like the sky of SS.

The areas themselves were even more segmented than SS' (the islands). Some of them were completely pointless, just there for the "sense of adventure" I guess.

. And Twilight Princess wasn't as good as windwaker, and Skyward Sword, even as much as I hated on TP over the years, made TP look MUCH better, I actually like TP a lot more because of how just bleh Skyward Sword was for me.

VendettaRed07

That's a baseless assumption, if not outright lie. Zelda games were always getting bigger and more open until the Wii happened.

locopatho

Not really, TP was already super linear due to the barricade system Nintendo put in place (aka random road blocks). Minish Cap had a much smaller overworld than the GBC efforts.

Wind Waker is exactly like SS in design, segmented areas connected by a hub (train, sea, sky). The islands were pretty small actually.

So you see they're all trying to accomplish the same thing through different means.

The reason why WW and OoT were industry ground breaking is because at the time hardware limited what other developers with more ambition could do. Today that's not the case, Nintendo follows their own trajectory of evolution.

There is not much different between past and present Zelda games. It's just that Zelda 1, 2 and ALttP to a certain extent featured more freedom. 3D Zelda games have always been linear and controlled, what you are refering to is an illusion. Remember you had to control the Wind in WW, that's how they blocked you out from 90% of the game. No freedom. Just the sense of it.

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

locopatho

Lol the sea?

That's like the sky of SS.

The areas themselves were even more segmented than SS' (the islands). Some of them were completely pointless, just there for the "sense of adventure" I guess.

It would be more like SS; the game doesn't pretend that it's closed and non linear.

I absolutely hated TP's road block system because it was too obvious. I have always predicted that the next 3D Zelda, way before SS' reveal, would get rid of an interconnected overworld in favor of Prime 3's style of 3-5 mini worlds. That's exactly what happend.

Within every main province in SS there are several interconnected sub-areas. This method achieves essentially the same thing as TP, but without the messy blockades that made the world confusing.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

Lol the sea?

That's like the sky of SS.

The areas themselves were even more segmented than SS' (the islands). Some of them were completely pointless, just there for the "sense of adventure" I guess.

SuperFlakeman

It would be more like SS; the game doesn't pretend that it's closed and non linear.

I absolutely hated TP's road block system because it was too obvious. I have always predicted that the next 3D Zelda, way before SS' reveal, would get rid of an interconnected overworld in favor of Prime 3's style of 3-5 mini worlds. That's exactly what happend.

Within every main province in SS there are several interconnected sub-areas. This method achieves essentially the same thing as TP, but without the messy blockades that made the world confusing.

If it's not about graphics and tech, if it's truly "gameplay uber alles" then stick with the Wii. O no wait, you dropped that console like a rock....

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice..

locopatho

That's a baseless assumption, if not outright lie. Zelda games were always getting bigger and more open until the Wii happened.

Windwaker was bigger then Majora/Ocarina which were bigger then Link to the Past, which was bigger then Zelda 1. (Haven't played much of Zelda 2)

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

Better hardware doesn't always mean the areas are going to get bigger.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

If it's not about graphics and tech, if it's truly "gameplay uber alles" then stick with the Wii. O no wait, you dropped that console like a rock....

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

Now apply this way of thinking to other things, for instance Nintendo doesn't want to do big open fields in 3D Zelda games even if hardware power let them, it's a design choice..

Shinobishyguy

That's a baseless assumption, if not outright lie. Zelda games were always getting bigger and more open until the Wii happened.

Windwaker was bigger then Majora/Ocarina which were bigger then Link to the Past, which was bigger then Zelda 1. (Haven't played much of Zelda 2)

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

Better hardware doesn't always mean the areas are going to get bigger.

So does this mean Battlefield 3 isn't getting ported to Wii U? That terrible rumor seems to have faded.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

That's a baseless assumption, if not outright lie. Zelda games were always getting bigger and more open until the Wii happened.

Windwaker was bigger then Majora/Ocarina which were bigger then Link to the Past, which was bigger then Zelda 1. (Haven't played much of Zelda 2)

Windwaker was one of the biggest and most open games of it's time...?

locopatho

Better hardware doesn't always mean the areas are going to get bigger.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] dude, not really. The only zeldas that were really "open" were Zelda 1, and wind waker. (and maybe Lttp) TP and OOT had big fields of nothing and MM's overworld was a circle branching off into 4 main areas.

Better hardware doesn't always mean the areas are going to get bigger.

Shinobishyguy

[QUOTE="Wiiyou"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] What games? I don't see any.parkurtommo

It is more but those was just what came up in mind without go look. Not sure what games make it to launch.

This thing is a lost cause. No one gives a crap about it accept sheep. Nintendo should have just saved their resources and wait for a proper next gen release to go with PS4 and 720.

ZombiU redefines bad looking

ZombiU redefines bad looking

loosingENDS

Have you ever seen a good looking zombi?:P