Miyamoto confess the Wii is a GC, wont commit sepuku

Actually the Wii controller probably is more expensive to make than the 360 controller. I would bet M$ pockets quite a nice sum off their controllers, wired and not.

The SNES by no means was in overclocked NES. That is the worst way to describe the SNES ever. The SNES actually barely ran faster than the NES. The SNES's power was in its expandability (like the NES, but this time with processing expansion possible) and more importantly its top notch graphics and sound capabilities. SNES wowed us with great graphics and sound, despite the torment of slowdowns.

The Wii is capable, though I certainly agree it will show it's age. Remember that the Wii isn't supposed to last as long before it's successor comes along, unlike the PS3 and 360. Atleast it certainly can't. I really think they can only go so long on the Wii provided they have the software. But eventually that hardware might really start to hold things back. Unlike older systems, I don't think there's that much room to push this hardware.

By the way, take a look at high resolution Red Steel screenshots.

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3954885.html

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3954883.html

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3869051.html

They don't look as shitty as that one particular Far Cry shot.

 

PSP may have the lamest console lineup I've ever seen.

The problem is that sony didnt gave a fuck about competition, they just released the console with no games to boot, like if the hype alone would sell it.

 

Thats what I meant. :110:


Though I must confess, Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy are both impressive looking games IMO. Mario Galaxy reminds me of some sort of 3-way bastard child of NiGHTS, Sonic Xtreme, and Mario though. :lol:

You guys remember when Yuji Naka was describing the controller he wanted to make for the DC for the Air NiGHTS game? It was pretty much the EXACT same thing Nintendo is using for the Wii. Oh how I hope he pursues that project now...

 

And that was the worst misunderstanding ever...

Re-read my other post: my point is that one thing is, for example, how the Nes beated the SMS having less power, and how the PSX won against the N64 with the same context.

The point is, there's no way the Wii may archieve something like this becos, while the other consoles were weak compared to the rest, the Wii is just too underpowered to compete directly against both X360 and PS3.

 

processor-wise N64 beated PSX greatly.... it was just a matter of having no space for anything in the cartdridge that made everything look washed down and bland 8expecially textures).

 

Actually karsten, the cartridges had plenty of space. The texture cache though was only big enough for like a 64x64 texture. Until Nintendo released tools for the microcode so developers like RARE and Factor 5 could write their own, all games had those tiny textures stretched and blurred. The actual cartridges were very capable of holding plenty of textures. Infact games for PSX like Tekken and such easily could have fit a cartridge, but the poor way 3D graphics were handled, oh well.

Anyway, I agree the Wii can't compete head to head, and I also agree that unlike the NES vs. SMS, the power gap is much bigger technically. But then again, GameBoy certainly proven successful against GameGear, which was a pretty nice power gap. And when the 32bit era was beginning, 16bit game sales were still the majority of all sales, despite their inferiorness. If they have a solid lineup of titles with appropriate pricing I'm sure they'll stay afloat. If anything Nintendo proved they can stay alive in a non-Nintendo dominate world.

By the way, I agree with you on the PSP. Where the hell are all the games? It seems like all they do is constantly update the firmwire with useless features and security fixes that stop you from doing anything actually fun with your PSP. When I still bothered to use my PSP, I emulated some things, and played the 2 Mega Man remakes. The rest of the PSP library is subpar and superior graphics don't save it at all. The Nintendo DS "inferior" graphics and such still have much better more fun games. And it's cheaper.

 

I find it very logical that many developers feel happy and prefer to develop for the Wii. It's less demanding. On PS3 and 360, there's a constant effort from the "better" games to have graphics as impressive as possible. On the wii this requirment is downplayed by nintendo itself, which means that coders can get lazy if they want to , to a certain extent. Using your previous tool-sets isn't bad either, and all those lines one wrote for a development environment like GDEV but could never bring to the console due to memory restraints, can now come off the shelf.

However, I fail to see how nintendo is going to sell their "more fun" console for 4-5 years until its successor. Imagine the leap in graphics technology in 4 or 5 years, and even the PS3 and 360 will be put to shame, let alone the Wii.

 

Man they have been doing that since the Genesis, the difference is that with the Wii they decided to just stop trying to be the #1.

Indeed, but remember portables dont require great specs, hell, the smaller the game the better, after all people have very little time to play while in the outside, and the PSP ass-crushing loading times dont help.

I think if nintendo opens the console to indie developers it may get a nice lineup of very original games. They already announced the SDKs will be dirt-cheap, so the only thing left is to make new publishing contracts that arent that abusive with the smaller development houses.

But even then, the only reason I see the Wii as having a "side" in this console war is:

Being cheaper: the DS was $100 less than PSP at launch, and now is even cheaper. On the other side the Wii is barely $50 less than the X360. While theres a noticeable power gap between the portables, the one between the Wii and X360 is much, much larger. A price of less than $199 would make the console a very interesting buy for early gamers and non-gaming people.

But at $250 theres the risk that the console may get a nichname for that. If people (as in vox populi) starts saying that the Wii is "a piece of expensive crap" becos is just a revamped GC at more than twice the price then its doomed, cuz we know theres nothing harder to erase than a nickname.

I think people can live with a Wii thats just $50 or $70 more than a normal GC, but $150? no way....

 

Well wanna bet that right after the PS3 release there will be more PS2 games sold than PS3 games too? Im not sure about sales-data now but i suspect that it took a while too before Xbox360 game sales topped Xbox game sales; dunno if they have now.

Dont they crank out a few racing games a week for that thing? At least thats what it seems like to me for some reason...

 

I'd say one of the main problems the "next-gen" consoles have is that they depend so much on graphics, even though hardly something like probably 1/50 households have a TV capable of pulling off something at 720p.

And then you can start thinking about how many of those households have a 1080p capable TV?

How many of those households has the HD TV in a place used for gaming?

And how many non-gamers do you think would buy the PS3 for it's Blue-Ray capabilities, when most HD TV owners who'd be interested in a blue ray player is most likely some sort of perve that "must have" high quality individual units for every single addition to his entertainment setup and most likely has a no "multi-solutions allowed" rule.

Even the 360 suffers from having rather unpleasent gaming experiences on regular TVs, like Dead Rising has such a small font that it's a total pain if you play it on anything that's not 28" or higher and 720p compatible.

 

You can get a tube 29" Tv with 720p and 1080i for $500 or less today.

On the other hand, if a household doesnt have the 500 bucks for an HDTV, why would they expend between $400 and $600 on a game console?

 

I don't think the market Nintendo is trying to appeal even knows what a Gamecube is.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to get through here, that not everyone CAN shell out the expenses for both a console and TV like that (and heck, for $500, that TV wont be much of a pleasent gaming wonder I tell you, unless ghosting and burn-ins should be considered features).

And when a person can't buy a gaming console because of the lack of fundings required to buy the screen required for it to be enjoyable, then no sale, and that's a big issue for producers of the so callled next-gen consoles. (In this case, Microsoft and Sony)

 

Thats the problem: it only takes one casual saying to another "the Wii? yeah is just repackaged old console, with a crappy controller" and then BAM! everybody is saying the same about the system, even if it isnt true at all

What I'm trying to explain is ratter simple: the odds is that a guy who is going to spend $600 on a PS3 probably already has a HDTV, and is going to buy the console so theres another use for his new Tv.

Most people has more bills to pay than we do, and since most of them still see consoles as toys there's no way they'll spend that much for one of 'em.

By the time the PS3 reachs the $300 or lower price point everyone and their dog will have an HDTV, either LCD, SED or even OLED.

 

To be fair, the 360 and PS3 do have noticeable differences in graphics quality that go beyond just the higher resolution. Take a look at Viva Pinata for example - even at a low resolution video download, the differences in quality are apparent and will show off the power of the console even in standard resolution, interlaced or progressive.

Not that every game is a masterpiece however, but as developers come to grips more and more with the more advanced consoles, the quality in graphics is a gap that the Wii can't cover. Even a kid can tell the difference between better or worse graphics, thus the Wii will have lots of negative feedback on that part even when released.