By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 17 June 2016
Edit Thread
pokoko said:
Ljink96 said:

Because I don't really care that much about graphics. Graphics don't make games. We're gamers, not graphicers. Which is why I'll support Nintendo until I die. They make fun games that don't need photo-realistic graphics to be fun. Nintendo started out as a company focused on content. The Sega Master System was way graphically superior to the NES but we all know where that went. Same for Wii. And no, this approach hasn't always worked but Nintendo's software always pulls through.

I don't need amazing graphics to have fun. Which ultimately, should be a game's first priority. Iwata said it best. BTW: Proud owner of PS1-4, and Xbox 360. If I want a console with powerful specs, I have either of those to fall back on.

That's not quite true.  The NES being more powerful than the SG-1000 was an important factor in its success.  It was the most advanced console on the market at launch and had two years to build its position before Sega was able to counter.  

Hardware progression has always been an important part of the industry and Nintendo has been a part of that.  Power, to a certain extent, drives gameplay.  It certainly doesn't hurt games to have more power.  

The real question is, how close does Nintendo need to be to Sony and Microsoft?  Should they be on par?  If they were on par, would that mean third-party support?  If they're further behind, does that give them an opportunity to make money as a budget option?

The only thing I will say for sure is that Nintendo has to go one way or the other.  Getting caught in the middle ground where they're not quite powerful enough but also not quite cheap enough is probably a recipe for failure.

I'm not sure about that. As Debbie Allen said, "but out of limitations comes creativity." In some ways technological restrictions force developers to be more thoughtful and resourceful.