Wyrdness said:
Again cliffhanger logic your point holds no ground and never will as the only improvement you can come up with is better looking games, your logic is again flawed here as the time between SMW and SMB is a whole gen so obviously the designers said we have ideas that can't be done on current hardware very much referencing Reggie's comment I brought up earlier and to kill off this part further look at the progression between SMB and SMB3 and this was on the same hardware not to mention SMB3 is the template that SMW is built on, by your logic it's like saying look at RE4 and then look at RE1 on PS1 and try and used it as a focal point to say why PS1 should of been more powerful. You're now comparing whole different gens with each other to try and prove your point rather then your initial stance that the Wii should of been as powerful as the PS3 to improve Galaxy as you can't think of any solid improvements a predictable move, different gens have loads of time between them for new ideas to form as R&D is constantly going on what the subject here is Nintendo's current venture not what they'll be doing next gen in this what if argument you're trying to push.
Nintendo's progression is based more on their creative path, they look at their ideas first then they fit the hardware around these ideas something you and various others don't seem to understand, they don't just bang out a console and then start developing for it their approach is set in stone long before the new gen. Why do you think Galaxy is one of the best looking games this gen let alone on the Wii and was out with in the first year, why do you think it's one of the best games in history as well as platform and will be remebered for years on end long after the likes of Gears and God of Wars, games like those don't just take months to throw together on a console both the hardware and software ideas were in sync and built from the ground up for each other that's how Nintendo have always operated. While everyone was thinking of more power they were thinking of MC so all this talk about if the Wii was as powerful as the PS3 is mute as the Wii is as powerful as Nintendo needed it to be as Nintendo already had their goals set. |
You almost seem to finally get what I'm saying, although saying my logic is wrong is incorrect; it's your logic that's off. You keep praising Nintendo's creativity like I'm disputing that, or their decision to go with Wii tech vs PS3 tech; I'm not.
Take your Resident Evil example. The focal point of a system shouldn't be the graphics; but what you're saying is that RE on PS2 should limit itself graphically to what RE on PS1 offered. That's where I'm pointing out you're wrong, just as I did when you originally said Mario couldn't look better on PS3.
I am enough of a realist to admit that, while I love the Wii, it is about a generation behind 360/PS3 as far as technical power goes. So comparing two generations to each other in the case of Mario on PS3 is accurate.
I would never exchange Mario's gameplay and fun for better graphics. Not to mention that Galaxy looks fine as is. And it's true that not all of Nintendo's games push even Wii's graphical capabilities; look at Wii Sports/Play/Fit, NSMB, etc. But when Nintendo has more power to work with in the future, their 3D Marios and Zeldas will look better than they do on Wii. They will not base their next system on only looking better, but if it is indeed capable of looking better, Nintendo will take advantage of it. Again you're wrong with your "cliffhanger logic" rant. Just look at history, pal. Marios and Zeldas have always been among the best looking games on their systems and Galaxy is no exception. And when they have a system as powerful as PS3, said games will take advantage of that hardware as well.
