routsounmanman said:
I'm also settled with the Wii graphics (like MP3, SMG), I already own and love a Wii. But the point is that while there is something that looks better, people will move towards it and the less competent machine will look "paler". If the Wii was the first console on the market and no screenshots were released for PS3 and Xbox360 games and you saw Super Mario Galaxy, then you'd go "WOW!", but now, even SMG pales in comparison to the HD systems (sheer graphical quality taken into account only mind - not artistic design). The impact of the current generation transition certainly isn't as big, I agree. But I think 3 things account for that: 1) Nintendo DS success over the more powerful machine and the almighty "Playstation" brand bred confidence in Nintendo once again. 2) The less trained eye that Wii targets (casuals) almost cannot tell the difference between a Wii and a HD game. 3) HD is pushed way too early and too hard in the market IMO. If the same transition was taking place in 5-10 years from now, where HD is widely known, available and mature, more people would have embraced the HD systems. P.S: 1,000 posts, YAY! P.S.2: exeis vrei pouthena to Guitar Hero 3 gia to Wii? epsaksa pantou kai den to vrisk, mono tin PS3 ekdosh exoun... |
Oh come on. By this logic, last generation should've ended up as Xbox->Gamecube->PS2, as the PS2 was the least powerful console. And before that we had PS1 vs. N64, with the less powerful PS1 in the lead for that generation as well. But that's the thing, graphical capabilities have NEVER been the deciding factor in which console people buy. If people were naturally drawn to whatever could produce the prettiest graphics, we'd all be playing PC games with the highest level graphics cards available. Believe me though, I'm not rushing out to spend $1000 just so I can play Crysis on High resolution.
To respond to your points:
1. This is what I've been saying. The less powerful system has sold better than the more powerful one. In this case it was an innovative design and innovative games that appealed to a wide audience.
2. This statement is a bit condescending. Just because people don't play games doesn't make them stupid/blind.
3. I'll agree with this. Right now there's really not much benefit in going HD. It costs more than a lot of people are willing to pay, and most people are still happy with standard definition. In 5-10 years more people will have access to HD. But don't forget this will be due to lowered costs in HD technology. Sooooo looking at it this way, in 5-10 years Nintendo's console would also have been capable of higher end graphics at a lower cost. It would be Nintendo's HD graphics + innovative design vs. Sony and Microsoft's SUPER-HD graphics and we'd be right back where we are right now.
BUT if Sony and Microsoft hadn't released an HD console this generation, it could've gone either way. Name brand and a cheaper price point might've worked to their benefit, or it might have just driven consumers even further towards the Wii's innovation. It's hard to say, really.
