Wii never maxed out?

[happydolphin]

RolStoppable said:

happydolphin said:

I will reply with equal respect.

Since we know that the Wii was propelled by titles that attracted an audience that did not seek high-end graphics (true, entertainment value is just as important if not more important than graphics, but not at the full expense of seriousness in theme), that set the tone for the platform as a whole. In order to cash-in on the trend and inject entertainment value, most partners followed Nintendo's lead by offering titles with little aesthetic quality (fun graphics, but not interesting as a whole). Examples of these are Zack and Wiki, trauma center, no more heroes, Just Dance, Namco GoGo vacation, and such. In setting this trend, Nintendo did not create a market for games that featured advanced graphics. They were lucky to have Monster Hunter Tri.

That's why I said that if everyone goes to the same well, it will eventually be dry.

While Wii Sports sold Wiis left, right and center, games like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Super Mario Galaxy easily passed the one million mark. These are all aesthetically pleasing Nintendo games released during the first year. The only third party game to qualify for this criteria [advanced graphics], Sonic and the Secret Rings, easily crossed the million mark as well.

All facts point to an existing market for games with advanced graphics.

And remember Rol, as far as we know, Nintendo's sales pitch to their partners was that you didn't need to inject money into your games on their platforms since that's not what the Wii was about. Amiright? If not, where were the F-Zero GX, Rogue Squadron-like efforts and partnerships on Wii?

And let's not forget another very important thing, some games are just better suited for teapots (as fillet so well put it) than others, it seems RL is one such case. Maybe racers too? idk.

That's wrong. Lower development costs for the Wii don't equal to "don't spend any money on graphics". The incentive was that you didn't need the latest and greatest HD graphics to get people to buy your games, so a modest increase in graphics over the sixth generation is sufficient. Games were not meant to look bad, that would be silly. Development costs for AAA software on the Wii were estimated by numerous developers to be only 25-50 % of what they were for the HD consoles. That's an average.

If all this were true Rol, you would expect Nintendo to have developed some kind of partnership with 3rd party developers to co-develop a high-end game so as to foster a market. I didn't see it happen, certainly not early on in Wii's life. Are devs to blame for Nintendo's lack of incentive?

I also can't accept Super Paper Mario as a game of aesthetics that cater to graphics cores. And Twilight Princess was a Gamecube game. Mario Galaxy, though absolutely gorgeous, is not what that market was looking for in terms of art design. Too kiddy, let's just call it at face value.