gumby_trucker said:
I think this is the main point to this discussion. It may be easier if you could quantify what it means exactly to "push the hardware", but at the end of the day we all know the difference between a game that tried to look its best and one that didn't. This isn't just about polygon counts or number of shaders implemented, it's about the overall impression you get when seeing the game for the first time, and what that implies about the effort that went behind making it. When the best looking 3rd party games on Wii can't match the quality of the best Gamecbe games, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you somethings wrong. If you look at the link provided by curl-6, I think Eggebrecht sums it up nicely - there are indeed compatability issues that would prevent every engine from being ported over, but given the success of the system you'd expect at least some companies to want to push the hardware in order to differentiate themselves from the crowd... but I guess that kind of logic is SO 2007 |
It's mostly because this time around there were other ways to go high-end graphics. Sure, you can say that the HD market was saturated, but truth is, Wii-ish games also were lacking on the HD twins, so the "well is dry" argument applies both ways.
That's why it's so 2007, because back then (or a year or two prior), people made consoles that stood up to the rest.








