| danasider said:
I don't think the leap will be the same, but I am making the comparison because I still think there will be a big enough difference that people who are not graphics whores will still gravitate towards the PS4/XB1 game if given the choice. In the end, games are the biggest reason for a console to sell so I agree on that. PS2 was underpowered and it blew away the competetition. Same for Wii. But Wii U doesn't have those yet (games, on either a 1st or 3rd party basis) and probably won't have much on a third party level ever so unless you're a big N fan, you'll probably grab the system with the glitzier graphics and most marketing behind it (which Nintendo doesn't really excel much in either anymore). And as for the 3ds, I think it is a perfect example for how the game's quality can trump better tech. But I think it's more a situation of Nintendo knowing how to make games for portables versus Sony not. Sony wants to put PS3/PS4 experiences on a little screen but if we learned anything with Iphone/GB people want fun experiences that work on the go, not inferior home console experiences. The Wii U doesn't have that edge that the 3DS has because home consoles are built around shiny big screens and are show pieces. People don't want to see jaggies or old graphics if they have the option to get something in the same genre or similar with way better graphics. Nintendo games will always sell, I will concede to that. Graphics don't have to be cutting edge to be enjoyed, I can also admit. And the best tech doesn't always win. But Wii U really hasn't brought anything to the table game wise and doesn't seem to have much over the horizon if we take E3 as any indication, so I just don't see it competing the way underpowered consoles of the past have. My main point is and was that you don't have to be a graphics whore to see just how lacking the Wii U is. |
All it needs is something that will attract all types of gamers, casual or core, and more games will lead to that. Wii had terrible 3rd party support from major developers and Nintendo pulled through. What they need is something that makes one think "wow, I won't be able to find that anywhere else", and the pricepoint will also be a deciding factor for many people (think, 350$ packed with a game (being Nintendo Land or something better like SM3DW) vs. a 400$ PS4 with the need to buy at least one 60$ game, plus extra controllers if needed while Wii U can re-use Wii controllers). I'm sure people won't want to see jaggies (if they even notice them, I know of several people who haven't noticed jagged lines when playing until I actually told them about it), but then you've got jaggies on PS4/X1 games as well, albeit on higher resolutions (technically there are more jagged lines in 1080p with no AA, but they're smaller), jaggies on consoles aren't going away anytime soon if developers want to push graphical potential and performance more than IQ (and that was what they aimed for with PS360, no doubt they'll aim for that again here).
Nintendo knowing how to make games for portables, is Nintendo not capable of making games for consoles? All they have to do is make Wii U attractive enough to consumers with games they won't find anywhere else, and Nintendo's all set. Graphics won't decide the fate of a console, it never has. Gamecube was well up there with graphics, but it never received the support it needed, and there wasn't something that attracted people to it. Wii U has its own share of gimmicks that it can take advantage of unlike Gamecube, we just have yet to see what fully taking advantage of those gimmicks will do to its future. Wii U is lacking right now, but if it continues to lack when it finally has supposed amazing experiences you cannot find elsewhere, then you'll be right. Wii U has not gone through its prime times, not yet at least. Writing it off now is too soon.
