sc94597 said:
Agreed, but many games could be ported to the wii with a fair amount of downgrades. Some 1st gen games could be ported to the wii with no downgrades at all other than resolutions and maybe framerate. Developers just don't feel like doing the work. If the gamecube and xbox were pushed to their limits in more games you would say the same thing for the ps2. |
I cringe when I read that. The question becomes what level of downgrades is considered acceptable to the gamer with exposure to more capable platforms be it PC or PS3 or 360.
I just couldn't see myself buying a Wii port of a PC game with downgraded graphics and simplified controls, barring the rare instance when motion controls made the game a more enjoyable experience. I bought Far Cry for the Wii, and that turned me off big time to the concept of PC ports for the Wii of what were originally visually pleasing games. The controls were horrendous too as a second insult.
Frame rate shouldn't be an issue on the Wii since it doesn't have to display more than 480 lines of resolution. The Wii is fully capable of punching out smooth frame rates at SD resolutions. I've yet to see a game on the Wii with visuals so complex that they effected frame rates.
So publishers should allocate more resources to make downgraded ports look as good as possible on the Wii? Does that pay off directly to the publishers in terms of increased sales? As in do sales for Wii ports increase in proportion to the visual results developers are able to squeeze out of the hardware? I'm going to put myself out on a limb and say no, they don't. A Wii port could get panned for looking terrible (and more importantly playing terrible with tacked on motion controls), but creating very impressive ported (downgraded) visuals for a Wii game isn't going to guarantee significantly better sales.
I strongly believe that developers should focus on new IPs on the Wii instead. The more original titles the better. Make it worth the multi-platformer's while to own a Wii and keep using it.