Why so much negative attitude this gen ?

[LordTheNightKnight]

greenmedic88 said:

sc94597 said:

greenmedic88 said:
The Wii is more capable than the GC, which IMO, had the best visuals of the last generation in terms of lighting and shading. I'll subjectively say Xbox had cleaner graphics (only taking the best of breed on both systems), but then I never played the system extensively.

But that really doesn't matter to me because the absolute best graphics capable on the Wii, despite being better than the GC, will never even approach the best on the PS3/360.

That's not why I bought one, and it's certainly not why I ever use it. Unless something completely off the radar is brought to my attention at E3, about the only thing the Wii will be used for through 2008 is Wii Fit. And that's no exaggeration.

The absolute best compliment I could ever give to the visuals of a Wii game, now or for the duration of its life cycle, will be "That looks very impressive... for the Wii."

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.

The visuals wouldn't make the game not sell either. If they just market it in the way that makes the HD versions hits, that would likely make the game sell better. It's not as though marketing stopps working normally when on the Wii. Zack & Wiki sold less than the two RE games, but it was also barely marketed, while they were.

Simple proof (not claiming it's scientific proof) that it's marketing that's the key, not the issue of matching up visually.