--OkeyDokey-- said: Has there ever been a console that is so far behind it's competitors in this area? Regardless of whether or not anyone cares about graphics, it can't be denied that Wii's weaker hardware has cost it just about every major multiplat game this gen.

 

 Has there ever been a console that has sold so fast? Even after being so far behind in graphic capability.

The wii being weaker had nothing to do with that. It's more like no one took it serious untill it became the market leader. Most just asumed that Sony would continue the be the market leader. But we have beat that into the ground. Now the wii already has more third party support than the GC. And the list of games coming are growing. With more core games. Image what games the wii would have now if developers would have known how popular it would be 3 years ago.

People are buying Wiis for the controls though. To think otherwise is naive, because the Wii minus the Wii Remote is just the Gamecube again basically.


That's ALL that matters? That's sad. I'm a fan of Nintendo and have been for years, but my Wii sits collecting dust. It was fine when it was the only console I had - well, I say "fine", but it was more a string of disappointing games mixed in with the occasional good one (usually first party). Since owning a 360 and buying a new PC, I haven't turned my Wii on for weeks. The novelty has worn off.

Aquietguy -For home console, no, but maybe for handhelds you could consider the original gameboy.

horriblebastard said: I wouldn't say the "tacking on" is because developers feeling obligated to the controls, it's because their stupid mindsets, where they genuenily believe that people are buying Wiis because of controls and then they just use the controls for the reason the controls are there, without putting any thought to it. People are buying Wiis for the controls though. To think otherwise is naive, because the Wii minus the Wii Remote is just the Gamecube again basically. Wii sells the most consoles that is all that matters to Ninty fans. That's ALL that matters? That's sad. I'm a fan of Nintendo and have been for years, but my Wii sits collecting dust. It was fine when it was the only console I had - well, I say "fine", but it was more a string of disappointing games mixed in with the occasional good one (usually first party). Since owning a 360 and buying a new PC, I haven't turned my Wii on for weeks. The novelty has worn off.

 

Where are the Bingo boards?

Just before I got my Wii, I started to worry that the graphics would look like dog shit on my 60" HDTV. I'm happy to say that aside from Wii Sports, I really haven't had any graphical complaints.

@horriblebastard: I can see you're far away from "getting it".
Wii sells because of its software. The controls do play their part, not as you are saying.
So, apparently "you got the console for the controls" and now that they aren't utilized as you expected, "your console" is just "collecting dust".
The idea of the controls is to be so easy that anyone can play them, at best they are "one button controls" (Wii Sports for example).
So when you look at it a little deeper, Wiis software is something people wants to play, and controls something that the same people can play. Let's take Brawl for example, it's a game that needs more complex controls than the motion sensing can offer, so there's no sense in forcing the game to utilize them, or in the other end, Wii Sports would feel a little gay without the motion controls. To fully utilize Wii, it needs new software (like Wii Sports) and that's what drives sales (as well as the proven, traditional, games).

And about "Wii without new controls", if you look at it, PS360 without HD would be just like their predecessors. And, unlike Wii, this includes the games too.

"my Wii's been collecting dust."

"wii's graphics suxorz111."


Slimeattack, I wouldn't even go there with you. You're one of the nuts who thinks that the Ps3 will sell 150million.


Horriblebastard, everyone's Wii collect's dust nowadays./sarcasm.

It is a funny excuse on the internet though.

a: "the Wii is selling BEASTLY."
b: "well, MINE collectz DUST!"

What's up with all the freakin sadsacks in this thread? I see the Wii panning out like the Ds honestly. Very casual start, then the game lineup branches into a HUGE core gamer quality section.

Good thread fkusmot. If you don't mind though, I'd like to approach it from a slightly different direction. I'm going to say that amongst a certain segment of consumers the Wii's graphics are its greatest weakness, but that for the most part the Wii's graphics are one of its greatest STRENGTHS.

Allow me to explain. The Wii is stronger than the original X-Box when it comes to graphics, but not by a monumental amount. This may sound like it's bad for consumers: you're "settling" for a product that's clearly inferior in one area. And yet because the Wii requires so much less from developers, consumers ultimately benefit from the lower development times and costs that the Wii offers over the HD consoles.

I've already written a massive (if still incomplete) post on why HD costs are going to be the death of our industry, and I believe that by letting developers continue to make games at reasonable prices the Wii is ensuring that more studios continue to survive and be independent, which brings us more games and more ideas, which means that in the end we the consumers benefit. This isn't much of a stretch: companies like Hudson, Marvelous, and Red Fly have come right out and said that they simply could not have afforded to develop console games were it not for the Wii, because they can't afford to gamble $25 million+ per game. In other words, the Wii's "weak" graphics are the only thing that lets small and mid-sized developers continue to make new console games. That lower price tag, I'll submit, also means developers won't be as shy as taking risks (Boom Blox and Zak and Wiki simply could not have happened on the HD systems: they would not have been approved by the bean counters).

Further benefitting the consumer is the fact that Wii games take, on average, one year less to complete, which means we're getting the games quicker than they would come out on the HD systems. The release schedule has already proven this: where few thought that the Wii was worth developing for during its first nine months, most publishers now have Wii games scheduled for release in the near future. That's a turnaround that simply couldn't have happened on the HD consoles, at least not with the same speed.

I'm actually less into the argument that developers will be "forced" to rely on gameplay with Wii games because it can't compete graphically: art direction matters more to how a game looks than anything else, as games like Mushroom Men seem to prove. Add in the fact that most third-parties are pretty lazy, and that strength seems to melt away entirely. Still, because the Wii's graphics mean that gaming companies can deliver timely games while not being driven out of business, I'd put them down as one of the Wii's greatest (although not only) strength.

I didn't say that the ONLY reason the Wii sells is because of its controls. It has first party exclusives that make it attractive as well - games that are FAR from innovative BTW. They're just the same old Mario, Zelda, Kart, Brawl etc. so it's hypocritical of people to knock other platforms regarding innovative titles, especially when some of you (most probably) only own a Wii and probably have no long term experience with other platforms or their games. I own a Wii and a 360.

Obviously, hence the mass appeal, but appealing to everything from 4 year olds to old grannies doesn't necessarily make a console appealing to me and as a person that doesn't hold any Nintendo stock, I couldn't care less if they "win" or make a gazillion dollars.

I personally think the Wii's less-than-stellar graphical capabilities are a plus. It means that developers can't rely on "wow"-ing the player with top-of-the-line visuals and thus hide the often lackluster gameplay behind impressive graphics. We saw this with the NES, too. When it came out, what it could do graphically was way below what PCs of the age could do, meaning that the bad games stood out even more than they did on PC, and the good games had to sell based solely on the talent of the developers. The end result? Some of the best games ever made, and the start of countless franchises that live on today.

So I say, down with talentless developers. If they're so creatively shallow and developmentally regressive that they need to turn to graphics to make a compelling game, then they richly deserve the same fate as companies like Psygnosis. Get some talent, or if you have it but for some reason don't use it, show some talent. Entertainment is very much a talent-driven industry, and there's no room for uncreative people who just hide their lack of talent with tons of filler. That works for a while, but eventually the audience sees past the smokescreen and realizes that the person entertaining them is actually a hack.