horriblebastard said: trestres said: Well isnt it funny that the weakest system is the one ahead this gen? With all the announced upcoming games, I wonder what the next fanboy excuse will be when they get launched. Now you are admitting it's the weakest. That's a good start. You're getting there. ;) Gameplay AND graphics make good games. It's not a choice between the two (unless you only own a Wii). It's a total falsehood to think that having a system with weaker graphics leads to better games in some way. Developers are actually limited by that in fact, not the other way round and there are dozens of examples of Wii games with shit graphics and shit gameplay so it's as susceptible to that as any other system. It's just that the best you're going to get on it will always be worse in a couple of aspects than the best you'll get on any of the other systems.

 

So what about the last gen games??? Almost none of them have good graphics like this gen, still the devs were able to create great games without great graphics, for most of the time the PCs showed better graphics and still the consoles ruled...

The lack of the power and specs of the consoles, lead them to make better games in other areas than graphics alone...

Real game:

Real game:

horriblebastard said: trestres said: Well isnt it funny that the weakest system is the one ahead this gen? With all the announced upcoming games, I wonder what the next fanboy excuse will be when they get launched. Now you are admitting it's the weakest. That's a good start. You're getting there. ;) Gameplay AND graphics make good games. It's not a choice between the two (unless you only own a Wii). It's a total falsehood to think that having a system with weaker graphics leads to better games in some way. Developers are actually limited by that in fact, not the other way round and there are dozens of examples of Wii games with shit graphics and shit gameplay so it's as susceptible to that as any other system. It's just that the best you're going to get on it will always be worse in a couple of aspects than the best you'll get on any of the other systems.

"Limitations" often lead to creativity in general and in games specifically ... On top of that, several of the best videogames of all time have been produced for handheld systems which have never even been close to the graphical capabilities of the home console systems of their time.

Just because the PS3 can now produce more advanced graphics does not mean that the games available for the PS2 were shit. Why would a system which can outperform the PS2 be forced to have "shitty" games when most of the good PS2 games are still pretty good by today's standards?

Except all systems have limitations, so the Wii isn't a special case in that respect. It's just that its upper limits are lower, but are you really going to argue that the more limited a console is, the more creative the games library? If so, you're on a slippery slope that leads you back to Pong.

I didn't say the PS2's games were shit, but I expect some kind of progression in terms of graphical ability from generation to generation, otherwise I'd still have an Atari 2600 connected to my TV. I used to love games like Missile Command and Asteroids, but if I buy a game today I have higher expectations than that.

And that actually puts you in a very vocal minority, HB. You see, to most consumers (ie. the ones who don't go online and complain about games), the Wii is "good enough". They don't see enough of a difference to justify investing in one of the HD Twins, particularly when neither has anything even remotely like the Wii Remote.

The consumer is king. This is why gameplay, not graphics, are what sell games. It doesn't matter what artistic ambitions the developer has, if the vast majority of your customer base doesn't want it, you can't make a business out of it. This isn't because the customers are "stupid" or "unrefined", it's because what you've come up with just does not appeal on some crucial level. And what the majority of people want from games is to have fun, not to experience "art".

You know, you see this happen in almost every industry eventually. The majority are satisfied with "good enough", a handful of elitists want "better", the developers pander to the elitists, the majority are alienated, and somebody comes in with something that's "good enough" but delivers something else that the majority actually appreciate, and the elitists all complain about that "good enough" product not being good enough for them in spite of that new "something else". I've seen it happen everywhere: journalism, video games, movies, television, even novels. It just keeps happening every time the elitists are listened to instead of the majority.

Sky Render, I don't disagree with anything you said in that post.

Why are you comparing games from last gen with now? It's a new generation. Do you not expect progression? Atari 2600 games were great - at the time. In 20 or 30 years you'll look back at the PS2 like other people look back on the Atari. PC games are always going to have better graphics because PC graphics are not fixed for the entire life span of the computer. You can update the graphics card at any time, and you can adjust the level of the graphics to suit the particular card you have.

@horriblebastard: You're right, SMG and TP doesn't really bring anything new into the series. But as i said, Nintendo wants to cater the old audiece too.
BTW, since you're implying that series using the same formula, that they have used the last ten years is a bad thing, i need to ask what made a Nintendo fan (as you claim to be), the shoebox design or the lunchbox design? Since it's seems not to be the games.
Besides, if bringing nothing new into the series is so bad thing, how come PS360 are better? Wii has atleast some totally new kind of games, while all the PS360 games are the same as last gen.
And as for MKWii, it didn't bring anything new to the series, aside from online multiplayer, bikes and controls. Nintendo just made the most accessible and most sophisticated game in the series.

You know, the reason why Wiis lower power makes games better is because once Wii has been graphically maxed out, devs need to compete each other with the gameplays quality. This is why SNES is remembered for its games quality.
As for the logic of "why make good games, when you cash out the dummies with bad", it only further proves that PS360 has no future, since spending tens of millions to a PS360 game, when you can make a game that costs a million on Wii and cash in with it, is more profitable route. Only platform to have decent amount of good games will be the Wii. If we go by your logic.

Actually Wii is played by atleast 2 yo to grannies. I think my 2 years old is a proof of that. And guess what, it's because of the games that appeal to them.
You came here to give your opinion (=troll, it seems) and people are discussing it with you - with reasonable arguments, which are proven by the history (and financials), while you have nothing to oppose those arguments.

horriblebastard said: Except all systems have limitations, so the Wii isn't a special case in that respect. It's just that its upper limits are lower, but are you really going to argue that the more limited a console is, the more creative the games library?

 

Yes... and not completely.

When a system has an obvius limitation a workaround must be done in order to make a better game. This is why most latest NES and SNES games are the best ones because they reached the max graphical capabilities of the system and they couldn't go any furter in that area, so they had to work harder on story, gameplay, controls, etc. Looking at the Wii, there is a good graphical limit that can be easily reached (if they worked better on how to use TEVs) but the controls opens endless possibilities and is clearly a system, like Nintendo said, ideas over budget always wins.

However, just by pointing out the limitations does not mean the games are better instantly, that would be stupid. As many posts before this one, it's the developers duty to put more effort on Wii games and let the brainstorming reach a good game idea and give all their best on that one.

I strongly believe that a developer that focuses only on graphics is a mediocre developer.

Thr real weakness of the Wii, however is not the developer's laziness, but more because the gaming industry is full of followers and less risk takers

The main thing is that games are meant to be fun. It's their primary job. Graphics don't actually make a game fun; they just wow us and draw us in for the initial purchase. Icing on the cake, in other words. If, upon removing that icing, the cake is still delicious, then you have a good game. But if, upon removing the icing, you discover that you were actually eating bread and not cake, that's a problem.

I highly advocate playing games on PC with graphics settings at the minimum at least once, so you can find out how good the game actually is without being blinded by the overdone visuals. You may be shocked to find that "great games" suddenly aren't so great. Many FPS titles suddenly become blocky and uninspired, RPGs reveal their darker side of having extremely tedious and clunky leveling as well as horribly dated one-click combat that would shame most MMOs these days, and a great deal of action games suddenly feel very stiff and unresponsive, with incredibly short-sighted and unintuitive design decisions popping up regularly.

I'm not. You are. It's interesting how the 360/PS3 gets attacked for lack of innovation in games, when you all love the first party franchises that are anything but innovative. If you were consistent, I wouldn't have even bought it up. You're only inconsistent through fanboyism, so let that go and we might get somewhere.


True for all systems, except the Wii's games maxed out will always look worse than the PS3's or 360's.


Making innovative games doesn't always bring in the most money though, so by that logic the Wii's future is largely shovelware and cash-ins. On the occasion that companies do go out of their way to make innovative games like Zack & Wiki or Boom Blox, they don't sell for shit because it hasn't got "Created by Nintendo" on the box.


So all you are doing is agreeing with me then?


What arguments? That the Wii makes money? That has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. A lot of people resort to "but look how much cash Nintendo have!" when they have absolutely no other relevant points to make.

Sky Render said: The main thing is that games are meant to be fun. It's their primary job. Graphics don't actually make a game fun; they just wow us and draw us in for the initial purchase. Icing on the cake, in other words. If, upon removing that icing, the cake is still delicious, then you have a good game. But if, upon removing the icing, you discover that you were actually eating bread and not cake, that's a problem.

Best post of the thread. Great analogy!

+ 1/0