Why is that? I can criticise the things I don't like about the consoles I own, but it seems you can't and have to defend every aspect of the Wii to the death, while at the same time desperately hoping that Sony and Microsoft fail.


Actually, it was about the Wii's graphics being its key weakness. Did you read the thread title before you popped on the fanboy hat and started ranting?


Haha. We're really seeing some shining examples of that quality aren't we? I think not.


I think you mean the "mass market ship". Not quite the same thing. It seems to me that most developers don't really give a shit about the Wii, either avoiding it completely, churning out shovelware, or having a "special team" (in other words, the developers that aren't busy with PS3/360 games) creating gimped versions of games for the Wii. They will turn to it eventually because that's where the money is, but to think that means they'll go from "Carnival Games" to "Super Innovate Never Seen Before" is wishful thinking on your part.

Sky Render said: I don't see any other question you asked. If you want to know what I think about "more enemies on screen", "bigger environments", "more detailed character models", and so on, I think "overcompensating". The most brilliant games in existence do not use thousands of on-screen visuals; some of them need no more than two paddles and a ball. Adding more and bigger to a game does not improve it; it just makes it more complicated. While I'm certain that many an elitist out there feels that complexity equals quality, this is not the case; intuitiveness equals quality. I would much rather play a game that I can just pick up and enjoy without having to remember a half-million special rules and tricks than to play a game that has thousands-on-thousands battles and zero intuitive gameplay. Screw the likes of Generations of Chaos and Galactic Civilizations. If it's going to be that overly complex, I'd rather pop in Wii Sports, quite frankly. At least I know I'll have fun with that without having to muddle through 60 tutorials just to find out how to complete a single round of the game.

You didn't answer my question about SMG and stick men, or choosing between two versions of the same game, one with better graphics than the other.

Adding more to a game doesn't improve it? Are you serious? It might not improve every game ever made, but to imply adding more to a game can never make it better is insane.

Your whole argument is basically: -

Better graphics = irrelevant

Adding more to a game = only makes it worse

Both of those things are complete rubbish.

Tell me, which do you think is authentically more brilliant? Pong, a game that quite literally made video games a viable market? Or GTA4, a rehash of a rehash of a rehash of a successful game which only adds "more" and "better" into the mix, and not "new" or "intuitive"?

Brilliance is mirrored in success, not in elitist opinion. There is no such thing as "too brilliant for the common man to grasp", only "too pretentious to admit failure". And true genius is not being able to find answers to the problems, it's being able to express those answers in a way that makes sense to everybody else. This is why games like Pong and Super Mario Bros stand head and shoulders above games like GTA4 and Halo 3. They did not try to tackle all of the problems, they just tried to tackle a few and make the solution accessible to everybody.

As for Super Mario Galaxy, I don't care what it looks like as long as it plays well. And it does play well. That would not change in the least if the graphics were lesser. Your question is meaningless rhetoric.

Oh I just read some of the posts on this thread and found it going into familiar territory.

Here's how the Wii's graphical limitations is actually a strength and not a weakness. First I'll do my points then I'll perform an adapt of someone elses.

Basic economic principal would have me believe there are generally two sides to the coin, supply and demand. There are of course objects on both, consumers create demand and producers generate supply, the tug of war should never be won but sustained, how it's sustained is another story; what I'm getting into is skiming that other story.

Consumers don't know what they want unless they are introduced to product, that product develops a market and thus begins the tug of war.
The job of innovation lay with the producer as the consumer doesn't know they want/need product until they know what job it intends to do.

In a market where the consumer has been entertained by product then the consumer begins to know what it wants, the producer wants to sustain the tug of war so they entertain the consumer, the issue here is sustained growth, keeping with what works only keeps those who are entertained by the job of product.

The consumer want's a better product so you give it to them, the concept that has been working is the better a product is the more money you are rewarded with as the demand increases on that product. That would be the case if it wasn't for the limitations of human resources combined with disinterest. But that's not the point, the point is to innovate because that's what got you those consumers to begin with, what would happen if you could innovate again and get more new consumers, that would be an expanding model.

Keeping consumers and acquiring new consumers. That's the tug of war, the point isn't to keep balance it's to make sure that you say close to balance and always add demand.

In that logic the producer always has the ball in their court. - That's my adapt to Iwata ^_^

Oh, and since you seem to have misunderstood again, let me clarify this: graphics are unimportant relative to gameplay. The reason why has been revealed time and time again in the last 30-odd years, yet nobody seems to want to accept it: graphics get outdated fast, but good gameplay is always good. The only way you can "outdate" gameplay is if the gameplay was unrefined to begin with. And gameplay refinement has no special requirements, either; we have classic games that are still fun today from as far back as the 1970s.

In other words where in 2005/2006 analysts and executives and some investors were saying Nintendo (Wii) is a non-issue they didn't realize the same thing Sony hasn't realized with their 10 year life cycle jib, consumers determine if they like product, not them. In the reality HD graphics was a non-issue, in turn Xbox/GC/Ps2 graphics were good enough (DC also). The consumers wanted something else, and one producer innovated and look where it got them.

As far as the opinion part goes over graphics being a driving factor in how fun a game is... to each their own.

Games have advanced way beyond the days of Pong, even if somehow you have managed to remain trapped in Pongville. I want more of a challenge than standing there swinging a Wii Remote to hit a tennis ball, especially when the skill level has been dumbed down to the point where I can sit on my sofa flicking my wrist and beat the computer player every time. Great for the kids. Not so good for me. Brilliance is not always mirrored in success and not everything that is successful is brilliant.

horriblebastard said: Brilliance is mirrored in success, not in elitist opinion. There is no such thing as "too brilliant for the common man to grasp", only "too pretentious to admit failure". And true genius is not being able to find answers to the problems, it's being able to express those answers in a way that makes sense to everybody else. This is why games like Pong and Super Mario Bros stand head and shoulders above games like GTA4 and Halo 3. They did not try to tackle all of the problems, they just tried to tackle a few and make the solution accessible to everybody. Games have advanced way beyond the days of Pong, even if somehow you have managed to remain trapped in Pongville. I want more of a challenge than standing there swinging a Wii Remote to hit a tennis ball, especially when the skill level has been dumbed down to the point where I can sit on my sofa flicking my wrist and beat the computer player every time. Great for the kids. Not so good for me. Brilliance is not always mirrored in success and not everything that is successful is brilliant.

 

Geometry Wars is not that much different (or advanced) from most mid-80s arcade shooters and yet it still receives scores in the 80s and 90s from most reviewers ... In general, good gameplay is good regardless of the decade you play a game in.

I'm sorry you think that way, HB. It's obvious that we're not going to agree, then. Time to just accept our differences in viewpoint and move on.

Graphical capabilities of Wii are a key deficit? In other word water is wet and the sun rises every morning.