Correct me if I am wrong but since when is opting to try something new ever “easy”?

Since when is bucking traditional to explore the unknown “easy”?

When did it become “easy” to risk everything on something untested?

I submit this,

Isn’t it always the “easiest” to simple follow the other sheep or fish?

Is it not “easier” to risk little?

Is it not the “easy” way to play safe?


The wii did not take the easy road.

No the wii blazed forth on the hardest path they could and because of that choice they have risked every “core” gamer out there. And while they have been able to keep a few faithful many a weaker member of the species has fallen from the path. For to hard is this road, to narrow is the path, and to steep is the hill to climb. Their arms grow weak from the load and their mouth and words grow bitter from thirst.

Nay my naive friend, Nintendo did not take the easy path, instead Sony and Microsoft took the easy path. For this they will drown in the blue ocean , while Nintendo travels on.

I wish the Wii had stronger hardware but i wouldn't have Madworld or No More Heroes now because of this technical limitations! Because of that shortcoming developers start to improvise again without the fear of high developing costs.

What i would have instead of this creative,stylised,over the top funny games in their place would be gray and brown colored games,shaders like normal mapping all over the place, full of bloom,zero creativity on controls and gameplay mechanisms because all of the developing time would be spend on shits i said above.After that they would serve us a sequel after sequel after sequel of the same franchises port over all formats.

Not to mention all conversation on forums like this based on videogames would have been a virtual battlefield for all fanboys, cursing, hating and proving that the version of a (X) cross platform game is better on their console of choice.

15 years i 've been living the same shit on fora all over the world. Could you all just relax and enjoy the game in the platform it was created for? For the sake of arguement the wii remote IS what the Wii was made for. Games genre like FPS benefits from the Wii Remote,Action/Adventure like The Legend of Zelda, Action like No More Heroes and Mad World. This games prove that the Wii Remote help so they can be played better easier and MORE FUN.

That was the arcade filosophy in the 80' accesible,fun with great replay value. Thats the Wii is doing.

lapsed_gamer said: @Impulsivity (sorry I can't quote) A straw man implies those arguing with the op created something to argue against (an therefore win.) But the OP introduced the motion control trade-off in his post. If you say that he was making the wrong argument I would have to agree with you.

Yeah I was trying to argue with the OP, but Impulsivity shifted the argument and I went along with it, because his new argument was not only an unprovable alternate history scenario, but not logical given the economy, or actual history of profits in the 6th generation.  The most money went to the ugliest system, and between the GC and XBox, MS lost money from second place and Nintendo made money from last place.  Nintendo knows what they're doing.

BladeOfGod said: Of course you are gonna get most of the people thinking the same way you do. 90% of the members are wii owners, so they need to bash graphical beauty as much as they can, saying ''gameplay is more important''. Well i can have gameplay AND good graphics on HD console. GRAPHICS FTW!!!

I've had good graphics and gameplay since the NES, so I have no idea what you're talking about.  I also don't think a higher number of pixels can be automatically called "graphical beauty."  There is more beauty in the PS2 game Okami than in any HD game I can think of off the top of my head.

Smeags said: It's time to bring this thread to an end! I have the POWER!

Thank you Smeags.  I needed that.

Good day thread.  I'm off to homework.

Impulsivity said:  A Wii that resembles the 360 arcade (but with the wifi and other features it has no obviously) would have come in at 300 dollars

 

No, it wouldn't have.

With the exception of Zelda I don't see how any of these games would be improved by HD graphics (except obviously would look better on big HD screens). They are all cartoony anyway and a few more polygons really wouldn't make a difference.

Better online, DLC?? Wii has that, Nintendo chooses not to use it. Which annoys the hell out of me too since I would have gotten Mario Super Sluggers if it had online. And I'd love DLC for Brawl too. But that's not the fault of the Wii hardware. Those are software decisions Nintendo makes for reasons sometimes we can only speculate. Therefore, there's no saying Nintendo would make them any differently on another console.

Trophies/achievements? No thanks. Hate that crap.

Mr.Y said: Impulsivity said:  A Wii that resembles the 360 arcade (but with the wifi and other features it has no obviously) would have come in at 300 dollars   No, it wouldn't have.

 

   Why not?  The arcade was at 300 at the time, why could a Wii with a better processor not have hit 300?  The Gamecube matched the hardware more or less of the Xbox and PS2 while managing a low price point, why couldn't the Wii?

Impulsivity said: Mr.Y said: Impulsivity said:  A Wii that resembles the 360 arcade (but with the wifi and other features it has no obviously) would have come in at 300 dollars   No, it wouldn't have.      Why not?  The arcade was at 300 at the time, why could a Wii with a better processor not have hit 300?  The Gamecube matched the hardware more or less of the Xbox and PS2 while managing a low price point, why couldn't the Wii?

 

They were still losing money off of Xbox 360s, weren't they? What are you getting for an extra $50 that would end all of this whining?

Mr.Y said: Impulsivity said: Mr.Y said: Impulsivity said:  A Wii that resembles the 360 arcade (but with the wifi and other features it has no obviously) would have come in at 300 dollars   No, it wouldn't have.      Why not?  The arcade was at 300 at the time, why could a Wii with a better processor not have hit 300?  The Gamecube matched the hardware more or less of the Xbox and PS2 while managing a low price point, why couldn't the Wii?   They were still losing money off of Xbox 360s, weren't they? What are you getting for an extra $50 that would end all of this whining?

 

  All the Wii would need is passable graphics like the gamecube had vs the other consoles, 50 dollars would give them way more ports, at least 720p graphics output and better looking games.  That they are FINALLY using the standard media for games (DVD) only make the value proposition and port liklihood greater.  There would be a Wii version of GTA5, RE5 and other major HD releases by now if they had raised the initial price 50 dollars and put a decently performing chip in there.

   Yes the 360 was (is) still losing money, but its mainly because of all the repair and reliability issues.  If they hadn't made it a shoddy piece of hardware and needed over a billion for RMAs it wouldn't have been losing much if anything by that point.  At 300 dollars Nintendo would be making money per console or be close to it.

Wow. Flamebait much?

HD graphics- No matter how you look at it the cost of the console would gone up( if the wii had more expensive tech) which of mean less sells and bigger game development funds meaning less profit. You can see this in Sony and Microsoft annual reports and the current situation.Secondly unlike microsoft and sony cannot afford losing money on a console since nintendo only makes video games so they cannot take quarter after quarter of losses like sony and microsoft can which you can also see in their annual reports.

Also out of the 45+ million wii owners in the world the percentage that have HD TV is not even 40 percent so if the majority don't have HD why have it?
By including it you actually alienate the majority of the consumers who don't have HD and who out number those that have and seemingly cut your own growth potential.

So to clarify there is no advantage for Nintendo to be HD this generation as they so stated themselves until the HD adoption rate in the world is at least 50%.