'^No I disagree, the opening sequences in Bolt would have been pretty much the same hand drawn. Actually what I pointed out, was that its eye candy, CGI is still at that stage where its seen as being able to wow, kind of like how it was with gaming when it first made the jump to 3D, now however 3D is kind of gotten to the point where its so boring that we are happy to see 2D gaming coming back.'.

Only, it WAS CGI, and not hand drawn...

Also, if 2D is so great and hardware tech irrelevant, why are you not playing Octopus on Game and Watch instead of this thinly disguised attempt to defend the Wii's shortcomings?

WereKitten summed it up nicely.

Out.

^ I still play old tech, I own a NES, as for 2D, I frequently play 2D games, on the PC and Wii and DS, in fact I probably play far more 2D than 3D

We're all busy playing NSMB Wii, have you forgotten?

It shouldn't need to be said, but most 2D games nowadays couldn't be done on the Game and Watch.

Avinash is pushing it to the extreme with his "tech doesn't matter" (and I'll put aside his baseless insults against developers for now), but I think you're guilty of being on the extreme opposing end. While graphics will "wow" us every once in a while nowadays, the effect is getting smaller and smaller. To be honest, I can't see games needing graphics much better than what the HD consoles can currently handle, seeing as how many of its games would be fine on the Wii as it is. Hell, the DS is currently the best selling system by far, and is pulling it off with N64 graphics.

Besides, the "wow" factor is only temporary. Games that sell solely on the appeal of new technology never age very well. Even Wii Sports (the introduction to motion) is subject to this, as WSR has made it feel obsolete.

^

I'm up for games of any type really. One of my fave systems is the Neo Geo. Still have an AES.

I'm not saying graphics make a game, but new tech does enable new potential. You mention NSMB Wii. Miyamoto said that it was only possible on Wii due to the sprite scaling. I think that is total BS, but if you happen to buy it, it proves the need for new tech. What about sandbox games? You don't see many of them on the Wii..

Oh, I still own Octopus. Got it as a gift many years ago. Quality game.

Oh? Your older posts made it seem like you thought CGI makes hand drawn animation obsolete, which I didn't agree with. I think the Pixar movies would still be great with 2D animation, though the CGI gave them a great start to reel people in. I guess that's another topic altogether.

As for the Wii and sandbox games, they're definitely possible (GTA's on PS2), though 3rd parties have yet to try. There are few games on the PS360 that cannot be done on the Wii, though I'll concede that they may be inferior (due to graphics being highly valued in the more cinematic games).

Anyway, I guess we're in agreement otherwise.

Crystal Bearers is pretty sandboxy actually. And Wii got an enhanced Bully port.

Also, NSMBWii doesn't use "sprites".

A friend and I discussed this some time ago (we're both small indie developers.. on PC) aboutthe current third partry situation on the Wii. Normally the most logical reason is to go to the platform with the biggest install base tincrease your chances to sell your game and have a profit and growth from it. Bust most western developers, specially the most known ones, are not providing strong support as they should. Most of the statemenst to the press are pure BS or window dressing that hides the reality inside the company. And no, I am not like Mastrom with the anti-wii thing. My friend and I tought about many factors that may help explain the issue.

1. The notion of games competing with the movie industry in the future

Under this notion, development of HD games makes sense. Many developers, journalist, and analyst pointed this direction as the "next step" in gaming. Some of you may agree with this, others (like me and my friend) do not. HD graphics give a sense of "closing the gap" between games and movies and becomes attractive to many companies. PD/PS3 and Xbox360 both have the power to help companies in this direction, so they put out their best resources (A teams) to take the lead or at least a good part in this "new era".

The Nintendo Wii, on the other hand, is against this notion completely. Wii wants games that challenges games, not movies. So naturally, at the begining, developers didn't put much attention. But now with the biggest install base on one platform, the attention changed to get some money our of this new market with little effort. This creates shovelware, sub par ports, or games that with Z.

2. The well developed, flawed perspective problem

this was to explain many of the commom "flops" that goes around many games from big developers /publishers that actually gave some "effort", but sell poorly. It's not that the games are bad, but because the game was missdirected from the start.

'Also, NSMBWii doesn't use "sprites".'.

OK, but you probably know the Miyamoto quote I'm referring to. Or can you think of a reason why the game couldn't have been done on the Cube?

Because GC is a dead platform in 2009. ;)

I know the comment you're referring to, and it was pure PR spin.  Miyamoto said something to the effect of Wii being maxed out keeping track of all the stuff offscreen so as to make online impossible, which really isn't even the case (the whole level isn't kept running, even though objects are kept track of further offscreen than in previous Marios).  The game as is could've been done on GC though.

Unless we have a count of the effects, polygons, textures, and everything else, as well as knowing how much is in the RAM at any given time, you can't really say if the game as it is runs on GC specs.