Critics still coming to terms with Wii's "next-gen-ness"

Factor 5 used to be so talented at surpassing the limitations of video game hardware. Now, instead of using the resourcefulness that helped build their reputations as top-shelf game designers, they whine and cry like babies until they're given the shiniest toy on the market.

I'm disappointed in you, Factor 5. I thought you were better than this!

JR

"GFX is probs the least important factor of a game."
Posted at 8:51PM on Oct 24th 2006 by Pulse

I think GFX is the second most important thing after gameplay if you include control scheme in the gameplay. If not then gfx is the 3rd most important thing. Good gfx create the immersion and it's very important. And it's always the gfx that create the initial wow factor. Gameplay create lasting appeal.

Just to give an idea of why graphics mean very little to me... consider all the praise that the incredible PS3 graphics are receiving now. But fast forward ten years, and people will be scoffing at them. Think about how you viewed, say, the PS2, the first time you saw the played one of its games, and how you view it now. What was once considered great is now considered terrible. And the same will happen with the PS3.

In my eyes, a game is a game, and its perceived quality should not depend on the time at which it's released. Good graphics will fade with time, but good gameplay will endure. That's why, provided the intuitive interface lives up to the hype, the Wii will be the console for me.

The Wii is the biggest disapointment of all time. Repackaged last gen system with a new controller selling for MORE then the older gen system. Nintendo loves to show how absolutely retarded their fanbase is over and over, and you know what, it shows.

Enjoy your toys. I'll be watching Blu-Ray 1080p movies like Kingdom Of Heaven and playing Gears Of War in true next gen fashion, while you guys play warioware and put teeth into a cartoon grandma. Nice.

Damn straight I feel this way. While I'm still buying one the day it comes out, I'm also disappointed with the fact that the graphics and are the same thing we've had for the last half-decade or so. That said, the new controller and all that stuff is cool, but I wonder where they're gonna go with it - and if they'll be able to retain the buzz and interest of the consumers...Whatever. Twilight Princess needs to be on my TV ASAP...

people want better graphics with same gameplay but complain when EA releases Madden and Live with the same gameplay but with updated graphics. make up your damn minds!

There's a nice video interview with one of the Factor 5 developers on IGN. He talks about Lair and how they had considered it for Wii and for Xbox 360. Wii didn't have the graphical power and Xbox 360 didn't have the motion control. They also show in the video the game running, and you can really see that stuff just isn't possible on the Wii. I mean there were like 100,000 soldiers on the screen and the dragon was breathing super realistic fire all over them. I've generally been against the high price of the PS3 and I'm not buying one any time soon, but listening to that one developer talk about Lair and their descisions around developing it really makes me appreciate PS3's merits.

"We bought consoles for FUN. The 360 and PS3 have, if not more, the equal ammount of FUN that the Wii is gonna bring. Wake up from denial and all the marketing/fanboy spin. A motion-sensing controller isn't gonna bring you more fun when you're already IN the game."

That's one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever seen. First of all, the very idea that you're trying to use "fun" as a definite measurement discredits your statement from the start. On top of that, you're trying to measure that fun in two consoles that haven't been released and that in all likelihood you've never even played. Wake up and smell reality: nearly all the games that will eventually come out for both the PS3 and Wii haven't even been announced, let alone released.

You really think you can measure something as subjective as "fun", especially this early in the game? Don't make me laugh.

RE: #42

Wii support progress scan, it hardly make different on your $10k HDTV.

Let me preface this with a little history on my gaming life:

Currently besides my several computers, I own only a PS2. I sold my Xbox about 5 months ago becuase I wanted to get Guitar Hero, and I was pretty much bored with the Xbox. Thats right I bought a PS2 to play Guitar Hero, and only guitar hero....worth every penny!

I have never purchased a nintendo system, except a b/w gameboy pocket years ago for long plane trips. Never owned a PS1. I did have a dreamcast, and way back in the before time I did play a lot of the original super mario at my friends house (whatever that cartrige system was in the mid/late 80s)

I want a 360, but dont see much in the way of games I like, and will likely get one next year after the inevitable price drops. I am really not interested in a PS3....which is good since the likelyhood of me getting one without spending an entire weeks pay is about zero for the forseable future. I will be getting a Wii as soon as it launches.

I like the idea of the small form factor, and inovative control system. I like the idea that it will play ALL gamecube games. I like the idea that I can spend $600 and get the system and get a second controler set and multiple games.

The whole BlueRay -vs- HD-DVD war means I dont see any real added value in a PS3 or Xbox for a new dvd drive. I'll sit here, happy with my upscaling dvd player for a while thanks.

In the end I will buy the Wii, and then maybe another system 6-12 months later....but for now, the wii gaurentees me a huge catalog of old games, and a new gaming experience on the cheap...whats wring with that?

I'm not sure if any one else posted this yet, nut you took Factor 5's statement completely out of context. He later went on to complement Nintendo. Here is his entire statement:

"When I heard what was going on at Nintendo, I cringed," Eggebrecht said. "It's audio is relatively mediocre. It's essentially GameCube 1.5, which is fine because all the motion-control stuff they're doing is pretty radical. That's precisely why the 360 wasn't exciting to me, because it didn't have the jump there, even though it had everything else."

There you go, he says although the grafics make it only like a GameCube 1.5, it has the required next-gen jump that other consoles like the XBox 360 don't have.

Ok, to me a developer that relies on a console isn't a developer, thats

just a person or group of people that can make a video game.

If a artist has a brand new clean canvas (with stronger wood) will that

make his art any better than if he didn't, it can, but not the largest of

an improvement over previous stuff.

Another thing is, are graphics really much of a difference, to me

they're just to catch your eye to show off the console and to set a

standard so that you won't be used to seeing a console with graphics

any lower. Trust me, by 2008 Ps3 graphics are just going to be a norm
and you won't be watching Ps3 games with your jaw to the floor by

that time (I've allready stopped).

To make another point, A console is just a console, it means nothing

without games (Sony disagrees with me), if the 360 had no games it'd

just be a fancy media player, if the Wii had no games the controller

would be all for naught, if the Ps3 had no games well it's still a Blu-Ray

enabled Super PC but the main reason for getting one would be

destroyed. Basically what I'm trying to say is, loyalty to a console is

nothing, the games on it are what make it a console, I'm a Nintendo

fan and I bought a Ps2 for games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear.
The Consoles specs are nothing if the developer doesn't use it for a

good reason, seriously I doubt Open Season on the X-Box 360 is

anything different from the game on Ps2, this also goes for the Wii

(Ps3 and 360 fans don't start boasting) the controller is completely

useless without a good design for it, yes it's wierd and that games like

Street Fighter don't seem possible on it, but thats only because

designers aren't holding creativity, everyone's making the same

games over and over with small additions and graphical upgrades

(trust me, Gran Turismo HD on PS3 won't be any more fun than the

game on PS2) more or less your just paying more for new graphics, sound, music, and detail without a signifigant advancement in entertainment.

I look forward to the Wii, the DS got developers to be

a little more original (even with Ps2 games) hopefully the Wii will have

the same effect.

I don't understand why most of you think gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive... A really good game can incorporate BOTH and this is where the Wii will be handicapped.

The PS3 and 360 will undoubtedly release some AAA games that will be both awesome in gameplay and deliver amazing graphics, the Wii has the potential to deliver awesome gameplay but it will NEVER deliver in the graphical department. There is just no hardware to support it.

Graphics are obviously a part of Next-Gen gaming (I didn't say the ONLY part) and those who ignore that are just fanboys trying to make themselves feel better. You play consoles on TVs and the Next-Gen of TVs are HDTVs. It would thus make sense to create a console that is capable of keeping up with the times. In two or three years when a larger percentage of people will have HDTVs in their living room, I can guarantee you that the 480p output of the Wii will end up looking like utter shit compared to either PS3 or 360.

So while the Wii may sell well this year and early next, it won't have the longevity of the other two consoles and game developers see that.

PS. I am not a Nintendo hater (I will actually get a Wii for Metroid) or a Sony/MS fanboy. I just call things as I see them.

Why can't a game have both great graphics and gameplay. It seems by the discusion lately that its one or the other. Alot of people are writing off that the wii is automatically going to be gaming nirvana and that the controller is going to be better than the ones we have now without actually playing any games for any extended period of time.

Look at the DS, everyone writes about how revolutionary it is, but very few games use the second touch screen. The DS's best sellers super mario brothers and mario kart play exactly the same as the super nintendo ones back ten years ago. The reason it has performed well is because its cart based (fast load times), has single cart multiplayer, has a long battery life, is easily portable, and the games are all made to be played in small increments (something that is crucial for portability). The PSP does not excel in any of those areas as its games are made to be played in hour increments like console games and that does not work in a portable environment and that is why it is not succeeding.
Nintendo is taking a big risk with the wii in applying its handheld strategy to home consoles. The fact that most of the DS games do not make use of the touchscreen is troublesome and graphics will come into play if most games do not make use of the new controls and not every game is situated for the controls (look at super smash brothers). I also have an HDTV and it bothers me that nintendo is not supporting HD. Since its 250 (very expensive for a gamecube 1.5 powerwise) they could of upped the power and charged 299 and had the best of both worlds. The HD thing might not come into play this year but in 2-3 years (thats also when consoles sell the most) it will be a deciding factor (go into best buy and try to find SDTV, HDTV are out in full force and are getting cheaper by the month). Also if the controller scheme takes off whats to stop MS and sony from copying and releasing it on there consoles (look at every other controller innovation) with better graphics as well).

Id like to add the comments about FUN from the nintendo fanatics.

For the entire gaming history of your lifetimes, werent you playing games for FUN? And on standard joysticks? Why would this change all of a sudden? Guess what, it doesnt. Games will still be tons of fun, challenging and a great way to spend time. Just because nintendo is telling you fun is their way and thats how it is from now on, doesnt equate to reality. The Wii will fail in the long run because it cannot satisfy the CORE audience that has the $$$. The 18-35 gamer. They want FF 13 and Gears of War. They dont want to play a tennis game where you dont even move your character other then the racket.

I'm deleting my Joystiq bookmark, can't stand the idiotcy anymore from people like "Paco From Del Taco".
I'm happy that people like darryl and ME are gone, but when one dies 3 more pop-up.
Besides, I'v noticed that whenever Kotaku or Destructiod do an article Joystiq has the same thing hours to days later.
Nothing original execpt the retardation and fanboyism.

Smell you later.

Well if you don't think controller innovations help enhance fun, think about this. Nintendo was the first to put that "standard joystick" on a controller, shoulder L + R buttons and added rumble, all now stolen by Sony and Microsoft and taken for granted.

What else? Nintendo, believe it or not, holds the patent for the D-pad and everything else is just an imitation.

What would your game experience be like without this sort of progression in controllers? A simple and innovative interface can be a HUGE selling factor - case in point, the iPod's click wheel.

>21. While great graphics do not make a game, bad graphics do detract from a great game. If no one cared about graphics, we would all be playing NetHack and Zork instead of Oblivion, or the latest Zelda.<

I've seen that before. I henceforth accuse you of Copypasta! BURN THE COPYPASTA!

Also, NetHack rocks.

>29. A one-two punch the Wii won't be, but hopefully the relatively low price (though $50 more and you can net yourself a 360) and the gimmick of the Wiimote will keep it afloat for longer than most expect.<
The core 360, after a memory card so you can save and, y'know, a game, cost almost as much as the premium, and you still can't download anything. You can do all that on the Wii for $250.

>51. Oh, so how games WERE played are now considered shitty!<
Nope. Just reiterative.

>Graphics, OR their so called "gameplay"- which is basically the same stuff that the GC's small yet impressive catalog has.<
Are you saying the games are likely to be good, if not abundant? Or are you just whining about how you can't have your cake and eat it too?

>A motion-sensing controller isn't gonna bring you more fun when you're already IN the game.<
Tell that to Sony.

>59. the Wii has the potential to deliver awesome gameplay but it will NEVER deliver in the graphical department. There is just no hardware to support it.<
Tell that to the guys working on Red Steel.

>61. they could of upped the power and charged 299 and had the best of both worlds. <
No they couldn't. The fanboys would whine about being charged more for HD, how most people don't have HD, how they'd rather buy an HD add-on, etc. Heck, they're already whining about the current price.

>62. The Wii will fail in the long run because it cannot satisfy the CORE audience that has the $$$.<
You mean, all the ones buying PSPs?

"Create new audiences. Make your competition irrelevant." Ever heard of the Blue Ocean strategy? There is a vast, untapped market of non-gamers. That's who Nintendo is going for. If-and this is a big if-it succeeds, Sony and MS will be left flatfooted, playing "Me Too". There's *already* a Warioware knockoff for the PSP. And now they're planning to add peripherals that developers will either have to design games around or ignore completely.

> The 18-35 gamer. They want FF 13 and Gears of War. They dont want to play a tennis game where you dont even move your character other then the racket.<
So pseudorealism and Rampaging Sequelitis > fun.

@ Chris Lawton: No. The last revolution Nintendo brought was the DS. Wonder how that's been doing...

I don't consider Factor 5's statements apprehension. Rather, their "extreme disappointment" is more a slight at Nintendo than a concern.

The problem with wanting great graphics and the innovative controller is that Nintendo is not the kind of company to burn money on consoles sold. It's well known that Microsoft lost $ to gain market share with xbox, and xbox 360 is currently losing them $ as well. Sony lost money on consoles sold initially with the PS2, and they'll lose money on the PS3 out the door as well. Nintendo is not on the same scale - they don't have the media behemoth status that can allow them to produce a loss leader console. It's in their interest to compete on _their_ terms, i.e. gameplay over graphics. It's in their interest to keep the focus on fun rather than high tech. Frankly I think it's in our interest as well.

I think the presence of the Wii is great for gaming. I can't wait to get my parents to try Wii Sports (just like my wife got into Brain Age). If Nintendo is successful this generation it will breathe further vitality into video games, and encourage more creativity. If Sony dominates and Nintendo slips to the background, the move will be towards photorealism and big budget games.

No#1. They release simple boxex that just play games all the time. There is one at best buy that comes with a bat, a racket, and other motion sensing controller(s), but I cannot remember the name.
To those saying the Wii will be fun, is that to say the 360 and PS3 won't have fun games?
To those quoting price as an issue, and not justifying the price of the PS3 or 360 as worth the purchase..... Do you drive a car to the store one time to justify paying $12,000 for it? How about a $1,000 High def TV just to play games.... oops, bad example. Either way, a $600, $400 or $250 purchase to provide entertainment over the next 5+ years is not a bad investment by any stretch.

We ALL need to stop shooting down other consoles to justify our choice or preference for the next gen. BUT as long as the media keeps hyping it all up, it will never end. Buy your console and Enjoy yoself Bitc..... it's a celebration...

I'm excited for the Wii, but i agree in a lot of ways that it is not exactly "Next Gen" in terms of raw power. It is like a GameCube plus, only 480p support and no digital audio output? Does anything doing simple 2 channel analog stereo be considered "next gen" in anything? Having a digital picture and 16:9 support is nice to begin but upconverting to 1080i wouldn't be a tall order to be honest.

I'm still going to buy a Wii over Xbox 360 and PS3 though.

@65
>59. the Wii has the potential to deliver awesome gameplay but it will NEVER deliver in the graphical department. There is just no hardware to support it.<
Tell that to the guys working on Red Steel.

I'm sorry but good looking at 480p does not equal good looking when stretched to 720p much less 1080p.

Unlike you, I would much rather have a choice of outputting to HD than none whatsoever.

"I have a 52in HDTV if the Wii games do no look better than current Xbox games on that TV then I have no use for a Wii."

It doesn't matter. You're precisely the kind of tech-geek Sony is aiming for, but you're also nothing but a niche market at this point in time. Whether anyone here wants to admit it not, HDTV penetration is still extremely small, at roughly 10% right now. It's growing and of course HDTV will EVENTUALLY replace SDTV, but it's going to take years for it to happen. This is not like say, going from VHS to DVD. It's more akin to the black & white to color transition. This current generation of systems will likely be near the end of their life cycle before even 50% of the population owns an HD set. Sorry, but it's true and you know it. Nintendo knew it and capatilized on it. It's not their fault that their competitors failed to realize this and are chasing after a small niche market of tech-geeks/hardcore gamers.

So go ahead and get yourself a PS3 or 360. There's 100 million other potential customers who only own SDTVs in the United States alone. I think Nintendo will do just fine without ya.

video games aren't all about graphics, thou that do help make the game better and much more appealing. that, however, does not make a game.

yes... wii is inefrior to PS3 and 360 in terms of hardware power. But it has the potential to create or have great games.

Besides.. it's not like PSX was mocked about it's inferior computing capabilities when it was compared to both the saturn and dreamcast (even the difference between ports are so obvious). Yet it (litrally) killed the competition, right?

>I'm sorry but good looking at 480p does not equal good looking when stretched to 720p much less 1080p.<
Is that a backpedal I hear? You're talking about just resolution now, not graphics.

>Unlike you, I would much rather have a choice of outputting to HD than none whatsoever.<
Opinions =! facts.

Wanna address any of my other points?

#11: I guess all the other cheap-asses here agree - $1600 is an extravagant amount of $$$.

I for one, think that's BS. People sit and gripe about a measly $1600 with a much more expensive item in their driveway. It's all about what's important to you.

It doesn't come down to whatever number you make "well north of" - it's all about what you'll spend. To me, $1600 + software is _reasonable_.

Those who don't find this reasonable should acknowledge that they've made the choice to be cheap about it and not pony up for the hardware. That's not Sony's, Microsoft's, or Nintendo's fault or decision - it's yours, and if you lack the ability to acknowledge that as a result, you're going to miss out on some great exclusives, you're engaging in fanboyism. PERIOD.

With the graphics I don't see the direct choice of less power means out of the gate it will take less graphics. That's the big problem I had with a lot of the out of the gate 360 games. They mostly made me wonder if they couldn't do the same on a normal X-box. I can accept that for the current generation that there’s going to be a lot of talk of "It looks good, for a Wii game," but even if it can only do a bit more then an Game Cube game RE4 was just a wonder to look at. If they can bring that out for most of the Wii games, HD generation or not I'll be happy.

On the whole graphics thing it's a choice between style and function, often one making up for the lack of the other. I would find that often its one covering for the lack of the other. Rarely like I would have to say OoT in the day, the first Halo, and RE4 does both come together enough that they seem to feed each other. That’s what I would like from games. To feel that it's not looking pretty simply to offset some problem while looking good enough that it doesn’t hamper me getting into the experience of the world they want me to be in.

I could give a fuck what you call it, it's new to me.

I can see where they are coming from but really now, the 360 and the PS3 are quite a close comparison capability-wise (disregarding the silly format war, etc). Do we really want a 3rd console vying for graphical supremacy. At a certain point, isn't it just a bad idea to compete in a category that two companies already have covered.

Like it or not, I think Nintendo has made a smart move. Now, if they had done the new control scheme thing, the innovative stuff AND managed to make a graphical powerhouse as well, I wouldnt complain, but that would likely be overkill for them as a hardware developer and would be very expensive.

I understand why some people are sore over Nintendo's decision here, but that is a result of everyone else's inability to think of outside of the box (the tiny little restrictive box that seems to dictate that next gen = more realistic, more power).

It may or may not be successful for nintendo, but, frankly, I would be really disappointed if Nintendo had gotten caught up in the Xbox/PS pissing contest over formats and resolutions.

So Factor 5 has no right to act all "disappointed". Go ahead and develop for the PS3, but don't bitch about Nintendo because they didn't try desperately to play follow the leader. They've made their move and it is not a snub to gamers or them as developers in any way. It just asks people to think differently about gaming and challenges developers to get creative. If Factor 5 doesn't feel like working with the Wii game then fuck 'em. Someone else will do so and do a better job of it.

"No. The last revolution Nintendo brought was the DS. Wonder how that's been doing..." - Sloan Ranger

You're right, the DS is doing incredibly well. But I wouldn't call it revolutionary...yet. The majority of the developers that develop for the system don't use the touch screen as anything other than either another button or a second screen to display a map or stats or something.

This is changing and a lot of games, like Star Fox, have discovered that the touch screen can provide a good and useful control mechanism to provide you with an amazing game experience.

However, the majority of the games still use it as something quirky (like the glyph system in Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow) or to move text boxes along. Some games, like the New Super Mario Bros. just use it as a fifth button...they use it to select whatever item you have in storage...something the SNES used the select button for.

I'm all for the DS. I love my DS. But most developers have yet to use the screen to its full potential. As I said, there are a few and they've done it well. But the developers who aren't still outweigh the ones who are.

I just hope the same thing doesn't happen with the Wii controller.

@42: "I use to love Nintendo and I use to be a Nintendo Fanboy. I had the GB, GBC, GBA, and GBASP (I still have the GBASP). I have to agree that the DS is something of a gimmick and not much of an upgrade in terms of power. The DS will do well at the beginning, but I have a feeling that people will get tired of it and tired of the kiddy first party games. My prediction that the DS will come in last again. Thats just my opinion."

Im sorry... Im having Deja Vu...
But seriously, The Wii has HUGE 3rd party support. The only kiddy party games are most of the launch titles. Have you seen the games that are coming out at a later date? Mario Galaxy, Metroid 3 (Not looking at a list or anything, off the top of my head). Sure, F-P, but still great looking games all in itself.

In my opinion, the 360 only has Live and Dead Rising going for it right now. Gears in the future for sure, but thats it for now. The PS3 has about 5 exclusive games among the many launch titles which are either sports games, or I can play on my PC. MotorStorm isn't even a launch title anymore, that was the only thing other than Resistance which looked remotely interesting. (Don't even pull the 'Lair' card, that game looks horrible game play wise).

I want Sony and Microsoft to be as well as Nintendo, but currently, teenagers and young adults don't have 600+ dollars to splurge on a game console.

Oh and by the way, to all you saying that the Wii is only $50 less than the 360, theres a reason.

Wii + WiiSports = 199 + 49.99
360 + ...nothing? = 399+? (Walmart listings)

Thats My opinion >___

I wish you people would realize hardware specs are not just about graphics. It effects every aspect of gameplay from AI, to physics and multiplayer. Wii will be crippled in those aspects in comparison to PS3/360.

Its not just graphics

"Enjoy your toys. I'll be watching Blu-Ray 1080p movies like Kingdom Of Heaven..."

Kingdom of Heaven sucked. Enjoy Taledega Nights.

but who cares in comparison to the 360/ps3?

It will do a better job than the GC and XBOX and that's damn good considering far cry made it to xbox and RE4 killed everything around it

Can the diehard Nintendo Fans tell Me what they have to fall back on when devolopers run out of "things with a handle" games if all the have going for it is the controller?

Games are a visual medium and with the competion using high-end GPUs/CPUs the Wii has a huge hurdle to jump right out of the gate.



ps. graphics & gameplay are not mutually exclusive, personally I'd rather have both.

Wow. Who knew that the entire Nintendo marketing department hung out a joystiq?

If you apologists aren't getting paid by Nintendo, you're getting ripped off. Your loyal support and advocacy of a company trying to sell you stuff is a complete waste of your limited time on earth.

"tell Me what they have to fall back on when devolopers run out of "things with a handle" games if all the have going for it is the controller?"

Umm.... Storyline? Attention-grabbing plot? Quirky titles? Pick-Up-and-Play games?

"Your loyal support and advocacy of a company trying to sell you stuff is a complete waste of your limited time on earth."

Whut? Seriously, dude. What's wrong with liking a product, brand, and the company behind it? We're not strapping you to a chair and cutting off your toes if you don't sing Nintendo's praise (well, I can't speak for the entire fanbase, but the more intellegent ones don't).

"I can see where they are coming from but really now, the 360 and the PS3 are quite a close comparison capability-wise (disregarding the silly format war, etc). Do we really want a 3rd console vying for graphical supremacy. At a certain point, isn't it just a bad idea to compete in a category that two companies already have covered."

Probably the most rationale argument posted to this thread. You really hit the nail on the head. Fanboys seem to conveniently forget that Nintendo competed on hardware specs in the last 2 generations and failed both times. HELLO!

N64 vs PSX: Nintendo had the more powerful system. They LOST the battle.

GC vs PS2: Yet again Nintendo had the more powerful hardware. And yet again, they LOST the battle.

Why the hell should Nintendo compete in this manner again? They would have just come in 3rd place again. It was obviously time for Nintendo to take a different approach. Honestly, I think Sony fanboys wanted Nintendo to compete on specs because they KNOW that would have likely resulted in Nintendo pulling a Sega this generation. 3 strikes and you're out, if you will... I GUARANDAMNTEE if Nintendo had managed to develop a system that was more powerful than the PS3 and 360 COMBINED, the same fanboys here saying Nintendo's system is "weak" and a "Gamecube 1.5" would find some other way to trash Nintendo. They'd probably say something to the effect of "It's an amazingly powerful system, but it will have nothing but kiddy games! SONYZ FOARVEEZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" *sigh*

I don't understand the fuss. "NextGen" or not, the Wii is definitely changing gaming and is gonna make a huge impact on the industry. I'm positive that Nintendo won't have any trouble outselling those "NextGen" systems anyway.

I agree with the critisism 100%.
I think the wii is way to expencive if you see on it's power. I'm not paying that much for what's bacically a Gamecube

Who gives a fuck what some 2nd rate game publisher thinks, or the MS and Sony whores.

*sigh* god forbid joystiq posts something negative about the Wii (even though it's not really their opinion, and is filled with a different smarm than they reserve for Sony related stories. in this piece, they are entirely dismissive of the negative opinion these guys have of the Wii.

over the past 20 years, i've come to expect graphical improvements with my titles. i like them. so sue me. after seeing 8 bit sprites evolve into complex, highly detailed 3D models has been a treat to behold.

but more importantly, more power has always, and i repeat *ALWAYS* resulted in new and better gameplay. check out Tomb Raider on the PS1, then pop in Tomb Raider: Legends on the PS2 (or system of your choice). are you telling me that the extra processing power of the PS2 over the PS1 didn't result in a better gaming experience? back then, Tomb Raider was the epitome of what a 3D action adventure title could be. it was slow, clunky, but overall, a great game (for it's time). Devil May Cry for the PS2 showed us that, with enough power, 3D games could move just as fluidly and quickly as the 2D games we grew up with in Mario, Ninja Gaiden (circa NES), and Castlevania.

pop in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. play for a bit. now look at the live demo of Assassin's Creed that was shown at X '06. are you telling me that the level of detail and realism in Assassin's Creed is the same as the level of "realism" in another sandbox styled game? fire up Deus Ex on the PC or PS2, then look at the 14 minute video of Bioshock. are you telling me that Deus Ex and Bioshock are exactly the same? and that the exact same game would be possible on a PS2, Gamecube, X Box, or even Wii?

it's not just the graphics that improve when a new gaming generation arrives. the new and more powerful technology constantly removes the chains that keep developers from really, really accomplishing what they invision when they write up that design document. naturally, there will be those that simply tout the graphical prowess of the new tech, but it's only a matter of time before the MGS2's and GTA3's and Final Fantasy X's make themselves known.

unfortunately, the Wii is a slightly more powerful X Box. we've seen what that generation of technology can do, and what developers can do with it. name one developer that was 100%, truly, utterly satisfied with his/her work on the PS2, X Box and Gamecube in regards to 3D gaming. developers *LOVE* extra power. they expect it as much as the end user (that'd be us) does. the Wii will never be able to have an Assassin's Creed or Bioshock in the way the developers originally intended it to be. would that make them horrible games? not necessarily, but they wouldn't be what the developers wanted.

that's why new technology is so great. a new input device is well and good, but i can't help but imagine what Nintendo could have done with the wand with the power of a Xenon or Cell processor behind it.

my usual experiment is this: fire up F.E.A.R. and play it on the lowest settings imaginable. play it for about an hour. after that hour, immediately restore settings to max (or the best your PC can do), and play that same area over again, and for an hour. the difference in atmosphere and the immersiveness of the experience is amazing. the purty visuals complement the gameplay incredibly, like a good marriage, which is what graphics and gameplay should be: a marriage that complement each other. one isn't better than the other. that type of thinking (generally instigated by Nintendo, who love to use that rallying cry to justify their grossly underpowered console), isn't productive in regards to the growth of this industry.

the Wii didn't have to be exactly, spec for spec with the PS3 and 360, but they could have come closer than what they have, simply because their games and gamers would only benefit from that added processing power.

@vio
"Whether anyone here wants to admit it not, HDTV penetration is still extremely small, at roughly 10% right now."

Its really hard to find current penetration "estimates". But last one I read, at least about Japan said HD Penetration had jumped from 50% to 64%. Here in america its tougher to find Penetration percents... I did find a site claiming a 51% penetration in North America in 2006. Both countries, Main places these systems sell, are estimated to have 75-90% penetration by 2010. That is only 4 years away.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/topstory/005364
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/oct06/articles/hdtvconference/report.htm

So, I'm not sure where you are getting this 10% HD penetration from, but the articles linked seem to say otherwise. Now, on one hand I find it hard to believe that HD penetration is already in the 50% for america... but on the other hand I can see it, Hell only $600 for some HD tvs isnt a bad deal if you are in the market for a new tv http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-TX-P2675WH-26-Widescreen-HDTV/dp/B0002KQR3C/ref=cm_sylt_fullview_prod_1/002-8800004-2684825?ie=UTF8/002-8800004-2684825

"N64 vs PSX: Nintendo had the more powerful system. They LOST the battle."
"GC vs PS2: Yet again Nintendo had the more powerful hardware. And yet again, they LOST the battle."

N64 lost due to the medium, carts vs cds.. winner CDs! Gc lost due to loss of 3rd party support, and maybe cause of the DVD player... who knows exactly, I do know many of people that bought a PS2 cause it could play DVDs and Games. Nintendo is notorious for screwing over their software competition and last generation developers went, "you know what, screw you" and thus the result. This generation I have heard stories about 3rd party support, but I think I'll wait a bit to see if these stories are true.

I've said this on another blog, but who is to say that Nintendo's control is BETTER than the old style? Just because something is new, and different, and maybe innovative doesnt necessarily make it BETTER. Look at the DS, they have their new, different and innovative touch pad, yet a good amount of the best games on that system, dont even use it any farther than a Gimmick. Hell in some games, starfox for one, I'd rather they give me a choice to use the old controls from SNES than force that touch pad down my throat. In others the game would be completely the same without the touch pad.

Lastly, Am I the only one surprised that developers are actually using Sony's Motion Detection in their games? I seriously thought it would never be used aside from gimmicks, but watching Lair demos makes it look kinda interesting.

"The PS3 and 360 will undoubtedly release some AAA games that will be both awesome in gameplay and deliver amazing graphics, the Wii has the potential to deliver awesome gameplay but it will NEVER deliver in the graphical department. There is just no hardware to support it."

Fair enough, but consider this... how much would Nintendo's characters benefit from the hyper-realism offered by more powerful hardware? A colorful and cartoony hero like Mario doesn't need visible skin pores, or a bushy mustache with individually rendered hairs.

In fact, judging from my experience with Super Smash Bros. Melee, Nintendo has already made Mario TOO detailed by dressing him in a pair of denim overalls so realistic you can see the texture of the fabric and the stitches running through the seams.

Will the limitations of the Wii hurt third-party development? Oh yeah, you can count on that. American developers STILL don't know what to make of the Nintendo DS, pumping out warmed over Game Boy Advance titles and Disney-licensed crapola.

Western game developers are short-sighted, though. They've been so spoiled from the past five years of technological advances that they demand more from their hardware rather than themselves. They're too lazy to squeeze top performance from limited hardware, and too uncreative to see potential in anything but tech specs.

However, Japanese licensees and Nintendo itself will know how to make the most of the Wii. If you're looking for the quirky, lighthearted fun and creativity that the Japanese are famous for providing, you'll get more than your share of it from the Wii.

However, if you demand nothing more than shinier versions of the same first-person shooters and licensed sports games you've been playing for the past ten years, you're better off with an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.

You can send a message to the industry to shake things up and try something new. Or you can tell them that innovation doesn't matter, and that the status quo is perfectly fine as long as they cover it up with a new coat of paint every five years. Either way, game developers will be happy to oblige you.

When you drive to the game store this Christmas to buy a next generation console, just remember this... you'll not only get what you want, but you're going to get what you deserve.

JR

First, at what point did graphics and gameplay become mutually exclusive? If you look at Moore's law, it's totally obvious that Nintendo has slacked off, hoping to sell the system on hype. Yes, this *is* Gamecube 1.5 -- from a manufacturing point of view. Is it an overclocked Gamecube? Is it an all-new architecture? I don't care. All I can see is that the performance and amount of memory sucks given the current bar of technology. Even a budget video card on the PC can out-perform the Wii. It's inexcusable. Now, if the Wii had 1/3 the power of the XBox360, I'd be more impressed, and it would still be small and cool.

Second, early price estimates among fanboys were between $170-$200. Even the most hardcore fans did not think it would be worth $250. No, Wii Sports does not count as a "free" game worth $50. It is definately a budget title with crap graphics. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo is making at least $50 profit on each system they sell, probably more, PLUS the profits they make on game licenses, as well as all their 8-bit titles being sold on Virtual Console, which is technically free for Nintendo, too. Even if Wii sells poorly and their customers are disapointed (again), Nintendo will make plenty of money -- more than they deserve for the work they put into the hardware. Don't feel sorry for them.

Third, it's not all about a controller. It's about a system -- the full package. Saying graphics and raw calculation power don't matter because you've got a fancy controller doesn't cut it. Everything matters. You need a good, balanced system, not just one feature. Also, it is a feature that is largely unproven, except for many failed attempts in the 80's and 90's when "VR" was hot. It looks cool, but using it is a different story. I suspect Wii will have a lot of minigames, and games that effectively play themselves... making it perfect for the ADD generation.

Fourth, most of the stuff we have seen on the Wii so far are the same games we have played on Gamecube with a different interface. Using a motion sensor to manipulate 3D objects is innovative. Using a flick of the wrist to substitute the press of a button is not. In my view, the same games with a motion sensor is not much different than the same game with new graphics.

Fifth, Nintendo has alienated traditional gamers by getting rid of established controls. Oh, but you can just buy all those old controls seperately! For a system that costs almost as much as an XBox360 core, and offers none of the power, it should at least come with the Virtual Console controller, or even better, a more versitile Wiimote. It's funny reading those old fanboy posts where people were predicting how previous Nintendo games would be played on the Wii. That's right -- with a different controller, becuase the Wiimote is not that adaptable.

Sixth, some very cheap functionality has been cut out. No, I will never forgive Nintendo for cutting out the Ethernet port. It probably would've cost them 10 cents per unit to add one, but that doesn't make much sense when you can charge at least $20 (probably more) for this big klunky box that hangs out the back. I was really hoping the days of A/V would be over, too. Why hasn't S-Video become the standard? Graphics don't matter, so you get the worst possible cables for your $250, too? Maybe that will soften the shock that anti-aliasing is not extensively used on the Wii (say what you will about polygons and detail, but visual quality IS important to gameplay, especially at SDTV resolutions).

Seventh, you have a lack of options. Yeah, an official XBox 360 wireless controller costs $50. If that's too much money, get a wired controller. I got a 3rd party controller for just $15 that I use on my PC. I love it, and it's actually well built. With the Wii, you can only get the most expensive wireless option, it isn't FULLY wireless, and there's no optional rechargable battery packs. What do we get instead? Wii gloves, to protect the nice finish.

Eighth, there's no DVD playback. No, you don't "need" to play DVDs on a console, but then, you don't "need" games, either. It's not about need, but about how the system stacks up the competition. Given that *all* the required hardware is there, I presume the Wii can't play DVDs because the more time you spend watching movies, the less time you are playing games, and that would interfere with Nintendo's game profits. Yeah, that wreaked havoc with the PS2's sales, didn't it?

Ninth, the lifespan of the system is in question. Nintendo now knows, thanks to experience with the DS, that releasing less powerful systems more frequently works. The DS lite is pretty much the same as the DS, but how many people made the switch? Dozens of millions? I wonder how many people have spent upwards of $600 on their Nintendo hand-held systems, while complaining that $400 is too much for an XBox360 Premium.

Tenth... the fanboys. When they talk about N64 and Gamecube, all they can do is shout about how powerful the systems were and how awesome the graphics were. Now that Nintendo no longer has that accolade... well, none of that matters, anymore! I swear, Nintendo people are among the most hypocritical fanboys out there. They forgive Nintendo for anything.

I find it unfortunate that people who don't like the Wii keep bashing its graphics. That's a problem, but the system has far more flaws that that.

@ aex

"I've said this on another blog, but who is to say that Nintendo's control is BETTER than the old style? Just because something is new, and different, and maybe innovative doesnt necessarily make it BETTER. Look at the DS, they have their new, different and innovative touch pad, yet a good amount of the best games on that system, dont even use it any farther than a Gimmick. Hell in some games, starfox for one, I'd rather they give me a choice to use the old controls from SNES than force that touch pad down my throat. In others the game would be completely the same without the touch pad."

First you complain that developers aren't taking advantage of the hardware, then you complain you'd rather not use it when someone does. There's no pleasing some people.

@Gnac, Learn to comprehend.

I said "Change doesn't mean good or bad, it just means change". Then I went on to show why I felt this way. I state that a handful of top tier games don't even use this "INNOVATIVE FEATURE THAT BRINGS A WHOLE NEW INNOVATION TO GAMING" and sometimes even when they do it isn't necessary. If people are going to say things like "You can have graphics, I'll take gameplay", they better be sure that this change offers that, cause it wasn't the case with the DS.

I've held firm that the DS touchpad is just a gimmick and I've yet to be convinced otherwise. Sure there are one or two games based on the touchscreen that couldnt be done otherwise, but a majority of the great games can and some would even be improved upon using a standard control scheme. People are going off that great games and gameplay can't be had without a wiimote or the touchpad from the DS, that is just not the case, and there are plenty of Great DS games that do not use this "Innovative" feature or use it poorly that hold me firm to this belief.

To dumb it up for you. The Wii has to prove that what they offer is better, and it is entirely possible this won't be the case.

To hell with hardware specs. To hell with raw performance.

From my own game experience. Doom3 - revolutionary graphics, cool effect, etc, etc. Well, I sat down and played it over Christmas. Week later friends started asking me how did it went? Uhm... Nothing special. Good, well made (best to date) shooter. And then they have shown me screen-shot galleries with all the beauty of Doom3 graphics. Oh yes, it's damm good. But personally, when I come to door, door opens ... Do I look for all the beauty? NO. I shoot everything what moves. Because I try to play shooter - not 3D CG contest. Year or so later came Quake4 and Id Software fixed problem of Doom3 - we were all forced to look at the 3D CG beauty w/o possility to skip all the crap and start the shooting, what the game was initially bought for. Needless to say game as game sucked big time. But as 3D CG stuff - great. But have I bought it to look at all that 3D stuff? Or have I bought it to play and shoot monsters???

Conclusion. Hardware power is nothing. Game experience and fun factor have nothing to do with hardware power or next-get-ness. After all, I enjoy the tiny screen games of Nintendo DS - and they are fun.

Aex,

All the Touch Generation games NEEDED the touch screen to succeed. Non-gamers would NOT give games like Brain Age and Nintendogs and Big Brain Academy and that cooking game a try if it wasnt for the touch screen because classic dpad/button/analog controls are too complicated for the non-gamer. How is touch screen a gimmick then?

Touch screen is amazing for 1st person shooters like Metroid Prime Hunters. If it wasnt for the touch screen, the game play would suck straight up. Look at the PSP with its flawed analog nub. To date, there isnt a single true FPS for the PSP that matches the controls of Metroid Prime Hunters. Infact virtually all of the FPS games on the PSP have an autolock feature because the analog nub is terrible for FPS games. Metroid Prime Hunter's touch screen controls are superior to even the 360's analog sticks, and come very close to the keyboard/mouse controls of PC FPS games. Again I ask, how is touch screen a gimmick? Look at Yoshi's Touch and Go, that game got great reviews and the gameplay mechanics would hardly be possible using conventional analog sticks. How can you draw lines on the fly using an analog stick? Cant work.

The Wiimote is going to be the next generation FPS control standard for home consoles, mark my words. Also mark Iwata's words, as he said this very same thing during his TGS 2005 keynote speech. The Wiimote is anything but a gimmick. Non-gamers will not get into gaming with a classic conventional controller. They need an easy and intuitive control mechanism like motion sensing, just like they needed touch screen to finally get into gaming with the DS.

@69
"Is that a backpedal I hear? You're talking about just resolution now, not graphics."

How is that a backpedal? So are you telling me a 480p image stretched to a higher resolution will look just as good as a natively sized 720p image? You can put all the bells and whistles you want but it will still be pixelated.

The point of the comment was that the Wii will NEVER offer gamers (yes, contrary to what most of you think, people with HDTVs are also gamers) the capability to output a clean image to their TVs.

>Unlike you, I would much rather have a choice of outputting to HD than none whatsoever.<
"Opinions =! facts."

Yes, that is my opinion so no, it is not a fact. Am I supposed to applaude you for pointing that out to me Captian Obvious?

"Wanna address any of my other points?"
No, the other comments weren't my opinions. Why should I care?