Does anyone feel less interested in gaming when Nintendo goes under-powered?
- Thread starter CrazyHorse
- Start date
I always go through the same cycle...
After playing
Pilotwings and StarFox on the SNES and thinking OMG HOLY SHIT WOOOOOOOOOW
then Pilotwings and StarFox on the N64 and thinking OMG HOLY SHIT WOOOOOOOOW
ever since then... I've looked forward to the day where I'd play these games on powerful new Nintendo systems. Next Gen Graphics :/
I'm just better off giving up.
who am I kidding...maybe down the road......things might change.
Nintendo has said something about this once concerning F-zero. They could just make another F-zero game, but it would just be the same game with slightly better graphics, it wouldn't be a new experience. Once they come up with something new for F-zero they'll consider making a new one.
I get what you mean, I loved Wave-race and 1080 for Gamecube, it was cool to see those games come back, but I understand why Nintendo doesn't want to simply do it a third time for the same game.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Nope. Nintendo knows how to make Mario and Zelda look amazing on whatever console they have. I don't give a shit if it's less powerful than a XboxStation.
No, I'm not an Nintendo-only gamer or a straight up Nintendo fan, so it doesn't effect my interest in gaming at all.
We knew it was gonna be underpowered when we first heard the "leak" from eurogamer about it being a "hybrid". Nothing new expect now some of our expectations of how the system's performance has been knocked a bit. If they bring games that catch my interest then that's good.....but I would love it more if I was able to play some third-party games(especially Japanese developed) on the go. Just saying.
We knew it was gonna be underpowered when we first heard the "leak" from eurogamer about it being a "hybrid". Nothing new expect now some of our expectations of how the system's performance has been knocked a bit. If they bring games that catch my interest then that's good.....but I would love it more if I was able to play some third-party games(especially Japanese developed) on the go. Just saying.
More of the same isn't a bad thing when people are still hungry for it. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a great example from Nintendo themselves. It might as well be an expansion pack but the original was so great, no one cared they were nearly the same game. Talking about F-Zero and Wave Race, neither series has ever had online multiplayer, but something as shallow as coin rush and a tanooki tail powerup is enough to justify NSMB2.
Ivory Samoan
Gold Member
I look for innovation from Nintendo more than power, so no it doesn't bother me.
I have a 3DSXL and plan on getting a Switch at some stage, I don't care if the games don't look that great, that's what my PC/Pro/XB1S are for
I have a 3DSXL and plan on getting a Switch at some stage, I don't care if the games don't look that great, that's what my PC/Pro/XB1S are for
Astral Dog
Member
To me Nintendo is still one of the best publishers around in the whole industry, regardless of their underpowerness.
Growing up with them, I think the NES/SNES came from an era where I increasing performance still usually served the gameplay. In the 3D era, I feel that the fun factor was cast aside in favor of performance and what "looked" the best.
I grew up where the fun factor was the priority and I've stated true to that. I still love what Nintendo does and I don't feel like their games would be any better on a system with higher specs.
Its all about the games.
I grew up where the fun factor was the priority and I've stated true to that. I still love what Nintendo does and I don't feel like their games would be any better on a system with higher specs.
Its all about the games.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Sort of. Not that I cared much about the Switch to begin with, but even less chance of third party ports means it might once again be a console supported pretty much alone by Nintendo. And I generally don't really like or care about their games (I could probably count on one hand the post-SNES games published/made by Nintendo I really care about). So....
So yeah, it's the same as it's been since the N64; buy it for Nintendo games and nothing else.
So yeah, it's the same as it's been since the N64; buy it for Nintendo games and nothing else.
JustSomeone
Member
Well, I'm less interested in Nintendo gaming, does that count?
Pretty much. The arrival of the wii-era solidified my move away from Nintendo. Twilight Princess gamecube one of the last console games bought. Ps3 and X360 and now ps4 and Xbone carry me forward. I packed all my games, nintendo powers, players guides, posters and toys and manuals and accessories down in the basement and moved on.
The day has come where as much as I love Zelda, I cannot see me choosing to play it over a Witcher 3, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, Shadow of Mordor and many many other games. Nintendo tries to lead from behind in games now. Using smoke and mirrors to highlight their shortcomings. Fans play it off as art style to hide behind the fact gameplay is limited. We will never see a Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime or other industry leading game from Nintendo again. As much as people like to hype Pokemon Go downloads or Super Mario Run sales, they don't see that Nintendo's core fanbase keeps aging and a new generation of gamers grows up playing a Minecraft more than they ever played a Star Fox etc.
GhostTrick
Banned
Underpowered Nintendo consoles isnt a problem for me.
Unambitious Nintend games on the other hand...
Unambitious Nintend games on the other hand...
CrazyHorse
Junior Member
Spot on.
facetheslayer92
Member
Not gonna lie, I've been saying this for awhile now.
While people who say, "I only want it for Nintendo games" have a valid point, the issue then becomes, "What about people who want it for something else?" If your answer is, "Well, buy something else," then you're pretty much guaranteeing that the Switch will be Wii U v 2.0. Nintendo can't (or maybe they can) afford to have another disastrous console on their hands and I think that's exactly what they will if this once again becomes a "Nintendo fan only" console.
If a young gamer has the option between playing with his/her friends on an Xbox, PS, or PC, then why would they give that up to play games on a console with (by comparison) extremely dated tech, no coherent online ecosystem, and very few, if any, ports of popular games? Nintendo really does have their work cut out for them. I'm interested to see how this pans out, but for those of you thinking that Nintendo fans alone will be enough to make this system popular, you may want to add some caution to your diet.
If a young gamer has the option between playing with his/her friends on an Xbox, PS, or PC, then why would they give that up to play games on a console with (by comparison) extremely dated tech, no coherent online ecosystem, and very few, if any, ports of popular games? Nintendo really does have their work cut out for them. I'm interested to see how this pans out, but for those of you thinking that Nintendo fans alone will be enough to make this system popular, you may want to add some caution to your diet.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Nintendo stated outright doesn't have the development resources to actually take advantage of that.
A company that has what billions in reserve definitely has the resources. This seems like people trying to make excuses for Nintendo or Nintendo is doing typical PR talk.
I play games if they interest me. Specs/horsepower isn't a deciding factor when it comes to purchasing a console for me. I understand however, that it's a big deal for many other consumers.
Personally, I couldn't care less about specs -- Current Wii U/XBO/PS4 games look great.
Personally, I couldn't care less about specs -- Current Wii U/XBO/PS4 games look great.
You're missing out on a lot of fun games. You don't need to point to technology to have industry leading gameplay.
For example, Wii Sports was industry leading. And quite frankly, it brought a lot of joy to my household because it brought people together. It really isn't about graphics.
No, but I do roll my eyes at the mad defending of it from insecure Nintendo fans.
I still remember posters insisting that Metroid Prime 3 was PS360 level (it wasn't) and that Battalion Wars easily rivalled Call of Duty (it didn't).
It's ok to like Nintendo but talk about missing the point of what their games are for.
I still remember posters insisting that Metroid Prime 3 was PS360 level (it wasn't) and that Battalion Wars easily rivalled Call of Duty (it didn't).
It's ok to like Nintendo but talk about missing the point of what their games are for.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It does constitute risk given they'd have to expand their development side quite a bit. Not to mention the increased hardware costs.
MisterHero
Super Member
Nintendo games are often very beautiful and fun. So that's a given for me.
Now the question I have is what sort of GTAV we'll get. The original or the remaster? 16 players in GTAonline or 32? No GTAV at all?
Can Switch properly render lowriders?!?
Now the question I have is what sort of GTAV we'll get. The original or the remaster? 16 players in GTAonline or 32? No GTAV at all?
Can Switch properly render lowriders?!?
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
This ignores the sizable 3DS audience. The trouble was, this gen, there was a lot of overlap. If you had a 3DS, you could enjoy versions of pretty much every game the Wii U got - even stuff like Xenoblade, Smash Bros and Hyrule Warriors had a 3DS entry. I know someone that runs a Nintendo website and he never bought a Wii U.
The PS4 is also underpowered. Apart from maybe three games, there's nothing that looks amazingly good on PS4, and the performance is generally pretty mediocre with some notable exceptions.
The PS4 Pro isn't much of an improvement either.
Nintendo's games look awesome on the Wii U, and perform awesome on the Wii U. Very rarely did I feel like a game could use some more horsepower to improve the framerate or image quality. In fact, that feeling is far more common when playing PS4 games.
The PS4 Pro isn't much of an improvement either.
Nintendo's games look awesome on the Wii U, and perform awesome on the Wii U. Very rarely did I feel like a game could use some more horsepower to improve the framerate or image quality. In fact, that feeling is far more common when playing PS4 games.
I bought both the DS and 3DS largely for third party stuff. Switch better at least attract the kind of support in terms of small scale Japanese games that the handhelds did to be a valuable purchase for me. It'll be interesting to see what development this in between system actually attracts in the end. Is it too much of a home console for handheld game makers? Is it too much of an underpowered handheld for console game makers? can it attract both or will it attract neither.
The biggest achievements of the switch are uniforming the platform to unite their audience. They worked so hard to make the 3ds relevant after the Wii, then when it was doing well they had to do the same for the Wii U and that wasn't going to happen. I don't know how anyone could be disappointed with a handheld more powerful than the Wii u and with the docking mode. As long as we get good games, we should be happy. Wii U games actually looked fantastic, the problem was the controller and telling people what the hell it was.
TickleMeElbow
Member
No, because I've never owned a Nintendo system besides Gameboy Pocket and Gameboy Color.
The ultimate lesson of every single Nintendo thread on NeoGAF: nobody understands that designing a consumer product inevitably entails compromises. If the N64 had used CDs, it would've lost advantages in other areas.
Not to say that cartridges were the right business decision vs. CDs (and you could argue successfully that it was a bad move) but to act like the only difference would be less fog and better music and other such improvements isn't realistic.
People complaining about the specs of the Switch would also be complaining if they got everything they asked for but it cost $400. (Or they wouldn't complain, but no one other than them would buy the damn thing.)
Nintendo around the Gamecube era once stated that games couldn't really look much better than they were then or at least that it would make a difference to the experience.
While that statement back then was kind of false, now I think it's a pretty true statement. Graphics look great in games now to me, some better than others but it's all great now. So I don't need the cutting edge with Nintendo, they're gameplay and features is always cutting edge, not their graphics.
While that statement back then was kind of false, now I think it's a pretty true statement. Graphics look great in games now to me, some better than others but it's all great now. So I don't need the cutting edge with Nintendo, they're gameplay and features is always cutting edge, not their graphics.
The Antitype
Banned
I mean, even in the N64 era, it's not like their games were always the best looking or most technically impressive.
Mechanically they made huge, important leaps with Mario 64 and OOT, but I can think of tons of PS1 games that looked better by virtue of less fog, Vaseline on the screen, and more storage to work with.
Nope. I think games like Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 8 and Pikmin 3 were great and I didn't feel that they were lacking graphically or in frame rate.
By having a less powerful console it also makes it cheaper which is a big pull. If the console is £400 and it's launching with Nintendo Land, then I am waiting, but at £250 I'm straight in. If the Switch pricing is £250 for the premium as rumored then I'm in day one. I may get a little disappointed by the specs, but when you see Nintendo utilising the hardware so well their is no issue.
Plus, my understanding is that the Wii U's architecture made it harder for third parties to port games than they would have liked. Not sure how much power was a factor.
By having a less powerful console it also makes it cheaper which is a big pull. If the console is £400 and it's launching with Nintendo Land, then I am waiting, but at £250 I'm straight in. If the Switch pricing is £250 for the premium as rumored then I'm in day one. I may get a little disappointed by the specs, but when you see Nintendo utilising the hardware so well their is no issue.
Plus, my understanding is that the Wii U's architecture made it harder for third parties to port games than they would have liked. Not sure how much power was a factor.
Well, for me, Skyrim hide the fact there is no gameplay (and story.... but that's another debate) behind "smoke and mirrors" too.. It's just called "open world".
But 3D World never felt like that to me... Different folks for different people, and when i see "who is leading the industry" i think it's best for Nintendo to stay strange.
New Super Mario Bros Wii was more an industry leading game than Metroid Prime ever was, like it or not. (Nobody tried to do Metroid Prime games but New Super Mario Wii... Well Rayman Oriigns takes after it a lot...)
I'm not even talking about Xenoblade in the J RPG genre (yes, it's a Nintendo game). And what about Splatoon ?
All that "industry leadning" stuff is so subjective...
Unknown One
Member
To add to that, look at the 3DS prices, that system hardly had any price drops despite it's age.
Nintendo hardwares are rip off in terms of value, unless you really love Nintendo games/handheld games.
I felt the same when I started buying Sony and Microsoft hardware. I'm not a fan of either company and I have no attachment to their hardware or even their first party line ups. To me their systems are nothing more than generic boxes that play games.
Gaming is just not as fun when you are not 100% hardcore and super passionate about your platform to f choice. I would like to use football/soccer as an analogy, it's much more fun following the league if there's a team you deeply and passionately support. Than if you were just some dude that generally likes sport and likes to watch soccer but doesn't support any particular team, and is not particularly invested in any one team wining the league.
No the value is in the games not the hardware.
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
I could not actually give less of a shit. Every generation I almost always have more fun on my Nintendo console, because their first party games almost always scream quality. Graphics are literally the last thing I care about regarding a game, as long as it runs well.
I hate to break this to you, but I don't think you actually like games.
When you watch a sports game, you aren't a participant in the game, but the teams playing the game are. Rooting for a team is engaging in the spectacle of the sport being watched.
When you play a videogame, you aren't playing against the other console manufacturers. Mario never jumped over a Sony, and Master Chief never shot a Nintendo.
Trying to compare watching a sport to playing a game is an asinine analogy. It's a valid analogy for dumb NPD cheerleading, but not for playing games.
Extra Sauce
Member
I so badly wanted that game to have online co-op so... maybe?
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Super Mario 3D World, as per the original quote.
Give Nintendo a wristwatch and a control gimmick, and they'll make something fun. I know Nintendo will make the absolute best out of that hardware, with enough great games coming out of the gate, I think they could have a solid generation.
The trouble with the Wii U was there was very little reason to buy one in the launch window, and I think it poisoned the well for when the amazing stuff came. They've been relying on contractors for a while now, hopefully they have some good games coming from the get-go.
Third parties on the other hand...
Grampa Simpson
Banned
I don't play Nintendo games because they are on a powerful console. I play them because they're Nintendo games.
Similar threads
- Poll