Any longterm Nintendo fans find the low tech route frustrating?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Sweet. Thanks very much.
I think it's got less to do with that and more to do with the opposite notion. The idea that without better tech, the Wii U cannot be fun, so much as to skip the console entirely based on that and not it's game library. Surely you can see where the frustration comes from? Better tech in no way shape or form hinders better gameplay, if that was the case, the Wii u would have the same power as the Wii. But even if it was a repackaged Wii could it still not have fun games?
Grinchy
Banned
Those are my feelings exactly. I loved Nintendo throughout my childhood. I bought a PS2 and couldn't afford to run out and buy a Gamecube too, but I did get one eventually and enjoyed its handful of great games. But, then the Wii came. I knew immediately that it wasn't for me and it completely soured my opinion of Nintendo.
I don't really understand what kind of consumer gets excited to buy something that's so obviously a downgrade of its competition. If Sony or MS put out a shitbox next gen, I would stop buying their products too.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
There would've been a price to that, though. Remember the PS3 price at launch?
This really gets to me in a bad way.
This!
Could be worse, so no.
That looks graphically average at best.
Yes. I'm at the point where 3D Mario is about all the interest I have left with them, but I'd still like to be able to buy their hardware without feeling like I'm paying a $100-$150 Nintendo tax.
I've given up trying to understand. Its ingrained in some heads.
I've given up trying to understand. Its ingrained in some heads.
I´m talking about a great system and not great sales as well. You know games, games, games and NDS delivered in this field.
It's not the low tech approach that bothers me. It's the fact that they haven't advanced their online infrastructure until now and still have not shown that they will leverage it to make their games better. Hopefully this changes with the Wii U but I'm afraid that instead of proper online multiplayer we'll see Miiverse be the only online social functionality offered in their games. Which is crazy. Imagine online NMSBU? Or a new StarFox? Or Animal Crossing? It would be fantastic.
As I've gotten older, I'm actually preferring simpler games. Games are getting too complex and flashy for me. Plus, game stories are still absolutely pathetic and I'm not wasting my time on that. I've owned every console this generation (except PSP), but I still call Nintendo home.
Barry Burton
Member
Not really. As far as Nintendo consoles go, the Wii U is a big leap over the Wii, and that's all I really need on that front. Their franchises will look better than ever and will be in HD, and that's awesome. I'll have the other consoles there to provide the next boost up from their current systems, and for third party games.
That has little to do with tech.....otherwise every game currently being released on the PS3/360 would be on Wii U.
If anything Wii U has proven why it's foolish for Nintendo to spend a bunch on a high spec machine...as devs still won't bring the games over regardless.
Not at all. I am far more interested in the line up for Nintendo systems than anything else at the moment. I usually play games on PC, but the amount of games coming up that interest me with their gameplay overwhelms my preference to play games on high end PC hardware. Most of the games I am looking forward to this year are on 3DS and Wii U, such as Fire Emblem: Awakening, The Wonderful 101, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Soul Hackers, Etrian Odyssey, Pikmin 3 and Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon. As long as the quality games keep coming I don't care about the power of the hardware.
This, too.
It was arguable when console games almost never came to PC, but that isn't the case anymore. Outside of Japanese titles (which aren't held in high esteem in the HD generation anyway) and first-party titles, you can get a clearly superior technical experience on a PC these days.
Given the choice between higher specs and the gamepad, I'd have gone higher specs for my ideal console. But here's the issue. How do Nintendo go about marketing such a device? That market basically belongs to the PS360 crowd. They had to try and keep the audience they picked up with the Wii, there was no other option. If they wanted to target your traditional gamer, they'd have ditched the Wii branding and upped the power, and I don't think it would sell as well as they'd like.
I feel we have a good compromise with the Wii U, a compromise that with good support will last for years. I predict we'll see three successful consoles this new generation once again; at worst, one of Durango/Orbis would fail, but I see even that as unlikely given the near equal sales of PS3/360.
I feel we have a good compromise with the Wii U, a compromise that with good support will last for years. I predict we'll see three successful consoles this new generation once again; at worst, one of Durango/Orbis would fail, but I see even that as unlikely given the near equal sales of PS3/360.
I honestly don't really give a shit about hardware power, anything above Dreamcast levels for me is perfectly fine (for that reason I'm very happy with the 8th gen so far, as even the weakest platform, the 3DS, meets that level).
As others have pointed out, region locking is my biggest issue with Nintendo. Even though NoE's quantity and quality of localisations has been superb as of late, that doesn't make the practise excusable.
As others have pointed out, region locking is my biggest issue with Nintendo. Even though NoE's quantity and quality of localisations has been superb as of late, that doesn't make the practise excusable.
The devs don´t bring their games to the WiiU (Wii) because it´s not an attractive platform for most coregamers. Bad hardware is a part of that.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
They fucked up with the disc space/controller design imo. Those were major hurdles for third parties.
GhostTrick
Banned
Meatvillain
Banned
I found it frustrating with the Wii, but I'm honestly fine with current gen visuals and expect Nintendo will create some incredible looking games in the years to come. I am slightly disappointed that the Wii U isn't just a smidge more powerful, though.
First and foremost a beast called PS2.
runnin_blue
Banned
I'll always love Nintendo systems and Nintendo games but I do wish that they'd try to compete again in the horsepower stakes.
People can bring up the Gamecube as an example that it wouldn't work but I think that in today's age it could.
People can bring up the Gamecube as an example that it wouldn't work but I think that in today's age it could.
Yes, I was really "shocked" when I realized what the Wii will be.
Now with the WiiU it's not that bad anymore since it has graphics on ps3-level and that'll never be "ugly" again, but I'm still happy about every 3rd-party-game that won't be exclusive to it and will get a pc/orbis/durango-version.
So yes, I miss the "old" Nintendo.
Now with the WiiU it's not that bad anymore since it has graphics on ps3-level and that'll never be "ugly" again, but I'm still happy about every 3rd-party-game that won't be exclusive to it and will get a pc/orbis/durango-version.
So yes, I miss the "old" Nintendo.
I haven't come across many people who have said this... no-one in this thread has said that either. I think what most are saying is that the most important thing is games. Sure, having awesome graphics is nice, but even with the Wii's technological disadvantage, my favourite game from last gen was Mario Galaxy.
Mario milking being shitty? Besides NSMB 2 and U, where has this milking felt like lazy overkill?
Uncle Rupee
Banned
The NES was technically inferior to the Sega Master System. Still had fun.
The GameBoy was technically inferior to the Game Gear and Lynx. Still had fun.
The Super NES was technically inferior to the NEO GEO. Still had fun.
The N64 was in many ways inferior to the PlayStation. Still had fun.
The GameCube was inferior to the XBOX. Still had fun.
The Wii was inferior to the 360 and PS3. Still had fun.
The GameBoy was technically inferior to the Game Gear and Lynx. Still had fun.
The Super NES was technically inferior to the NEO GEO. Still had fun.
The N64 was in many ways inferior to the PlayStation. Still had fun.
The GameCube was inferior to the XBOX. Still had fun.
The Wii was inferior to the 360 and PS3. Still had fun.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Same here.
I couldn't care less about Nintendos low tech routine.
Right now the Wii U is technically the strongest console on the market. This will obviously change once PS4 and Xbox 720 come out. But I couldn't care less.
It's about the fun. It's always about the fun for me. Graphics don't matter.
TheLastCandle
Member
I definitely wish they would beef up their hardware, but I completely understand why they don't and I'm fine with that.
They still make great games.
They still make great games.
No, because I know, no matter how bad third parties make games look on a Nintendo system, the Nintendo games will always look incredible. See Wind Waker/Pikmin on GameCube, the Galaxies on Wii (some of the best looking games of all time IMO) and now what's shaping up to be some great titles in the future. Even NintendoLand looks bloody nice.
No, if the graphics were my main consern then I would be only able to play on PC. Nintendo games have always been about excellent design and execution. Technical capacity plays a side role there. Also I consider art style more defining aspect these days than pure power.
That said I would prefer a more powerful console from Nintendo but I understand why they won't probably go down that road until the situation changes.
That said I would prefer a more powerful console from Nintendo but I understand why they won't probably go down that road until the situation changes.
I am too, but I realize that we are on the brink of a major shift in graphical quality when it comes to console games. I feel that this opinion might change dramatically over the coming months/years. The same thing was said at the end of the PS2/Xbox era.
Church
The low tech route is a little disappointing compared to what else is out there, but not as much as the creative inertia. They iterate so carefully on their most prized franchises as to not topple things for the next generation of Nintendo fans that I've lost interest in many of their major releases. They can still crank out a clever reimagination here and a neat idea there, but not like they used to. And why should they? They're smart, they know what the sacred cash cows are.
Nintendo needs a young crop of ambitious designers with new ideas (and now that they've entered the HD era, experienced modelers, animators and artists) more than they need bleeding edge tech. That's where their strengths lie, though for my personal tastes and history with the company it just has not been all that strong lately.
Nintendo needs a young crop of ambitious designers with new ideas (and now that they've entered the HD era, experienced modelers, animators and artists) more than they need bleeding edge tech. That's where their strengths lie, though for my personal tastes and history with the company it just has not been all that strong lately.
I was a little bugged by it in the last years of the Wii, but I don't think I'll be bothered this time around. As long as there is HD and good online interface...
In the end, it's their attention to detail and gameplay that keeps me as a loyal customer. That doesn't look like it's changing, so I think I'll be happy.
In the end, it's their attention to detail and gameplay that keeps me as a loyal customer. That doesn't look like it's changing, so I think I'll be happy.
Yes and no.
There is a big part of me that wishes they'd just throw a GameCube controller on a powerful $400 box and crank out amazing looking games like they used to, but I understand that didn't work for them before, and really, I want them to be in the game for as long as possible.
Nintendo is one of the few that genuinely excites me as a gamer. The jump to HD and newer engine stuff should sate me for a few years.
There is a big part of me that wishes they'd just throw a GameCube controller on a powerful $400 box and crank out amazing looking games like they used to, but I understand that didn't work for them before, and really, I want them to be in the game for as long as possible.
Nintendo is one of the few that genuinely excites me as a gamer. The jump to HD and newer engine stuff should sate me for a few years.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
To be honest, I'm more upset with their controllers - most notably Wii & Wii U. I suppose it's not really fair to pick on the Wii since it's the first of it's kind, but the lack of more buttons and motion + were sorely needed. I remember seeing a prototype of a Wii remote that had a DVD style button set up centered around the "A" button. It reminded me a lot of the early GC controller where the "B" button was also kidney shaped and everything was centered around the "A" button. Anyway, IIRC Miyamoto said in an interview, the reason they left these buttons off was to force developers to use waggle in substitute of buttons. It was a poor decision imo.
The Wii U is a step back in the right direction, but it still feels half baked. I don't know why they just didn't do connectivity tbh. The classic controller is also awkward from what I've used of it. I tend to find the right analog stick get's in the way. These decisions are shocking to me because I found the GC controller to be the best traditional controller at the time and they've pretty much abandoned the Wii remote so we won't see it evolve.
As far as graphics go, yes it's disappointing, but it's hard to be upset about Wii U because we really have no idea what type of graphics a more powerful system will look like. I know there are high end PC games out there, but most of them (at least the ones I've played) are console ports. Right now I'm just glad to have Nintendo games in HD. I will admit since I've recently started using Dolphin it's kind of knocked the wind out of my excitement for Wii U's graphics though.
The Wii U is a step back in the right direction, but it still feels half baked. I don't know why they just didn't do connectivity tbh. The classic controller is also awkward from what I've used of it. I tend to find the right analog stick get's in the way. These decisions are shocking to me because I found the GC controller to be the best traditional controller at the time and they've pretty much abandoned the Wii remote so we won't see it evolve.
As far as graphics go, yes it's disappointing, but it's hard to be upset about Wii U because we really have no idea what type of graphics a more powerful system will look like. I know there are high end PC games out there, but most of them (at least the ones I've played) are console ports. Right now I'm just glad to have Nintendo games in HD. I will admit since I've recently started using Dolphin it's kind of knocked the wind out of my excitement for Wii U's graphics though.
Pyrrhus
Member
Of course I wish they made competitive hardware. And yes, to the people who say the visuals don't matter in a visual medium, Nintendo do make very good software. When they aren't making very bad software. But the fact is that they've been going down this deliberately old and busted route for the better part of a decade now and it has hurt the presentation and immersion of their games. (But so have their misguided, obnoxious stabs at "accessibility" in Zelda and other titles.)
I don't think kids today can even fathom how amazing Mario 64 and Ocarina were at release in terms of the technology on display. I miss that combination of technical excellence and sharp game design. Today, we sometimes get that caliber of game design out of them but we're left thinking that their games look impressive for what they're running on.
But being realistic, they simply aren't equipped to play in the big leagues at the level required these days. They're much more of a toy company that a technology company. Even multinational technology conglomerates can't really afford to be playing at that level. Nintendo do what they do because it works out better for them. (And they're frankly only borderline able to support the retrograde hardware they have put out.) Expecting Crysis 3 out of them is asking for a level of expense they can't pay and a level of technical expertise they can't muster.
It's disappointing, but it's better than what happened to Sega. A solid and financially healthy, if not exactly technologically impressive, Nintendo that continues to create new content is far better than a zombie that exists mainly to re-release its back catalog on digital storefronts.
I don't think kids today can even fathom how amazing Mario 64 and Ocarina were at release in terms of the technology on display. I miss that combination of technical excellence and sharp game design. Today, we sometimes get that caliber of game design out of them but we're left thinking that their games look impressive for what they're running on.
But being realistic, they simply aren't equipped to play in the big leagues at the level required these days. They're much more of a toy company that a technology company. Even multinational technology conglomerates can't really afford to be playing at that level. Nintendo do what they do because it works out better for them. (And they're frankly only borderline able to support the retrograde hardware they have put out.) Expecting Crysis 3 out of them is asking for a level of expense they can't pay and a level of technical expertise they can't muster.
It's disappointing, but it's better than what happened to Sega. A solid and financially healthy, if not exactly technologically impressive, Nintendo that continues to create new content is far better than a zombie that exists mainly to re-release its back catalog on digital storefronts.
To be fair nothing of this speculation was unrealistic (as aren't the current Durango/Orbis speculations), Nintendo could have easily fulfilled these expectations.
I think Nintendo could have chosen a different RAM solution (4GB DDR3 @ 128bit bus) and a slightly beefier CPU so that the 3rd parties really wouldn't have any excuse for porting their games (also in hindsight of next-gen).
But "frustrating" is really not the right word, moreso "underwhelmed" and WiiU is definitely too expensive for it's tech.
Also, this:
Why do they always have to fuck up something about their controllers? I mean the Gamecube controller was nearly perfect, why didn't they just fix the few problems it had like Microsoft did from Xbox > Xbox360 controller and give it a go?
Also lack of Controller Pro support in Nintendo's own games (NSBM, Donkey Kong, ...) is not excusable, the WiiU Controller Pro is also a half-hearted effort, this could have been the best controller ever.
Projectjustice
Banned
Gamecube was more powerful than ps2.