Any longterm Nintendo fans find the low tech route frustrating?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Weaker system compared to what?
Nintendo hasn't changed its philosophy,
its systems every gen is a step up from the previous.
If you are comparing to consoles running $400 or more,
Nintendo has never tried to compete with those:
3D0, NEOGEO, PS3, XBOX360, etc
I just don't understand why people immediately leap to 'I don't care, I just like fun games'. If you can have fun and you can have technically impressive fun, who wouldn't want both?
That's before we get into the fact that lots of RAM and a chunky CPU can enable 'fun' that can't be done on weaker hardware, especially with open world games.
I don't think this is true. They certainly don't seem to win many GoTY awards when it's that time of year. There are a number of great games on all platforms.
Alcibiades
Member
Although I mentioned earlier in the thread being frustrated at low tech, I can say in Nintendo's favor is that the graphic levels aren't the jump they used to be back in the 90s. The jump for PS-X to N64 was huge, and then there was the jump to Dreamcast. At that point, games starting looking very "clean" and detailed enough.
The pixilated mess of the PS-X and bluriness of the N64 was gone and since then the biggest jump seems to have been with the jump to HD resolutions, but overall one can make great looking games with Dreamcast level hardware (Soul Calibur, Jet Grind Radio).
I think the problem with the Wii was that only Nintendo and a few others ever cared to make good looking games on it. The shovelware and licensed game publishers flooded the market with shoddy-looking titles that kind of skewed the perception of what the average Wii title looked like.
I would like to see more powerful Nintendo hardware 3-4 years down the road, but now that they've made the jump to HD resolutions the difference won't be so drastic as it was with the Wii. IF third parties get on board just enough, then it shouldn't make too much difference in the marketplace either (despite the perception among enthusiasts).
The pixilated mess of the PS-X and bluriness of the N64 was gone and since then the biggest jump seems to have been with the jump to HD resolutions, but overall one can make great looking games with Dreamcast level hardware (Soul Calibur, Jet Grind Radio).
I think the problem with the Wii was that only Nintendo and a few others ever cared to make good looking games on it. The shovelware and licensed game publishers flooded the market with shoddy-looking titles that kind of skewed the perception of what the average Wii title looked like.
I would like to see more powerful Nintendo hardware 3-4 years down the road, but now that they've made the jump to HD resolutions the difference won't be so drastic as it was with the Wii. IF third parties get on board just enough, then it shouldn't make too much difference in the marketplace either (despite the perception among enthusiasts).
Yeah well, i know. But that´s not what i was trying to say. The PS2 was just too strong as a platform to compete with, hence the bad sales and the weaker (still better than anything the Wii has seen and the WiiU will ever see) third party support.
So what? Nintendo games are labelled as Nintendo games for a reason.
Duallusion
Member
I would be frustrated if Nintendo was the only company making gaming hardware. Since they're not, I can get "hi-tech" fix somewhere else. I bought Wii U for the exclusives.
But it is Nintendo's "fault" I'll be taking my money elsewhere for third party stuff.
But it is Nintendo's "fault" I'll be taking my money elsewhere for third party stuff.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Nope. This is not true. Except for the fun part (and storage).
Those sound more like excuses, if needed they could use multiple discs like RE 4 and the controller was perfectly ok for most games. If Nintendo would've used DVDs and a ps2 controller clone devs would still complain about something else. Relationships with third parties went sour after the snes and still they haven't recovered from it. I now Nintendo is not the nicest company out there but I really don't think the are any worst than Sony or MS.
There's is also the brutal success Sony had in making Nintendo look "uncool", Sega tried in the old days but couldn't, while Sony basically mopped the floor with Nintendo regarding mind share.
Older fan, but not old enough: game boy refutes all your arguments.
Projectjustice
Banned
I dont mind the route they are taking with Wii U. The hardware is capable of displaying better graphics than the HD twins and it offers a different way of experiencing games with the gamepad. Offering new a difference experience then the competition is Nintendo's hook when it comes to their consoles. They have to set themselves apart from the rest, theres no need for 3 consoles to mimic each other in this market.
Thats the point, power isnt everything.
Thats the point, power isnt everything.
GhostTrick
Banned
tkscz
Member
This is true, but hardware means all of jackshit when it comes to that fact. Sure, some grate games are made because of their hardware, but some aren't. A lot of games that people find fun to play, can be made on weaker hardware. Heck, give a dev some time and they can put Crysis on the Nintendo 64. Sure, it won't look as good, but I think they can make it playable.
Of course they could have. My point was that a major part of these threads were fueled by hardware speculation and hardware speculation alone. The dream of a truly next-gen Nintendo platform in terms of hardware was very prominent.
Now that the thing is actually out and sorely lacking in this department, the general opinion seems to have done a complete 180. Suddenly it's all about the gameplay again.
I'm not saying that's a bad opinion in the slightest. The games are absolutely what matter most. But I think the saying that "Nintendo fans don't care about power or graphics" is complete and utter nonsense.
It's safe to assume the OP is only talking about home consoles.
Professor Renegade
Banned
I've never cared much about graphics to a certain degree, it's all about the gameplay, and Nintendo knows how to deliver that.
Well, yeah. They're developed or published by Nintendo.
The gap was just not meaningful, and ports for the most part were identical or close. The only people who really cared about that gap were the fanboys embroiled in sad arguments with other fanboys.
Nope. I thought the GameCube days were horrible. Innovation is what Nintendo is known for and they should keep doing that while also producing affordable hardware. I don't see any reason for them to exist as a hardware manufacturer if they went the same path as Microsoft and Sony.
Business
Member
Well that's besides obvious, an entirely different debate.
Pyrrhus
Member
The Game Boy was a seen mostly as a joke to most hardcore gamers back in the early '90s. Portable games were more of a novelty or a thing to make your kids shut up on a long car trip back then. Sure, Tetris was a hit and people perked up when a SML2 or Link's Awakening popped up, and later on Pokemon was undoubtedly a phenomenon, but mostly the Game Boy was the butt of jokes about pea soup and premature blindness amongst the sort of heavy users the average GAF poster represents.
Well I have never been a nintendo super fan, though I have owned every console luckily but the one thing they do without fail is make some absolutely superb games. When I think back on my gaming life and what seriously blew me away I come up with
Super Mario World
Link to the past
Mario 64
Super Mario Galaxy
Shenmue
Morrowind
Skyrim
Pro Evolution Soccer 6
Kotor
Mass Effect 2
Goldeneye
Left 4 Dead
Most of those are Nintendo console games, and id buy a system itself for any one of them.
Super Mario World
Link to the past
Mario 64
Super Mario Galaxy
Shenmue
Morrowind
Skyrim
Pro Evolution Soccer 6
Kotor
Mass Effect 2
Goldeneye
Left 4 Dead
Most of those are Nintendo console games, and id buy a system itself for any one of them.
But certainly an important part, the PS2 wouldn´t have succeded like it did with graphics barely above PSX niveau. Same goes for platforms like SNES, PSX, PS3, 360 etc.
Of course. I'd love to see Mario and Zelda at the level 720/PS4 will be. But it doesn't really bother me much, because I still get amazing games to play.
I'm the complete opposite. I loved the Wiimote, thought it was genius in theory and in actual practise it was an amazing controller to use. It had disadvantages in a lot of genres of games, sure, but a vast majority of games were made better because of the controller. I guess it was more down to how the developer implemented the controls more then anything.
As for the Wii U Gamepad, to me it feels like an ordinary controller, except it has a much superior D-Pad to other controllers, the usual 4 face buttons which are comfy, have the right amount of click and are spaced out perfectly. On top of that it has a gyroscope which is great for aiming, speakers which to me has always been a great feature to have in a controller, if for anything just immersion, a camera, and most importantly the ergonomics are perfect. It just feels comfortable to use for hours on end. And the screen is something I cant really live without. I cant remember the last time I've played a game on the TV now! I've bought so many PS3/360 games and never played them just because of the fact that I don't have to time to sit in front of the TV and play them, especially with family wanting the TV.
I'm a fan of the 360 controller too if that means anything!
Too bad the Wii U Gamepad's glossy
At least at that point the prospect of HD was an obvious leap. Now we are just looking at the possibility of 1080p/60fps(hopefully). Which will be nice for those with 1080p televisions, I suppose.
YoshiStrife
Member
Yes, I am disappointed that Nintendo's machines are not competing on the technical levels of its competitors these days. I have come to accept that they will never compete against Sony and MS in this regard again, though. But I would love to be playing my Metroids and Zeldas on the best possible modern hardware at the time, and not tech that's been around for years. This will never happen unless Nintendo ends up third party. But, since the PS3 and 360 are very strong consoles themselves, and have offered some amazing games on a technical level, I am hopeful that the Wii U will deliver such games, too, and so should hopefully not be too much of a deal. But yes, I would love to be playing Metroid and Zelda on the latest hardware.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
No shit at the last part but just on Gamerankings alone, 5 of the top 10 highest reviewed games of all time are developed by Nintendo.
No I mean when someone talks about games, they generally label Nintendo games under one umbrella and not only because they were developed/published by Nintendo (doesn't apply to all Nintendo games though). I really don't know how to put it in words, but Nintendo are unique.
Kageshinzo
Member
I remember someone once saying you don't buy Nintendo for the hardware, you buy Nintendo for the 1st-party games.
As for technology, has everyone forgotten the Gameboy? The little sucker survived, what, four, competitions against products that are much more powerful than it: the Atari Lynx, the Game Gear (and its successor the Nomad), and the TurboExpress (which is almost like the TurboGrafx and plays TG cartridges). In all these times, the Gameboy only changed in form factor and its (lol) color; we didn't even get a true color Gameboy until the GBA.
As for technology, has everyone forgotten the Gameboy? The little sucker survived, what, four, competitions against products that are much more powerful than it: the Atari Lynx, the Game Gear (and its successor the Nomad), and the TurboExpress (which is almost like the TurboGrafx and plays TG cartridges). In all these times, the Gameboy only changed in form factor and its (lol) color; we didn't even get a true color Gameboy until the GBA.
Not really. I'm happy with the way Wii U games are looking. As long as the IQ is good, I can deal with outdated effects and technology (so yes, the sub HD Wii bugged me).
But, I am skipping the 3DS and Wii U until they have a true account system. That's one unforgivable and embarrassing miss-step.
But, I am skipping the 3DS and Wii U until they have a true account system. That's one unforgivable and embarrassing miss-step.
yurinka
Member
I was a huge Nintendo fan since the NES to the N64. In N64 some games looked like shit when compared to PSX, but the main issue was the too low number of games I liked (basically from 3rd party). Gamecube and Wii had the same issue, even if NGC was really powerful. In addition to this, from the 1st party side they were focused on the same IPs.
So my main issue with Nintendo were the games, not tech.
I wanted more 3rd party support and more new IPs from Nintendo, because I'm tired of their classical IPs after playing them for a lot of years even if their new games are really good. Got tired of them because of this, the low tech route was only fustrating because it prevented to see in these consoles some of the games I wanted to play. Other than that it wasn't a problem for me.
So my main issue with Nintendo were the games, not tech.
I wanted more 3rd party support and more new IPs from Nintendo, because I'm tired of their classical IPs after playing them for a lot of years even if their new games are really good. Got tired of them because of this, the low tech route was only fustrating because it prevented to see in these consoles some of the games I wanted to play. Other than that it wasn't a problem for me.
Projectjustice
Banned
Thats just a natural progression of the times. It was still the weakest console out of the 3 and the most successful.
D.Lo
Member
Precisely. Nintendo is competing (and, it should be pointed out, won) against much larger companies willing to lose literally billions of dollars to try and dominate the living room. It's not the same environment as going against Sega and Hudson anymore.
Sony and Microsoft, when you add up all their losses and gains on all their consoles, have not made any money in video games (ie the entire history of Playstation as a whole has lost money, same with Xbox). Nintendo cannot do this for obvious reasons.
In many ways it's like as if the SNES was up against the 'Sony/MS Neo Geo', except that this 'Neo Geo' was massively loss-led by a multinational corp who dragged along the whole western 3rd party development system. If anything the PS360 were over-specced historically. Though the Wii in particular was definitely under-specced as well. PC-Engine vs Neo Geo?
EDIT: That said, yes I do miss Nintendo having the best tech. Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat were soooooo superior on SNES it was ridiculous, and 1080 Snowboarding made the N64 look a generation ahead of the PS1/Saturn with 'Coolboarders' etc.
From an artistic standpoint, no; I've never been particularly tied to graphical prowess and I'm perfectly content playing games at pretty much any level of fidelity (barring a deep and abiding hatred for CGA, but everyone's allowed their foibles).
That said, I do worry if it hinders them from a business standpoint. Stepping back from the pursuit of expense and AAA-level budgets is reasonably healthy for them but it means their hardware doesn't lend itself to companies who *do* want to embrace those practices.
I'm very intrigued, though, in their recent work with appealing to indies and smaller third-party developers; specifically trying to court those companies who would *inherently* be avoiding huge expense might well see them carve out an interesting niche.
That said, I do worry if it hinders them from a business standpoint. Stepping back from the pursuit of expense and AAA-level budgets is reasonably healthy for them but it means their hardware doesn't lend itself to companies who *do* want to embrace those practices.
I'm very intrigued, though, in their recent work with appealing to indies and smaller third-party developers; specifically trying to court those companies who would *inherently* be avoiding huge expense might well see them carve out an interesting niche.