Any longterm Nintendo fans find the low tech route frustrating?

So important that the weakest hardware can win. Yes its that important.

Wow, you're kind of an obnoxious pedant, aren't you? The Wii was lightning in a bottle. It was as much a matter of luck and marketing as it was software. The Wii U's lackluster performance is proof of that. And while we're at it, why don't you tell us about how well the Wii dominated 2011 and 2012.
 
Win by what metric may I ask? Through console sales? Are you a shareholder?

You should of follow the conversation from the beginning. Not even talking about a gen of this century.

Wow, you're kind of an obnoxious pedant, aren't you? The Wii was lightning in a bottle. It was as much a matter of luck and marketing as it was software. The Wii U's lackluster performance is proof of that.

Wasnt even talking about Wii. Was talking about PS2, at least follow whats happening before getting your panties in a bunch.
 
I grew up a nintedo kid. From the NES, SNES to the N64 I faithfully begged my parents to spend money they didnt have on these (at the time) high tech systems.

When the gamecube dropped I was done, something about nintendo changed in my mind, and I just didnt like the direction they were going. The wii solidified this and the WiiU well.. I'm not feeling that either. I'm not interested in spending money on technologically outdated hardware to boost a company's profit margin. Having parity with PS3/360 means an entire generation with visuals not far beyond what's already capable this gen. 199 I'd be in. 300-350? no fucking way
 
The only Nintendo console that I truly felt had a major issue hardware wise was the Wii - Nintendo was too afraid for its prospects so lowballed it just a bit too much. It would have been alright if it wasn't an xbox 360 - but just a tad more ram, tad more power, and 720p output would have gone a long way.

I'm fine with Wii U because it's back to their usual balance of ideas and unique hardware versus raw technology and power, and the price is okay as I realize the gamepad isn't free. It's not overpriced for the tech it has. Because that tech involves more than the CPU and GPU.

I just rebuilt my gaming PC, so I like graphics. But I do think we're no longer in the same era of games and technology as many have grown up expecting. When technology was still crude, each new generation was a wholesale revolution and we all became used to having our minds blown by sights we couldn't have imagined before.

That's over though. 3D technology matured starting with the 7th gen - Xbox 360, PS3, and modern PC tech. After that it is largely a matter of refinement and increase in capacity. More shaders, more physics, better textures, more IQ, more AI. And with good artistry a game made on "2006" hardware can look comparable to a game made on modern hardware in most ways, even if its "tech" is inferior.

Despite the fact that a hobby like gaming breeds tech enthusiasts, the irony is that raw tech as far as graphics go is becoming less important with each successive generation, as that tech becomes commoditized and homogenized.

And yes, Nintendo was always conservative with tech, they always went the "balanced" route - something enthusiasts tend to call low-tech because nothing but the best-of the best-of is adequate for an enthusiast of technology. The irony is that in time, all Nintendo has to do is survive - in time the world will come to them. As the tech for making graphics becomes cheaper and cheaper, even more homogenized and generic, Nintendo (and everyone else) will eventually be able to put together balanced, affordable devices with technology not very different from anything else that can be built.
 
I don't mind. N64 and GameCube had their limitations as well and it's not like the games look bad. Until I got an HDTV I was fine with how Wii games looked.

I get more annoyed at things like Nintendo's lack of a proper account system and stuff like that
 
As long as good games (from Nintendo and their partners) continue to flow I'm fine. I used to be concerned about the tech race when I was younger but now I just care about having fun. I appreciate when games look great but it isn't the driving force. Even if the same games aren't on the system but there are similar experiences I'm okay.
 
Wow, you're kind of an obnoxious pedant, aren't you? The Wii was lightning in a bottle. It was as much a matter of luck and marketing as it was software. The Wii U's lackluster performance is proof of that.

I feel that when people say "Wii was lighting in a bottle" people are underestimating the amount of effort Nintendo put into it in order to create the sensation in the first place. Sure they mightn't of expected the result at the beginning, but from the amount of advertisements, kiosks, concepts (Wii Sports), marketing direction (towards the blue ocean), design etc all went to create that lightning in the bottle. None of which has been done for Wii U. Barley any kiosks, marketing (in Europe at least), hell they haven't even been on talk shows to talk about it. Wii was all over daytime television with Reggie talking about it etc.

Never mind the risk taken to go with the Wiimote. Remember this? Revolution Controller Revealed
 
Not in the least. I have a pc for shiny pretty things - shinier, prettier things that Nintendo could ever come up with in an affordable package. I buy Nintendo for the games, not the hardware.
 
A very tiny bit and then I realise the most important thing is gameplay and happily go back to enjoying games like Xenoblade, Super Mario Galaxy and Fire Emblem.

I definitely appreciate graphical upgrades though. The 3DS's graphical capabilities are great enough for me and stuff like X on the Wii U look amazing.
 
You know the difference between one important factor and the most important factor do you?
Dreamcast was the weakest platform in the PS2 generation btw.

Dreamcast never had a chance. It was dead before it was even released, almost 2 years before PS2 hit the market.
 
The only thing I'm really frustrated about is people here wanting me and other Nintendo fans to pretend we're frustrated, to force an emotion that doesn't exist. And then others accuse me and other Nintendo fans of pretending not to be frustrated. That's what's frustrating.
 
Video games aren't a matter of raw tech for me, nor of multimedia power.

They're a matter of seizing upon technology in a way that can turn it into new, surprising kinds of interactive toys. The Wii remote (and Wii Sports) was a perfect example of gaming doing what it does best: not a huge technological leap on its own, just a new way of enjoying technology in our daily lives and in our social spaces.

That's all I ask for.
 
As someone who grew up with only Nintendo systems for half of his life, I don't have a problem with it really. Sure, some extra horsepower would be nice, but that doesn't always effect the quality of the games as Nintendo clearly demonstrates.
 
Not in the least. I have a pc for shiny pretty things - shinier, prettier things that Nintendo could ever come up with in an affordable package. I buy Nintendo for the games, not the hardware.


Whoa you summarized my opinion better than I did myself, thanks! The only difference is that this also holds true for the PS3/360 and the PS4/720 for me :P
 
Well that's besides obvious, an entirely different debate.

Is it? If you find the low tech route frustrating, then paying the price for the high tech route would have to be an acceptable alternative?
 
I'm less frustrated now that their new console will not either look extremely bad or introduce massive amounts of input lag on my television. The 480p resolution of the Wii caused me a lot of frustration. If I had a choice, I'd like to see them invest more in a more powerful machine but they still develop some excellent games that you can't play elsewhere. I'll ultimately buy their box to get their games but between poor online execution and poor versions or no versions of multiplatform games, it will exist as a secondary machine and the price I'm willing to pay for it is based on that fact.
 
Remember those 10 separate Wii-U speculation threads where the console's rumored power was hyped to hell and back, the mere mention of the Wii-U being at PS3/360 level hardware got you laughed out of the thread back then.

I wonder where all those guys went or how they adjusted. Expectations were so immensely overblown.

I could see the same things happening with the current Durango/Orbis speculation, honestly.

19x the power of a PS3, never forget!
 
You're full of shit. It looks better than 90% of games on ps360 (aka any game that isn't a linear corridor shooter).

You only watched that gameplay on a video, compare once you see it live and taking performance into account.

Not 19x, but neither will the orbis or durango. The jury's still out on the Wii u if you've been following it at all.

And I didn't mention Durango nor Orbis at all! I was merely referencing once of those crazy Wii U power threads from back then, by the way, why do you need to be so defensive towards the Wii U that you gotta bring up consoles that aren't even out yet?
 
Technological prowess I don't give a shit except for two things which may or may not be connected.

-Region locking
-Shitty online system

Everything else is golden.
 
No. When you're talking about Wii U and the current gen level of capability, non-bleeding edge tech primarily only limits the technical sophistication of visuals, not gameplay quality. The same is true of their handhelds. Yes, Nintendo could target more modern standards of technical capability with their hardware, but most differences from top-end levels of tech to less than middle-of-the-road stuff are mostly manifested in visual scale and quality at a level that's far beyond most people's expectations or requirements for something to look good or great. There's truly nothing stopping jaw-dropping games from happening on less than impressive tech. Never has been. Most of the best games ever made target older commodity hardware at release.

The problem isn't the hardware, it's that Ninty isn't utilizing its success and resources to get far more development happening on their platforms. Their 8- and 16-bit home and handheld platforms flourished because of the sheer number of developers working on them. It helped to have monopolies of the market at the time, but it was that, by sheer numbers, that there was a layer of software that rose to the top because of its quality, not so much the hardware underneath. I never was a fan of Ninty because of their hardware power, but their games which ran on those old systems still topped or rivaled stuff on much better hardware.
 
Yes, being behind a gen tech wise is the worst but it's not a problem if your console is the reference for the developers (see the DS) so i decided to buy a console like with weak hardware (aka Nintendo console) only when that it's the primary platform for developers.
For me a console has to be at least a Dreamcast compared to Ps2/GC/Xbox to not be weak.
 
Hold a GamePad in your hands and tell me it's low tech. It's not.

It's no OLED nor Retina, yet as a gamer it puts high-end tablets and Vita to shame. Because you play real console games on it, with the most advanced controls.
If you personally value that, Wii U is a beast. Playing Fifa or Batman on this thing is an amazing experience.
 
Wasnt even talking about Wii. Was talking about PS2, at least follow whats happening before getting your panties in a bunch.

Of course you were talking about Wii. This is a thread about underpowered Nintendo hardware. You were just using the PS2 as another justification that hardware strength is irrelevant to the success of a console, which is in service of the larger idea that the strength of Nintendo's hardware is irrelevant. But keep on with the arrogant, one sentence fragment replies.
 
The graphics look more than good enough for me so I don't consider it low tech.

If anything, Nintendo found a reasonable avenue for the quality of the graphics output on Wii U.

Sony and Microsoft will have the most difficult time when they release their machines at $399.99 and above. With that kind of starting price, it will take a bit longer for them to develop an install base with an appreciable amount of games. By then, Wii U will have already been on the market for 1.5 - 2 years with a nice set of games out for the system.

I think Sony might be bowing out after PS4 unless they can come up with a creative concept.
 
Of course you were talking about Wii. This is a thread about underpowered Nintendo hardware. You were just using the PS2 as another justification that hardware strength is irrelevant to the success of a console, which is in service of the larger idea that the strength of Nintendo's hardware is irrelevant. But keep on with the arrogant, one sentence fragment replies.

Now you just want to argue for the hell of it. Well pick someone else. I just told you i was talking about PS2.

No, as i told you that was the Dreamcast.

Just noticed who you were. What a waste of time.
 
The tech doesn't bother me in the least, the services however.....

We're in the same boat, I know Nintendo will still deliver with Zelda, Mario, Smash and hopefully Metroid but it's been a generation already and they can't get online services and a system account right.
 
No, I couldn't care less - I'd be happy if they were still using snes tech.

I do wish the wii _____ teams worked on something I'd actually enjoy though. Time was, every nintendo release would be something I was interested in.
 
As long as their games continue to looks good and play well, No.

Now their online infrastructure could use more work tho the baby steps are good so far.
 
Hold a GamePad in your hands and tell me it's low tech. It's not.

It's no OLED nor Retina, yet as a gamer it puts high-end tablets and Vita to shame. Because you play real console games on it, with the most advanced controls.
If you personally value that, Wii U is a beast. Playing Fifa or Batman on this thing is an amazing experience.

please explain the bolded part here Marc...?
 
I'm really happy with the Wii U. Wii was far too low tech for me though.. so I skipped it. Thankfully I can now enjoy bargin bin Wii game prices with backwards compatibility.

That said, sometimes I get a little frustrated in thinking how much more power the system could have at say a $349/399 pricepoint. That extra $50 could probably effectively double the speed of the thing.. but then it might get out of a mass market/recession recovery price window.
 
No it doesn't bother me because they seem to use their tech in more interesting ways. A motion controller, which completely surprised everyone. A glasses free 3d handheld video game system and now a home console that allows you to play your console games on the TV or another screen, no matter who's doing what with the main TV. I appreciate that kind of outside the box thinking other than "lets just pump up the gigahertz!" mentality. I'd wish they maybe added a little bit extra oomph, but if I have to choose between Unique and Samebox 1 and 2, i'll take unique when I can build a samebox that far outclasses the two coming to market/on the market.
 
Top Bottom