Nintendo doing it right, or everyone else doing it wrong?

[shatnershaman]

Good "hardcore" and "casual" games but nothing that really "shakes up" the industry.

Never heard of Halo?

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102318

 

[Jumplion]

Good "hardcore" and "casual" games but nothing that really "shakes up" the industry.

Never heard of Halo?

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102318

To be fair, that was on the original Xbox the sequels sortof belittled it's "ground-break-ery" a bit. I'm not saying it's a bad game, just saying that the first one was on the original Xbox, not the 360.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Can you honestly say that better graphics are a BAD thing? No. Better graphics are better, always. You can argue that graphics aren't everything, but by itself, better graphics = better.

Yes. They cost money, money which could be buying me more polished gameplay. Money which makes it harder for new developers with new ideas to get in(or new polishes of old ideas.). Good gameplay trumps graphics, and graphics cost a LOT more than gameplay.

Also better graphics are usually sought for more realistic looks(no ones eyes burn from 8-bit kirby) and honestly, I'm no fan of a realistic look. I prefer stylized art direction. But that is personal preference not good debate material.

You're operating under the erroneous assumption that better graphics = worse gameplay.

I just said, graphics may not be more important than gameplay, but - BY THEMSELVES - better graphics = always better.

In other words, if a developer sacrifices the gameplay "budget" in favor of the graphics polishing budget, then the game itself will suffer. But if the developer can do BOTH, then better graphics are always better.

You're operating under the erroneous assumption that we're living in such a great world where such things can happen

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm a noncasual gamer. I have played games for over 18 years. I have welcomed and enjoyed immensely the new innovations in control presented by the Nintendo Wii. I do not give a flying fuck about graphics having to be so picture-perfect, I care about gameplay, and since I gave the Wii an actual chance, I have enjoyed the gameplay presented by it. And there are plenty of innovative and fun games for it, plus collections of old favorites (mmm...Metal Slug Anthology...)

I have also enjoyed Nintendo's franchise titles, because while they may be formulaic there is just enough new about each one to make them enjoyable and *gasp* fun. Maybe I'm simple-minded, but I think my impending Bachelor of Science degree from WPI will disagree with that concept entirely.

I care about the industry moving forward in ways that aren't merely processing power and graphics, and when the PS3 is all about a multimedia device that will play games if you really want it to, and the 360 is about me playing games I can't get on the Wii (which is fair enough and the reason I own a Wii and a 360), I side with Nintendo's work as moving towards that end.

Failure. The MS Anthology on the Wii is the WORST VERSION of the Anthology. It doesn't support Classic or GC controls, and is generally considered completely terrible.

When the PS2 is beating the rear of a next-gen console in comparing THE SAME GAME, there is a problem. Also, gimmicky controls might be fine, but gimmicky controls with button lag can go off and hang themselves. And simple graphics do not equate with "fun." Nintendo likes to yap our ears off about how they do, but it's not true. Mario Sunshine has a "simple and fun" look (with some nice texture work and water effects), and it's garbage.

 

[Graustein]

If by "fanboy" you mean "Someone who likes Nintendo games", then yes, I'm a shameless fanboy.
If by "fanboy" you mean "Someone who will rape your dog if you disagree with their opinion", then no, what are you smoking?

I won't rape you with a wrench. If you insult Mario or Metroid I'll call you immature. If you say you don't like Mario or Metroid, I'll not care. If you criticise it I'll either *gasp* agree or disagree, depending on the particular criticism. However, if you wonder out loud why anybody over the age of 12 would enjoy Nintendo, I will get angry.

 

[geizr]

Change that from 14-24, that's generally the age of the shiny = good demographic. Honestly, the Wii has a lot of innovative games (and doesn't play nearly as badly as you say).

Can you honestly say that better graphics are a BAD thing? No. Better graphics are better, always. You can argue that graphics aren't everything, but by itself, better graphics = better.

Then why do some people (me included) prefer the graphical style of Wind Waker to Twilight Princess? Which one had the 'better graphics'?

I have to echo the sentiment being alluded to here. In my opinion, the stylized graphics have more "life" than the realistic graphics because the stylized graphics tend to emote and have character, whereas the realistic graphics are just detailed pictures. The Uncanny Valley also has a definite effect(I once drew a perfectly symmetric face for a character I made up, and it looked wrong precisely because it was too perfect for a real face).

** EDIT: I actually had to put an imperfection in the face. Only then did I accept it as proper.

 

[Jumplion]

The whole "Graphics arn't everything!" and "graphics can help enhance the experience!" argument are really pointless.

It entirely depends on the game and what it's artstyle is supposed to be. Team Fortress 2's artstyle is cartoony and fun, so making the edges slightly rounder isn't going to help much.

However, in games that are meant to be portrayed as realistic, those rounder edges can be a good deal.

And no game in the entire history of the world could not be improved by a graphical upgrade, PROVIDING that the game itself is what it's meant to be (IE fun) before said graphical upgrade.

All you people going on, proudly exclaiming "Graphics arn't important to me!", telling off everyone else who says otherwise in whatever way, it's pointless to argue because graphics are important in games, if there weren't graphics would wouldn't be able to see the damn game (logic, har har)! Same goes for people saying "Graphics can enhance gameplay!" though I think those are the definately the minorities.

Twilight Princess might have been slightly better if you could see Hyrule in full HD, but that doesn't detract from the overall experience.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

@ OP: I'm really not impressed by your analysis. You seem to think there has to be some kind of clear "winner" over the other consoles. Well, in a word, no. Everyone's doing their own thing and each console has their own philosophy, if you will. Wii is exploring motion sensitive control in a variety of, let's be honest, rather simple ways, but doing it well. 360 is going the standard gaming fare route in a quasi-PC fashion with heavy emphasis on multiplayer. PS3 is less specialized than the other two, incorporating pretty much every form of electronic media into one product.

Is any ONE doing better, financially, than the others? Yes. Does that mean it's the best console for everyone? No. Does it mean that one has found some kind of secret formula that everyone else should be following like holy writ? No.

Every console is doing its own thing. Why can't people just be satisfied with that? There's no absolute right way to game.

 

[Limos]

I don't have your problem with Wii hate. 19 years old and I still like it much more than the PS3 or Xbox360.

I would get a 360, if anything on there interested me. But nothing does.

The PS3 is a piece of shit. The shoulder buttons on the controllers are terrible and other than that it's just the PS2 with a bad case of superiority complex. I seriously cannot see a difference in the graphics.

They aren't that great really. I don't give a crap how High Definition your system is. I don't have an HD TV. I would much rather have crisp graphics that are easy to make out than the PS3/Xbox360 blurfest.

I tried playing gears of war and resistance fall of man, but both of them were so blurry and dull that I couldn't even tell where the enemies were. Wii might not have your oh so superior graphics but it has more than enough power to actually make games that are fun.

Also the reason most games on the Wii are shovelware is because the game companies equate casual to retarded. So when they make a casual game for the Wii they really mean they made a game for retarded people. Which the casual market isn't. But they don't understand it because they are too busy drooling over PS3's superior graphics to realize that games are about gameplay, not graphics.

 

[Limos]

All you people going on, proudly exclaiming "Graphics arn't important to me!", telling off everyone else who says otherwise in whatever way, it's pointless to argue because graphics are important in games, if there weren't graphics would wouldn't be able to see the damn game (logic, har har)!

Actually I enjoy Zork far more than Anything I have played on either the PS3 or the Xbox360. Zork has no graphics whatsoever. It is entirely text based and it still walks all over anything on the high graphics consoles.

Educate Yourself. [http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/]

Yes, I enjoy those games more than Halo 3, Gears of War, Resistance Fall of Man, Metal Gear Solid 4, and all their ilk.

 

[Jumplion]

All you people going on, proudly exclaiming "Graphics arn't important to me!", telling off everyone else who says otherwise in whatever way, it's pointless to argue because graphics are important in games, if there weren't graphics would wouldn't be able to see the damn game (logic, har har)!

Actually I enjoy Zork far more than Anything I have played on either the PS3 or the Xbox360. Zork has no graphics whatsoever. It is entirely text based and it still walks all over anything on the high graphics consoles.

Educate Yourself. [http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/]

Yes, I enjoy those games more than Halo 3, Gears of War, Resistance Fall of Man, Metal Gear Solid 4, and all their ilk.

Oh come on now, you're just nitpicking, you know what I damned-well mean. And if you want to go on an even harder technicality, those words you see on the screen? Yeah, those are graphics to.

Those "graphics-less" games you like don't need those Hi-Def graphics because it's the charm behind them. That's something so many of you "Anti-Graphics" and "Pro-Graphics" people miss all the time. It depends on the game.

And do I really care if you like those kinds of games better than Halo 3, Gears of War, Resistance Fall of Man, Metal Gear Solid 4, and all their ilk? Whatever floats your boat I suppose, doesn't matter to me.

 

[Penitent]

Or maybe you're just a fanboy for them?

It's no shame really. Many are.

I'm afraid if i insult mario or metroid you would find my house and rape me with a wrench *gulp.

Sweet mercy me. Sorry, but did you actually read his post?
A fanboy is someone who supports a brand (in this case, a console) simply because they are that brand, and does not offer any honest opinion towards why he appreciates them or finds his choices to be better than its competitors. Any comments the fanboy/fangirl does make tend to be inflammatory and/or unnecessarily hostile towards people who otherwise might not have been provocative or deserving of such unmannerly mistreatment.

That is not how Graustein was speaking. He gave honest, fair reasons as to why he preferred the Wii over the other consoles: reasons which he has defended quite well in the face of inquiry. (Agreeing with him on his points and personally believing the Wii is viable for a serious gamer, I can safely testify over 70 hours of gameplay so far that Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is indeed the nads.) There aren't any inconsistencies or unwarranted bias in his posts - if you honestly think there are, then ask politely and hopefully your confusion/query will be cleared up. But don't jump the gun and start assuming the worst case scenario of people, please.

As to the main topic, I think that in an alternate timeline where Nintendo went with the more traditional method Sony and Microsoft have both vied for in this generation, the nature of this thread would be very different. The very existence of the Wii and its audacity to attempt this strategy in itself has raised the question as to whether or not the game industry has been approached the wrong way all along. So therefore, I am inclined to believe that the correct answer is a mixture of both - the Wii isn't perfect but it is definitely moving in a positive direction, and the very 'hardcore' attitudes of the Xbox 360 and PS3 may have, ironically, been more constricting to the public than open.

 

[weirdaljedifan2]

I've thought of buying a wii, but then I thought, I like GOOD graphics , not whatever the the hell thier trying to pass off, so I'm sticking to a PS2 till the PS3 either gets more games, or goes down in price

Does that mean you hate the Atari 2600 or the NES or even the DS? Also, if all you think about is how good the graphics are, then consider yourself, IMO, a moron. Just my opinion.

 

[Jumplion]

Poor Graphics.

It's not her fault that she has to put on 3 layers of make up a day just to impress you!

She always gets tossed around like a whore, people saying that they don't care for her while others just throw her away as long as one of her sisters, Gameplay or Story, is still good in bed.

She just wants to impress you, she's quite good in bed if you give her a chance to put on her makeup, makes the ordeal go by smoother.

Hell, I had a Threesome with all of them at once when MGS4 sold them to me! Quite an interesting ordeal if I do say so myself.

I'm just saying, poor graphics.

And looking back at this post, I'm wondering "What the hell am I rambling about?".

 

[Caliostro]

You're operating under the erroneous assumption that we're living in such a great world where such things can happen

Half Life ("and all it's runty children" as yahtzee would put it)
Crysis/Warhead
CoD4
GTAIV
Painkiller
Assassin's Creed
Portal (although admittedly Portal's graphics weren't earth shattering, but they were pretty enough)
Bioshock
God of War series
...


Good Graphics isn't directly or indirectly proportional to bad gameplay. Bad developer, however, IS directly proportional to bad gameplay.

Correction: better graphics=better graphics

You sprinkle some sparkly dust onto shit, it looks nicer but its still shit. And both sides are assuming its about them needing to stick to a budget. But penny pinching is only part of the problem.

If people buy shitty games just because they have good graphics (which they do) then companies realise thats all they have to do to make money. I haven't played a single Xbox 360 game with gameplay I would rate as more than a 7/10 (with the possible exception of Call of Duty 4) and I haven't ever rated any PC shooting game to be very good either. I do not consider PC controls for shooting and adventure (not including point and click obviously) as intuitive or fun. Mind you I can't say that I rate any Wii games any higher but my point is that even on their own better graphics cannot make a game better because if better graphics were on their own it would not be a game. It would be a fucking awful film like Clone Wars or Metal Gear Solid 4.

And better gameplay = better gameplay.

Yeah better graphics alone won't make a bad game good, but they'll make a bad game "slightly less bad" and a good game better. See above.

 

[tobyornottoby]

You're operating under the erroneous assumption that we're living in such a great world where such things can happen

Half Life ("and all it's runty children" as yahtzee would put it)
Crysis/Warhead
CoD4
GTAIV
Painkiller
Assassin's Creed
Portal (although admittedly Portal's graphics weren't earth shattering, but they were pretty enough)
Bioshock
God of War series
...


Good Graphics isn't directly or indirectly proportional to bad gameplay. Bad developer, however, IS directly proportional to bad gameplay.

Yeah you're right, enough exceptions. However, as said before, those exceptions come from established developers bluiding on established ideas...

Then again, I wonder, if you put those games on both a list rating the gameplay and one rating the graphics... as you said, Portal with it's awesome gameplay had merely 'pretty' graphics while I don't hear people about how awesome the overall gameplay from Crysis or AC was...
(if the gameplay is proven, as in #4 of the series or Bioshock, then yes, the focus can be on the graphics (which is why I like remakes in general))

BTW: I like graphics, and I'm willing to sacrifice gameplay fun for it if it's appropriate Because for me the overall experience might be greater that way

[Mind you I can't say that I rate any Wii games any higher but my point is that even on their own better graphics cannot make a game better because if better graphics were on their own it would not be a game. It would be a fucking awful film like Clone Wars or Metal Gear Solid 4.

Poor Graphics.

She always gets tossed around like a whore, people saying that they don't care for her while others just throw her away as long as one of her sisters, Gameplay or Story, is still good in bed.

Hell, I had a Threesome with all of them at once when MGS4 sold them to me! Quite an interesting ordeal if I do say so myself.

 

[Jumplion]

BTW: I like graphics, and I'm willing to sacrifice gameplay fun for it if it's appropriate Because for me the overall experience might be greater that way

[Mind you I can't say that I rate any Wii games any higher but my point is that even on their own better graphics cannot make a game better because if better graphics were on their own it would not be a game. It would be a fucking awful film like Clone Wars or Metal Gear Solid 4.

Poor Graphics.

She always gets tossed around like a whore, people saying that they don't care for her while others just throw her away as long as one of her sisters, Gameplay or Story, is still good in bed.

Hell, I had a Threesome with all of them at once when MGS4 sold them to me! Quite an interesting ordeal if I do say so myself.

Well, he's entitled to his opinion (though he's obviously never played MGS4 ), but I'm just worried what Graphics is doing lately. She's been getting heavily drunk with the JRPGs and I'm afraid they'll sell her back to Crytech....they always push her a little bit to hard and after that she requires alot of support both mentaly and physically with her boyfriend "Gaming Rig".

 

[Jumplion]

And better gameplay = better gameplay.

Yeah better graphics alone won't make a bad game good, but they'll make a bad game "slightly less bad" and a good game better. See above.

Problem with that is that if the game is shitty but the graphics are still nice, people will call "bullshit!" on the developers and claim they were spending to much time on the graphics.

Poor, poor, graphics....

 

[DYin01]

It seems as if they're trying to make the Wii for everyone, but everyone with a little basic knowledge of marketing should know that 'A product for everyone is a product for no one''.

 

[Caliostro]

Yeah you're right, enough exceptions. However, as said before, those exceptions come from established developers bluiding on established ideas...

Then again, I wonder, if you put those games on both a list rating the gameplay and one rating the graphics... as you said, Portal with it's awesome gameplay had merely 'pretty' graphics while I don't hear people about how awesome the overall gameplay from Crysis or AC was...
(if the gameplay is proven, as in #4 of the series or Bioshock, then yes, the focus can be on the graphics (which is why I like remakes in general))

BTW: I like graphics, and I'm willing to sacrifice gameplay fun for it if it's appropriate Because for me the overall experience might be greater that way

Yes I included all of those for gameplay and graphics. I made a note for portal because, while quite pretty and adequate the graphics in portal do pale a bit in comparison to, say, Bioshock or Crysis. But they're still very pretty and "clean".

You should try Crysis (Warhead has better gameplay, but you should play the original Crysis first
) or AC if you like those kind of games.

Sweet mercy me. Sorry, but did you actually read his post?
A fanboy is someone who supports a brand (in this case, a console) simply because they are that brand, and does not offer any honest opinion towards why he appreciates them or finds his choices to be better than its competitors.

Actually a fanboy/girl is someone who will love any game of a specific brand/franchise despite all of it's flaws, which they consistently overlook through a reinforced concrete wall of denial.

I stopped answering the other guy because it became clear as day he was a Class-A fanboy. "LOVE THE WII, SNES AND GAMECUBE and anything with "super" and "mario" in the same title, don't like things for PS and Xbox". It's just pointless and futile. Arguing with a fanboy is akin to trying to pick your nose with a boxing glove.

Problem with that is that if the game is shitty but the graphics are still nice, people will call "bullshit!" on the developers and claim they were spending to much time on the graphics.

Poor, poor, graphics....

Yeah... In those cases it's generally true, but the game itself is still better with better graphics... Doesn't mean good graphics will be enough to make up for it's utter failure in everything else though.