[Definitive] Nintendo Wii Thread

By Laughing-Man
in Nintendo

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rookie

Rotparoge

Posted
Posted

That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying Football is better than Baseball because it came out more recently. I don't have fun playing Perfect Dark Zero while I had a blast playing Mario Kart DS. That's the simple truth. It's nice you elaborated though. Thanks.

Grand Master

Pc_Madness

Posted
Posted
Since there are no news for the rev, we might as well debate a little :D

Like I said, when you read it, it talks about the posibilities of the games in general, not the games themeslves, using them as an example. Here's how I see the three repited reasons:

Zelda Reason: All franchises Nintendo has are awesome and quality assured as they are, and exclusive to Nintendo.

Metroid Reason: How simply the way it's going to be controlled may eclipse the competition's FPS's (to set an example), as well as how great can be the third party projects built from the ground up for the Revolution with the controller in mind.

Smash Brothers Reason: The benefits of the added online play to already existing awesome franchises, keeping in mind the already said added benefits of the controller.

Is Metroid really going to be easy to control with a Revolution controller? Move forward with your hand perhaps is walk forwards, but if you want to keep walking forward will you need to keep moving your hand forwards? (and thus falling out of your seat :p)

So, they are different. But I agree with you to a point. The writing isn't the best, more like something pulled out quickly to put something in the frontpage due to the lack of Revolution news (hence my first sentence in this post). Plus, I also believe SSB isn't that great (I can't play it for more than 10 minutes without getting bored), but apparently most people do, and to all of them, this game alone, with the added stuff, is reason enough to buy the console, so it is a good point.

Also, please allow me to say that if you haven't played Metroid Prime, you're cheating yourself, the game is awesome, and better than most FPS's out there IMHO. I'd play it over Halo any day of the week (which I may add, fanboyism aside, the reason why Halo is so popular is beyond me).

EDIT: I've just read the top 10 reasons to wait for the PS3, and that IS a lame list, even though they don't repeat any of the reasons.

586849642[/snapback]

Yeah, I'll agree on SSB, fun but after while...

I have played Metroid for about 5 seconds, I kept going into a ball and rolling around and couldn't figure it out :p Perhaps I should rent it or something over the holidays, and grab some copies of Pikmin as well, it reminds me of the 64 era. :p

On the PS3 one,

9 is just bragging, and really sin't that useful a feature, 8 is kinda showing why it will cost so much, surely do like every other console, whack some usb ports on there and release a dock or something later...7..wtf? I'll let them have 6, but its still iffy. And 1, that'll be a great reason if HD-DVD becomes the popular standard.. espiceally considering when its released there won't be any BlueRay dvds anyway.. I wonder how much it adds to the overal price :\

On Halo... I played it for 5 seconds on my bros Xbox and I was just like "yeah.. cool", so I'm alittle lost on why Halo is the Xbox's greatest title as well.

Experienced

nav1

Posted
Posted

Can someone please explain to me how they are not going to support HD? I mean, isn't it up to the developers to design the game to output images in 720p for instance? I would suppose that you could even create a game in today's consoles in 720p or higher, provided you used less textures or polygons, a shorter game, or stuff like that, so the processing power isn't an issue. I think the only reason to limit the posibility would be to not feature a proper connection, which I seriously doubt, since they have to at least support 480p for backwards compatibility with GCN games.

Grand Master

obsolete_power

Posted
Posted
Nintendo once again shoots themselves in the foot with a poor decision.

586805996[/snapback]

Well Nintendo has never been what you may call a "strong" company. And I am being nice! They have always done a half arsed job of sticking it to the competition. Compared to the competition their systems are weaker in performance. This is okay since most of their games are cartoony and a long way from any realism whatsoever. Yes they always make bad decisions which end up costing them unnecessarily. Even with the N64, they stuck with the game cartridge which, while it allowed for almost no loading time, they were costly to manufacture. Sony were smarter and stuck with the cheap to produce CDs. In the end Nintendo always comes out with a cartoony system which has yet to catch up to its competitors. A darn shame Nintendo, you could do so much better!!

Grand Master

obsolete_power

Posted
Posted
Can someone please explain to me how they are not going to support HD? I mean, isn't it up to the developers to design the game to output images in 720p for instance? I would suppose that you could even create a game in today's consoles in 720p or higher, provided you used less textures or polygons, a shorter game, or stuff like that, so the processing power isn't an issue. I think the only reason to limit the posibility would be to not feature a proper connection, which I seriously doubt, since they have to at least support 480p for backwards compatibility with GCN games.

586858323[/snapback]

The system won't be able to have HDTV output. The game can be HDTV but if the system only outputs in composite cables you will only get 720i (SDTV interlaced) instead of the 1080p (HDTV progressive)

Grand Master

Pc_Madness

Posted
Posted
Sony were smarter and stuck with the cheap to produce CDs.

586858343[/snapback]

And I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a legal PS1 or PS2 game...or all the problems with PS's lasers...damn, Nintendo really missed the boat... :\

Grand Master

Smigit

Posted
Posted
smart move nintendo... considering that HD in North america now accounts for aprox 20% of TV's sold, and is increasing at a very fast pace... and within the life time of the revolution HDTV will become mainstream as it is definatly more affordable now then it ever was and is only going to become cheaper now that digital TV will be the standard in 20" and larger TV's by mid 2006 in the USA and below that by 2008... (yes digital != HD, but it allows for it a lot easier)

586806611[/snapback]

Yes but america doesnt equate to the rest of the world does it? Other countries are far behind and in my oppinion at least Nintendo still sees Asia as it's most important market. Furthermore they have a very different target audience to the competition. Like it or not they generaly market to the younger audience, people who wont kknow the difference spec wise anyway. They will buy it based on the mario name. They also are aimint to distinguish themselves in other ways, like in the controller.

Do i agree with their decision. No I dont. I think HD should be there. I do understand the move but.

And I am being nice! They have always done a half arsed job of sticking it to the competition. Compared to the competition their systems are weaker in performance. This is okay since most of their games are cartoony and a long way from any realism whatsoever. Yes they always make bad decisions which end up costing them unnecessarily. Even with the N64, they stuck with the game cartridge which, while it allowed for almost no loading time, they were costly to manufacture. Sony were smarter and stuck with the cheap to produce CDs. In the end Nintendo always comes out with a cartoony system which has yet to catch up to its competitors. A darn shame Nintendo, you could do so much better!!
What? They almost single handidly killed Sega. Sure sony had the final bullet but Sega was huge and Nintendo had worn them down for years with the SNES. Furthermore the SNES was the console to have that generation, the N64 out performed the PS despite it being catridged based and the PS2 is the wors performer of the last generation with the Gamecube only being slightly behind the XBox.
Veteran

christracy

Posted
Posted
why is everybody complaining.

This argument is extrem;y extremely stupid.

the rev can still be played on an hdtv sop why argue about it?

this is a pointless argument that only fanboys of each system make.

ugh

586858327[/snapback]

so true. anyone that is arguing that HD is so important now makes me wonder how did they 'suffer' through normal def for the past say 25 years? hell its not like a hell of a lot of games have it now. maybe this will usher hd gaming but is something you never had that much of a deal breaker? i mean it will still play on your tv.

edit: and if HD is that important i hope you dont play any retro 8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit games. playing those games must be an absolute horror for you. :shifty:

Experienced

nav1

Posted
Posted
Compared to the competition their systems are weaker in performance. This is okay since most of their games are cartoony and a long way from any realism whatsoever.

The Gamecube is far more capable than the PS2, so they are only running behind Xbox in the performance department (and not by that big of a gap anyway). Plus, it depends on what you call realism. A "cartoony" game like Wind Waker is far more realistic than, say, Devil May Cry, because of all the details, expressions, and how everything works together. A game does not need to have blood or obscure graphics to be realistic, and fun for that matter. And let's not forget the graphical, "realistic" beauty that are both RE4 and Metroid Prime.

Also, I may be in the minority on this one, but I believe the 32-bit systems weren't ready for CD's when they came out. For example MK Trilogy was way better for the PS1 regarding content, graphics and sound, but on the N64 the same game was a lot more fun cause you didn't need to wait almost half a minute before each battle, plus you had 3 on 3 matches, not possible on the PS1.

In the end Nintendo always comes out with a cartoony system which has yet to catch up to its competitors.

586858343[/snapback]

As I understand, is far more complicated to do a cel-shaded game than it is to do a "realistic" one. And as cartoony as Mario Sunshine may be to you, just the water effects on it are much better than anything I've seen on the competition as far as graphics are concerned (and trust me, I've seen a lot).

The system won't be able to have HDTV output. The game can be HDTV but if the system only outputs in composite cables you will only get 720i (SDTV interlaced) instead of the 1080p (HDTV progressive)

586858356[/snapback]

But that's what I mean, they have to have component cables to support 480p in GCN, so shouldn't it also allow for a higher definition? Also, I believe they have stated the Revolution will also be able to be played on a computer monitor, so it must have some kind of digital cable or something.

Grand Master

Pc_Madness

Posted
Posted
ok let see; Revolution plays old games, and has no HD support.  That does not sound next gen to me. 

I am just overstating some things here, to make a point, with this last sentence I hope to keep the fanboys from making pointles replies to my post.

586858387[/snapback]

Perhaps your point is based off a misunderstanding of the term 'next gen'? Personally I always saw it as "the next round" in the console wars, not "my specs are so much greater than last generation, that means I qualify for joining you fellars in next gen".

Plus, it depends on what you call realism. A "cartoony" game like Wind Waker is far more realistic..

..

Also, I believe they have stated the Revolution will also be able to be played on a computer monitor.

586858420[/snapback]

Realism is not really what you would associate with a Cell shaded game...its more detailed since it takes less resources to do, but a cartoon face isn't reality is it? Very good game though, even though its odd to look at at first :p

I think when he says "cartoony" he simple means (well I hope! :p) childish, and underpowered, which is what Nintendo does...unfortunate, but thats the market they've chosen.

On the last part, I thought they changed their mind.. or if they do have the cable, it just outputs at 480i and its up to the monitor to do whatever it wants, rather than like with the Xbox where it will resize based on your resolution (probably very wrong about that though).

Grand Master

iconboy

Posted
Posted

anyone here that says no hd isnt a big deal or "gameplay over hd" sooo doesnt get it,. not having hd takes away choice from the consumer, i dont have an hdtv, but i would love to get one within the next 5 years, and GASP, the revolution will be out within those years- and oh no, you dont have an hdtv? so your ok with no hd? i dont care. The simple fact is the majority of people want the choice! and i dont see how having hd sacrifices gameplay, this is such a nimrod argument. how exactly does sharper, better looking graphics take away from gameplay!?!?

Veteran

christracy

Posted
Posted
anyone here that says no hd isnt a big deal or "gameplay over hd" sooo doesnt get it,. not having hd takes away choice from the consumer, i dont have an hdtv, but i would love to get one within the next 5 years, and GASP, the revolution will be out within those years- and oh no, you dont have an hdtv? so your ok with no hd? i dont care.? The simple fact is the majority of people want the choice! and i dont see how having hd sacrifices gameplay, this is such a nimrod argument.? how exactly does sharper, better looking graphics take away from gameplay!?!?

586858721[/snapback]

and i ask you would you not play a game if its not in HD? you havent had a choice for years but now you wont take anything less?

Grand Master

macrosslover

Posted
Posted
and i ask you would you not play a game if its not in HD? you havent had a choice for years but now you wont take anything less?

586860197[/snapback]

i disagree with that. computer games have had that kind of resolution for years. that's what people have been playing for years. when we've played console games it's been like, it would be great if it looked as good as the pc version. I think the what makes most people upset is that now when there is a chance to bring new tech and quality of graphics to consoles, Nintendo is saying no no you don't need that.

It's perfectly understandable for people to not want to choose a system that doesn't give them that choice, so it's a pretty dumb argument to say you couldn't choose it before right cry now. The whole point is now you can make the choice, now more people do have the HD tv sets and want to fully take advantage of it, so they would be understandbly upset if somebody doesn't want to fully support their new technology.

I will/would still play a game that's out now and that has been released in years past without HD graphics because I accepted those games as they were. But now from this point forward, now that I have a HD set and have a selection of HD games to choose from, I wouldn't choose a system that doesn't support HD resolutions. Just like I wouldn't choose a system that doesn't support dolby digital surround sound, it's the same principle.

You're making a that was then this is now argument. Just because people didn't have a choice about extra features and stuff when VHS was king and dvd first came out, doens't mean that shouldn't complain now when those movies don't have those features. That might have been acceptable in the past, but now it isn't.

Rookie

osirus35

Posted
Posted

nintendo has always done something different.. why? because they can, and they will not be going away any time soon. Nintendo is a business and as a business its goal is to make profit. Does nintendo make a profit? of course they do, and even with struggling GC sales it doesnt hurt Nintendo all that much.

Will leaving HD out going to hurt the rev? probably not that much because HD penatration is no where near even 50 percent in the united states. Is leaving HD out a bad decision? Personally i think that Nintendo could have at least given developers the option to create games at higher resolutions if they wanted to. Nintendo still stands firm on the notion that they will not support HD but again that decision is not final until the console ships

Grand Master

Pc_Madness

Posted
Posted
anyone here that says no hd isnt a big deal or "gameplay over hd" sooo doesnt get it,. not having hd takes away choice from the consumer, i dont have an hdtv, but i would love to get one within the next 5 years, and GASP, the revolution will be out within those years- and oh no, you dont have an hdtv? so your ok with no hd? i dont care.  The simple fact is the majority of people want the choice! and i dont see how having hd sacrifices gameplay, this is such a nimrod argument.  how exactly does sharper, better looking graphics take away from gameplay!?!?

586858721[/snapback]

:huh: Choice? A non-HD game will look good on both a HDTV and a SDTV, a HD game is designed for HDTV's and as such looks worse on a SDTV.. how is that choice..

HD graphics affect gameplay because it means more time must be spent in development on that, rather than focusing on the gameplay (remember, thats the reason why we play, not cos it looks pretty ;)). EA cut alot of features from.. was it Madden? All for the sake of getting it out on time and looking pretty in HD.

Nintendo isn't supporting HD because it increase the amount of time taken to develop a game, the fact few people have HDTV's (next generation is what, 3 years away?), and they want there games to be about gameplay, not how pretty it looks. And I guess they also feel they can make it look just as good without HD. :p

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
Posted
anyone here that says no hd isnt a big deal or "gameplay over hd" sooo doesnt get it,. not having hd takes away choice from the consumer, i dont have an hdtv, but i would love to get one within the next 5 years, and GASP, the revolution will be out within those years- and oh no, you dont have an hdtv? so your ok with no hd? i dont care.  The simple fact is the majority of people want the choice! and i dont see how having hd sacrifices gameplay, this is such a nimrod argument.  how exactly does sharper, better looking graphics take away from gameplay!?!?

586858721[/snapback]

Initially I was against Rev for not supporting HD but now I've grown over it. It doesnt bug me anymore.

Mentor

TaiCrunch

Posted
Posted
:huh: Choice? A non-HD game will look good on both a HDTV and a SDTV, a HD game is designed for HDTV's and as such looks worse on a SDTV.. how is that choice..

HD graphics affect gameplay because it means more time must be spent in development on that, rather than focusing on the gameplay (remember, thats the reason why we play, not cos it looks pretty ;)).  EA cut alot of features from.. was it Madden? All for the sake of getting it out on time and looking pretty in HD.

Nintendo isn't supporting HD because it increase the amount of time taken to develop a game, the fact few people have HDTV's (next generation is what, 3 years away?), and they want there games to be about gameplay, not how pretty it looks. And I guess they also feel they can make it look just as good without HD. :p

586860851[/snapback]

(Y) (Y) (Y)

The only reason people see HD as a viewing point is that the XBOX360 supports it and so will the PS3. Sure it sounds good, but how many people actually own an HDTV? How many people are going to spend over $1000 for one, especially after shelling out for a brand new console? Nobody? Seriously, you guys complaining about the Rev not having HD support is like a bum complaining about not getting dipping sauce with their shrimp meal at Red Lobster. You have something nice, don't be greedy bastards.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.