Surely you jest or haven't played them on other systems.
Nintendo Responds to Concerns of Wii U Power
- Thread starter GeekyGuy
- Start date
- Views 15,390
- Replies 150
- Likes 2
I actually never got a chance to play Farcry Vengeance nor Dead Rising: Chop till you Drop, so I have nothing to say about those. I am kinda poor, so the new games I get are the new games I really wanted. As for Call of Duty, it most likely does suck on the wii, but then again CoD just sucks overall. If anything I noticed that what games I do go out and buy, are games I enjoy despite how they look. Games aren't about how they look, their about enjoyment and I guess I am gaming wrong or something, but I only play games to enjoy them, not to look at how pretty their graphics are.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 960
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 41
- Location
- howell, Michigan
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 471
- Country
yea there are more bad realistic graphic games on the wii then good all the examples above plus more but cant forget the nice looking ones. AS guild pointed out silent hill is amazing so is fatal frame 4 and if screen shots are any indication fatal frame 2 remake looks gorgeous then there is dead space extraction, resident evil darkside and umbrella chronicles (those last 3 rail shooters but look good)
You don't get my point, I'm not talking solely about graphics. Those games suffer from greatly decreased A.I complexity, to the point where in Farcry the enemies were comparable to retarded rodents - the challenge came not in killing them but in killing them with the horrible controlls in place. That is provided that they were on screen as the draw distance was crippled and they tended to look like blobs. In Dead Rising, the amount of active A.I characters was decreased so much that it became a zombie invasion without zombies compared to the original which could boast about the amount of on-screen enemies. Games suffer on weak systems, designers struggle to make them good. If a game was great on the Wii then chances are it would be a blockbuster on a system that would allow developers to fully unleash their potential.
You have a point, but that doesn't mean one can just count out the system because some games suffer. If anything not every game would benefit from being on a more powerful system and would end up being more expensive in some cases. Which mean even if they are great games, it excludes people who can't afford them. This in my option would make the market suffer more loses.
ok...if this is the response, its clear that the Wii u wont be more powerful than the ps3 and 360, if this is after june clear, I wont buy it. Behind ps4 and nextbox ok, but just as good or even WORSE than the current generation...thats a "no go" for me.
well i know nintendo will deliver on is durability and longlife, i mean cmon who can still turn on their NES and run the thing, and their original gameboys, Nintendo builds quality products, i remember dropping every single hand held they made and it would still work fine, unlike my iphone i need to have a bullet proof case to protect the fragile thing, that is what makes Nintendo quality and experience id take that over power, now i do hope they can go up to HD 1080p that would be nice and unreal engine 4 can run on it that will be good enough for me
@[member='The Catboy']
I agree, not all games require alot of computational power, my argument isn't that Tetris validates a quad-core or that New Super Mario Bros. which is hands-down a good game needs the latest in GPU technology.
What I am saying is that those are always welcome on a system, alongside sufficient memory supply.
As a hobbyst programmer for the DS, not just once or twice did I reach a point where I had a brilliant idea that the platform just wasn't capable to pull off without really unnecessary gymnastics. For the sake of developers I want game systems to have sufficient resources and even more, so that they can focus on making great games without having to worry about whether or not the original concept will work or will they be forced to implement a bastardized version of it.
More resources equal more wiggle room and less optimization, and those take alot of development time. I'm willing to wager that developing the same game for a beefy system and a weak one will be cheaper and quicker on the beefy one precisely because you don't have to worry as much about the resources you waste.
I agree, not all games require alot of computational power, my argument isn't that Tetris validates a quad-core or that New Super Mario Bros. which is hands-down a good game needs the latest in GPU technology.
What I am saying is that those are always welcome on a system, alongside sufficient memory supply.
As a hobbyst programmer for the DS, not just once or twice did I reach a point where I had a brilliant idea that the platform just wasn't capable to pull off without really unnecessary gymnastics. For the sake of developers I want game systems to have sufficient resources and even more, so that they can focus on making great games without having to worry about whether or not the original concept will work or will they be forced to implement a bastardized version of it.
More resources equal more wiggle room and less optimization, and those take alot of development time. I'm willing to wager that developing the same game for a beefy system and a weak one will be cheaper and quicker on the beefy one precisely because you don't have to worry as much about the resources you waste.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2004
- Messages
- 6,613
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 34
- Location
- Dar es Salaam
- Website
- vfootball.co.nf
- XP
- 830
- Country
even nintendo doesnt wanna say. then again, i totally agree with them. power =/= profit and the wii proved it (alongside the ds v psp)
I agree, it's hard for me to imagine that the WiiU would be weaker then the PS3 or the XBox 360, especially from what I've read about it so-far. Nintendo would have to try really, really hard to make the system perform worse with such extended resources at bay. I'd say we should...
I'm a little confused by a couple of these....i'm sure the NES was less spec'ed than the Mastersystem, and i'm also positive that the Gamecube was less powerful than the Xbox. At least i thought i was....
While the NES was lower-speced than the Master System, it was still relatively comparable and definatelly dominant in that generation. The Gamecube was a bit weaker than the XBox but far ahead of the PS2 in terms of specs. My point was that Nintendo didn't always release consoles that were not up-to-par with their competition, not that they always released the strongest one of them all.
The DS and DS Lite are uber fragile when it comes to hinges, the 3DS used to scratch its screen all by itself, the NES's cartridge slot is actually prone to commiting suicide and so on and so forth, and they're Nintendo products. The fact that something's made by Nintendo doesn't mean that it's bulletproof.
Gamecube was weaker than the Xbox, but much more powerful than the PS2.
Despite that, the PS2 has the biggest library and is still the best selling console to date, and the GC was a commercial failure.
The Gamecube was a commercial failure because some dumbass at Nintendo thought that using miniDVD's was a good idea, thus cutting any possible DVD/CD compatibility out despite the fact that the system was fully capable of being a media hub like the XBox or the PS2, as shown by the Panasonic Q.
miniDVD had lower capacity and forced developers to split their games onto numerous discs for no reason. The system was capable to render better content then the developers were able to store on the medium. It was a horrible design flaw and it did not impede piracy as Nintendo predicted it would.
See Foxi's initial point too (as well as the above)...Nintendo lost the plot with respect to functionality by going their own way; it wasn't specs per se it was "innovation".
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
