*sighs...* Okay. This is what I said.
It's easier to make a sh*t game than to make a good one. Extensive, complex games with contemporary graphics, contemporary AI, contemporary sound etc. take a lot of manpower and money to make. Sh*t games can be farted out in a week on the cheap on just about any platform and they do not require a lot of horsepower to pull off.
This is why, by proxy, stronger consoles get a higher *density* of good, contemporary products - because they can pull them off. With weak platforms, you gotta dig to get to the gems.
You're not going to prove me otherwise, technology goes forwards, and so does the gaming industry. If a developer has the perfect idea for a fun game, looks at the available platforms and realizes that some of them will not be capable of supporting the features they have in mind, those platforms either get watered down ports or nothing at all.
Please, have a good look at the Wii's library and tell me, how many blockbuster hits were not released on it while they were released on other platforms, all because of technological limitations? Thank you, I rest my case.
The game itself is quite impressive with the whole spatial indexing/quadtrees and the amount of fun stuff you can do and the fact you can play it over network aswell.
Graphically it could be improved tons. It's already possible via mods. I'm just saying the developer didn't add the beautify mods themselves and therefore it has to be a shovelware game because that's how Foxi4's theory goes.
Are you comparing an indie release to a big studio release? Stop. Oh, and by the way - Minecraft is pretty demanding specs wise. Just so you know.
Fortunately, I don't have to continue this discussion. You don't get what I'm saying - this is your problem. You equate the mobile game industry with the console and PC game industry, and they have not yet merged. The truth is that the mobile video game industry is far too focused on the OS rather than the actual specs - games are made to be "compatible with iOS, Android or Windows Phone" - they don't *have* specs requirements, so specs are put outside of the equation as something that merely controls the performance of said games. You can play the exact same games on an iPhone 1 and an iPhone 5 - doesn't that tip you off as something you should add to your equation?
I'm talking numbers here - I know that the Wii had its gems. There's a lot of games worth playing on the console, but the truth is that the biggest franchises of that generation flew right over it without making a Wii appereance and instead, a great majority of Wii games is shovelware, simply put. Why? Because shovelware doesn't need good specs. Contemporary good games do.
To make this easier for you, I've prepared an example. There are two consoles - they're named "High-Specs Console" and "Low-Specs Console", and there are three types of games for them - "Games demanding high specs", "Games not demanding high specs" and "Showelware". The first one supports all three types. The latter only the last two types.
Now, this is easy-peasy statistics - which one has the higher potential for more shovelware in its library? And please, don't argue with math. I'm even pushing the fact that developers want to develop for stronger platforms to avoid optimizing for too long and thus wasting resources aside - this is basic maths.
