*Next* Ninty console

Retr0gamer

I think you can still make great looking games on low powered hardware. It's all down to art design and direction. Some of the best looking games for me are completely 2D. Zelda: LTTP, Chrono Trigger, Metal Slug, Gunstar Heroes amoung others look infinitely better than many of the latest games that go for an ultra realistic look with shaders and light sourcing splashed everywhere. Just take a look a Zelda: Wind Waker, probably the best looking game ever made and wil more than likely stay that way due to the some great art direction. Graphics do add to the experience and some games even rely on it (Icos springs to mind). But the fact is I'd rather play Mega man 2 on the NES than Gears of War. The problem is that Mega man 2 would never sell in this day and age.

ambro25

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well read back then.

Have done. Still can't see 'em.

mcgarnicle wrote:

(...) Arguments about inter-console porting developing model (...)

With regard to inter-console porting, that's been well addressed above and there's no point in retreading this ground.

With regard to the developing model, I have been a PC/console games player for over 20 years, and owned every single console and format ever released at some stage or another (except a PCE LT and some of the very obscure and exotic Asian 'specialities', e.g. hybrid Laserdisc/karaoke variations of the megadrive), been an EDGE reader since the first issue (and have kept all the issues), regular reader of Arcade (back when), occasional reader of Games™ and a whole host of other stuff, print and online. I have been a contributing member to the IGDA for the last 5 years and am intimately familiar with the game development business (but I am not a games developer or work directly the games industry - just indirectly and no, that does not mean I work in a gameshop either).

I'm not asking you to take my word for gospel, mind. These are my credentials, is all, and what I'm drawing on to base my views.

Yes it is my opinion... what is yours? What other good games are out on release and what good games are coming in the next year?

I have not seen a 'good game' on any console platform in ages. Yes, that includes Gears of War, anything on PS3 you care to name, and it also does include Wii Sports. I went through the 'apathy' thing of middle-aged gamers first weaned on '2-bit graphics' games (arcade Night Driver, anyone?) who have been through the lot right the way up to HD (HD gaming, available on PC since 199-whenever ) and unfortunately I didn't come out of it unscathed: too many clones, always the genres, always prettier, and getting all the shallower for it. That's probably why I went totally off consoles about 2 years ago, and probably why, on aggregate, I play about 4 hours a week or so - half on PC online, half on DS online/plane/train/etc.

Where did you find out there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since? According to MS themselves they sold 2.5 million worldwide in the first 90 days after release, taking it well past Christmas. Considering it's just ending its first year on the market I think the 360 has one of the best first years of releases that I can remember. Looking forward a year how many games will the Wii have?

Read my post again, if you will

I did not state that "there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since?", I asked a question (rethorical, at that ).

I don't care how many games/AAA/whatever the Wii will have in a year. I'm only buying a Wii to have a laugh with my 2½ years old daughter (and because I'm just curious as to how she is going to take to the 'mote) as she's already well into touchscreen MS Paint and is quite capable of switching on the TV, DVD player, 5.1 Amp, take the DVD out of the box and put it on, or switch on her PC and touchscreen the big desktop shortcut for the bookmarked Youtube page of Pocoyo episodes Had I not been at this 'stage' of my life, I would probably have spent the money on something else.

I understand what you're saying and I agree, for the portable market Nintendo's system works. That does not mean anything for the home console market though. When Sony and the rest tried to move the home console strategy into the handheld market they failed cos people don't want that type of experience in a portable. However for home consoles this is what works, what makes you think Nindendo's plan to take handheld principles to the home console market will succeed, when others have already shown that moving one market to the other does not work.

Well, that's just my point. We don't and can't know yet if Nintendo's new strategy (i.e. the reverse of what the others have tried, i.e. portable hardware development model into the lounge, as opposed to lounge hardware development model into the pocket) will work and that's been the (my) debate. Economically, it absolutely makes perfect sense, but noone has tried it yet, so the proof will be in the pudding.

Not sure I follow here. IBM do make the chips for the Wii.

Read it again or Google the SNES and N64 hardware development for a bit of back history This time around, Nintendo didn't go to IBM and SGi and said 'make us CPU/gfx chips that will do this/that/the other', they went to IBM and ATi and said 'what have you got that's cheap and available according to his spec sheet'. (Figuratively speaking) Nintendo's R&D cost, compared to PS3 Cell and PS3/360 internals ready for HD and whatnot? Big fat zero.

So you think the Wii will only have a short lifespan and will be replaced in time to copy the 360 and PS3 hardware? Right, if that's the case Nintendo really are off their rockers. By the time they get around to doing that the PS3 and 360 will be costing about €200, who in their right minds is going to fork out for a new Nintendo for €270, knowing it will last about 2 years when the other 2 have a massive back catalogue and plenty of reputation to boot.

You're forgetting two (and a half) big things:

_by your own logic, by the time 360 and PS3 hardware come down to €200, Wii hardware will have come down to €100, hopefully with just as big a back catalogue.

_(the half-thing) why did so many people upgrade from GB to GBP to GBPC? From GBA to SP to Micro? Same games, save for the small matter of size/colour screen in one instance, and size/backlighting in the other. Would you pay the same amount a year or two down the road to get a backlit screen? Tens of millions of people have, every time. See, that's just my point about 'baby technological steps' that cost (again, figuratively speaking) nothing in R&D (because it's been developed by someone else and it's only incorporated by Nintendo once the tech is proven and cheap enough).

_why do you think Nintendo came out (first) with the emulation/online back-catalogue? Which not only includes 8-bit oldies & goodies, but extend right the way to GC, via N64? = instant back catalogue that's actually bigger than 360 and PS3 put together. Oh, 360 and PS3 back catalogues 'start' from 32-bit 3D games and Nintendo's is old stuff noone will look at? Let's be honest here: how much more likely are you to grab a session of SNES MK or PCE RType than to grab a session of PS1 Wipeout or GTurismo1?

projectmayhem

BlitzKrieg wrote:

The games company ha to move away from crunching the numbers of the machine and start paying attention to who's crunching those numbers. because it can be seen from the last two generations, that even inferior machines can make *wow* visual experiances because a good team is behind it.

this is true, the PS2 was a lesser machine to the Xbox, but a lot of its games looked, and played better. but the difference in hardware then (between ps2 and xbox) was tiny compared to the difference between ps3/360 and the Wii.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Xbox live arcade is one of Xbox's biggest successess, yet a huge chunk of its games have 16 bit graphics (or less) yet recieve alot of applause (street fighter 2, Contra) Also Zelda's 16-bit outing was re-released on to the GBA with great applause and will recieve applause when it shows up on virtual console. Face it, the fact that the live arcade system is such a success proves that these games can achieve the same visual experiance without the high-end hardware.

true, but look at the games themselves, the ones you mentioned are old re-hashed games re-released at a reduced price. if they asked you to pay €55 for them would they still get the same applause? i somehow doubt it.

live arcade is a success because it lets you revisit older titles on a new system at a reasonable price. the xbox live reports thing shows that the games do well, but are still only a side-dish to the main course (gears of war, rainbow6 etc.). and that is my point, the Wii will be a side-dish to the main course (ps3, 360) because the games, while being brilliant, just won't stand up next to killzone or halo in a straight fight with the marketers.

mcgarnicle

Forgive the following, I'm not a dick but I think I'd like to try writing this in as smug and condescending a tone as you. It might not work out to well as I'm not as experienced as you are

ambro25 wrote:

Have done. Still can't see 'em.

Then get some glasses :rolleyes:

ambro25 wrote:

With regard to inter-console porting, that's been well addressed above and there's no point in retreading this ground.

It has not been addressed at all. Some of the games may be ported from Xbox or PS2 but that is surely an indicetment in itself.

ambro25 wrote:

Ambro's "credentials"

Give me a break, everyone here knows about games or has been playing games for years, I could not give a rat's what you have owned or what you have read/played. I still disagree with you.

ambro25 wrote:

I have not seen a 'good game' on any console platform in ages. Yes, that includes Gears of War, anything on PS3 you care to name, and it also does include Wii Sports.

Then maybe you should not be playing games. If you have not found one you like in ages I think you need a new hobby. The fact is the Wii games so far are not drastically different to games that have gone before.

ambro25 wrote:

Cliched argument about same old same old games.

I think that argument is pretty tired. There are clearly plenty of new and original games about and have been for years. SoTC, ICO, Okami, Katamari... all done on a console without the need for a wiimote and all far more original than anything seen so far for Wii. Or indeed anything in the pipeline.

ambro25 wrote:

Read my post again, if you will

I did not state that "there have been 4 mil sold at Christmas and 2 mil since?", I asked a question (rethorical, at that ).

Winky winky, you asked a question of when the 360s were sold and then answered it yourself in the next, the question mark implied the reason for the sales pattern was the "paucity" of games. If you want to get the high ground required to be so condescending you might want to word your points better. :rolleyes:

ambro25 wrote:

I don't care how many games/AAA/whatever the Wii will have in a year. ......daughter

Oh so now you are shifting your point to imply you are Nintendo's new non-gaming target, sorry I don't buy it. You have already explained how you have been gaming on pc etc in recent years so you are clearly not the non-gamer they are chasing.

ambro25 wrote:

Well, that's just my point. We don't and can't know yet if Nintendo's new strategy (i.e. the reverse of what the others have tried, i.e. portable hardware development model into the lounge, as opposed to lounge hardware development model into the pocket) will work and that's been the (my) debate. Economically, it absolutely makes perfect sense, but noone has tried it yet, so the proof will be in the pudding.

No your point was that you reckon the Wii will do well because you think it will have lots of games.

The point I was getting at was that we don't know what Nintendo's strategy is, I can guarantee it's not something as purile as DS is good portable therefore DS like console will be good home system.

It only makes economic sense if it does well. It's a big risk, trying to convince people that graphics don't matter in a market where they have always mattered is a risky move. Imagine ferrari releasing a slow car with great handling and saying speed doesn't matter, you can only go as fast as the speed limit anyway. Even if the car was cheeper to make it still wouldn't make economic sense. There is a risk Nintendo's new direction could be seen the same way.

ambro25 wrote:

Read it again or Google the SNES and N64 hardware development for a bit of back history This time around, Nintendo didn't go to IBM and SGi and said 'make us CPU/gfx chips that will do this/that/the other', they went to IBM and ATi and said 'what have you got that's cheap and available according to his spec sheet'. (Figuratively speaking) Nintendo's R&D cost, compared to PS3 Cell and PS3/360 internals ready for HD and whatnot? Big fat zero.

Ok, Wii doesn't cost Nintendo much, don't think anyone is disputing that. At this point though MS are making profits on 360s sold and it won't take that long to recoupe the RandD costs.

ambro25 wrote:

You're forgetting two (and a half) big things:

_by your own logic, by the time 360 and PS3 hardware come down to €200, Wii hardware will have come down to €100, hopefully with just as big a back catalogue.

That is not by my logic at all, Nintendo have never been anxious to drop the price of their consoles. At this point in time a Wii with one game costs €330, a 360 with four costs €499. Assuming those four games are, on average, €50 that means the 360 alone is costing you €300. If I didn't already have a 360 and I had that money in my pocket there would be no chance I would be getting a Wii on friday, it would be 360 time for me. Why would MS, with buckets of money to waste if the original xbox is anything to go by, allow Nintendo to undercut their price that much when they are close enough to equal already.

ambro25 wrote:

_(the half-thing) why did so many people upgrade from GB to GBP to GBPC? From GBA to SP to Micro? Same games, save for the small matter of size/colour screen in one instance, and size/backlighting in the other. Would you pay the same amount a year or two down the road to get a backlit screen? Tens of millions of people have, every time. See, that's just my point about 'baby technological steps' that cost (again, figuratively speaking) nothing in R&D (because it's been developed by someone else and it's only incorporated by Nintendo once the tech is proven and cheap enough).

Again you are looking at the portable market and juxtaposing it onto the home console market, they are totally different. Nintendo have gotten away with it so far because there is no real competition in the handheld market. Home console market is totally different, you don't carry a wii about with you, it doesn't have to look good or be neat, it will sit on a shelf and stay there. The PStwo and PSone already tried this model, it works in as much as it might give sales a boost by attracting some more customers, but I don't know how many people with working PS2s have decided to go get a PStwo, not many I would guess.

ambro25 wrote:

_why do you think Nintendo came out (first) with the emulation/online back-catalogue? Which not only includes 8-bit oldies & goodies, but extend right the way to GC, via N64? = instant back catalogue that's actually bigger than 360 and PS3 put together. Oh, 360 and PS3 back catalogues 'start' from 32-bit 3D games and Nintendo's is old stuff noone will look at? Let's be honest here: how much more likely are you to grab a session of SNES MK or PCE RType than to grab a session of PS1 Wipeout or GTurismo1?

First? I could have swore the PS2 did it years ago. 360 has old games online already, not 32-bit. What did Nintendo do first? They might be making a bigger deal of it but they were not first to do it.

What would I honestly go for? I'd not buy either. €10 for a ten year old game? No thanks Nintendo, I will get it for free on my pc, hook it up to my tv and play it with the original pad... thanks anyway. Same goes for MS. People will say that is an invalid argument cos it's not legit but it is a valid argument since the majority of people with broadband who are interested in these old games know about roms, know they are free and know how to get and use them.

But if I didn't know about these things what would I buy... who knows. Are you seriously going to imply the general non-gamer will share your seasoned gamer preference for snes MK and r-type? Surely you are not that naive. Take a look at the games' charts to see what types of games are most popular, arcade shooters and kart games are not what people are after.

Nehpets

yay quote tennis :rolleyes:

mcgarnicle

Nehpets wrote:

yay quote tennis :rolleyes:

yay pointless reply:rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

Careful with the abuse. I don't mind a heated debate but Mcgarnicle and ambro25 are pushing it.

BlitzKrieg

but the difference in hardware then (between ps2 and xbox) was tiny compared to the difference between ps3/360 and the Wii.

Thats where I feel you are wrong. The response to the graphical jump from the last generation to this one has been mostly luke warm, which isnt surprising seeing as the only graphical element that has been clearly improved is the high definition lighting, outside of that far too many factors come into play to see true next gen (High Def TV being the main one).

The leap to this new generation has not had the same huge impact as when games like Metal Gear Solid 2 were unveiled.

Gears of War has been the first to really get the next generation rolling, and even then I would argue (as I have) that this has more to do with Epic being able to push their graphics engines further then anyone else rather then the machines themselves.

If the Wii can prove that it at least can achieve something close to the lighting effects the 360 can do, then I will state here and now that it will have no problem competing with the other two big boys. It will always known as the graphical underdog, but if the attitude I see at the moment is anything to go by, which is where far too many people have said the Wii has N64 graphics, then I expect when the momentum for this generation gets going more reviews will talk about how they were surprised they achieved so and so with the Wii rather then pointing out its graphical weakness (which is how almost every review for the PS2 goes today it seems, when they mention graphics the reviewer always says 'Surprised at how well the PS2 handles so and so...)

I dont think the leap is as big as your making it out to be. In the same way it took almost a year for something to look next gen on the 360, I say we'll have to wait a year till we see a proper representation of what the Wii can do.

true, but look at the games themselves, the ones you mentioned are old re-hashed games re-released at a reduced price. if they asked you to pay €55 for them would they still get the same applause? i somehow doubt it.

Now your being mean. For £55 euros you wont be getting 8-bit rehashes, you should be getting quality games with all the visual experiance you expect from a modern game. Seeing as at the moment we are paying £55 for games like the Godfather which still looks like an xbox game with nicer lighting then I feel your overexagerating the Wii's graphical weakness.

and that is my point, the Wii will be a side-dish to the main course (ps3, 360) because the games, while being brilliant, just won't stand up next to killzone or halo in a straight fight with the marketers.

I'll wait till that fight comes around, before you sign one of the machines off purely because its hardware isnt as good.

savemejebus

A bit OT but has it been confirmed that MS are now making money on the 360? The only thing i saw about it was the isupply analyst piece and I don't know how reliable that source is. Anyone got a link?

mcgarnicle

Retr0gamer wrote:

Careful with the abuse. I don't mind a heated debate but Mcgarnicle and ambro25 are pushing it.

Sorry, I'm not usually one to get personal or argue but after serveral patronising replies it grated a little. Won't happen again.

CiDeRmAn

I have to say, you guys are taking it all far far too seriously, the fact is that MS and Sony are following very traditional paths for there next-gen consoles and that will stand to them and they will go forward and sell machines by the bucket load, regardless of the launch day/window/year line up in 2 years they will be going at full tilt and we should be treated to games that really exploit the power of the respective machines.
As far as the Wii is concerned however, its a little different, they are taking a plan born of their handheld experience and translating to the home console with great effect, as said before they have cut the R&D costs way down insuring profits from the outset, they have made it easy to deveop for, cheap too so developers can make profits quicker and encouraging more experimentation.
Even though middleware like Renderware can permit dev groups to use assets across the PS3/360 divide the cost of the development will still be astronamical, this will unfortunately hamper any developer outside the 1st/1.5st party fold producing dedicated titles due to the risk of making a game an exclusive as it shrinks the available user base.
When we buy a new console we do it because they claim to provide we gamers with new windows onto our hobby, new ways to experience our favourites be they FPS, Beat-em-ups, 2D shooters, racing games etc.
Up to now that new way to play has always been raising the bar of graphcal fidelity, 5.1 digital surround, rumbling/pressure senstive controllers etc.
Now Nintendo have a new manner to provide new experiences, changing the way we interact with gaming worlds fundamentally, making many gamers sit up, begin to appreciate the possibilities this affords and buy into the concept.
More than that, the PS3/PS2/PS, the Snes/N64?GC, the DC and every other home console since the early 90's has increased the complexity of the control pads incremenatlly over the years, so as to give the player more and more control, making the new 3D vistas navigable in a way a Megadrive pad could never do, unfortuantely this complexity, while invisible to those of us who either came to gaming young and learned from base principles or those of us who have watched controller evolution over a very long time, makes it very hard for an adult to approach, the button combinations to get Mario to negotiate Wet/Dry land are logic free to the unexperienced newbie and this is only amplified over the years, so what do you do?
Well, you do what Nintendo did, you want your character to jump? Jerk the Wiimote up, you want you character to smack the tennis ball, swipe the Wiimote as you would a tennis racket.
Essentially Nintendo have made the controller as transparent as possible while still providing enough functions to allow developers to use as much ingenuity as they want to exploit it and the worlds the Wii can create.
Graphical fidelity can only be one part of the greater push towards gaming being a fullfilling, fun and a socially accecpted pursuit, by taking the need to learn the "grammar" of each new controller they have made it less intimidating to the non gaming public and so make them new users instead.
This belief is to be seen in the sucesses of Sonys Singstar, Eyetoy and Buzz ranges, getting rid of controller functionality completely, not focusing on graphics instead creating an inclusive party enviroment where no one need feel left out because they never picked up a PS controller before.

Of course the biggest danger of the Wii will be that developers may come to see it as a party game machine and we won't see the more traditional genres being developed for it, here's hoping that won't happen.
And as for Wii games in '07, I reckon Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy and Trauma Centre will do me just fine, at least for starters.

ambro25

First things first - I'm not aware of any abuse in my posts or mcganricle's. We're having a good debate, period - quite enjoying it at this end anyway (and if mcgarnicle feels that I've been condescending, then I apologise profusely, as that was absolutely not the intent).

I'll pointedly ignore the condescending-on-purpose bits, I like quote tennis but there are limits Suffice to say, I don't get much gaming time these days, I'd absolutely love to spend more time playing games, and what little time I have to spend playing games, I like to spend new experiences, not just improved versions of same. So PS3 is coming... Ridge Racer 7? FFS! :rolleyes:

Winky winky, you asked a question of when the 360s were sold and then answered it yourself in the next, the question mark implied the reason for the sales pattern was the "paucity" of games. If you want to get the high ground required to be so condescending you might want to word your points better. :rolleyes:

That I think does deserve a reply, because you have not read, or understood, my post correctly. Allow me (not meant in a condescending way), with my original post in bold:

Again, who said the Wii has to top the 360 now? Take-up rate of 360 after a year is reported at about 6m units worldwide: how many were bought when?
[EDIT: real question]

4m at Xmas 05 and 2m since because of perceived paucity of software catalogue?
[EDIT: rethorical question #1, based on 6m sold, the idea of which is indeed to convery that maybe there's been a problem with the catalogue since launch and therefore less & less 360s are being sold - I don't know, I'm floating a rethorical question]

1m at Xmas 05 and 5m since because of AAA titles after a year?
[EDIT: rethorical question #2, based on 6m sold, the idea of which is indeed to convery that maybe there's been a huge improvement with the catalogue since launch and therefore more & more 360s are being sold - I don't know, I'm floating a rethorical question]

Oh so now you are shifting your point to imply you are Nintendo's new non-gaming target, sorry I don't buy it. You have already explained how you have been gaming on pc etc in recent years so you are clearly not the non-gamer they are chasing.

That I think again does deserve a reply. I have not implied that I am or am not Nintendo's new non-gaming target. I have stated truthfully why I'm buying a Wii. It's also the reason why I have readily admitted that Wii Sports isn't a great game - it's a gimmick. I just want to wave motes with my daughter. I can't get motes with a 360 or a PS3, so I buy a Wii. End of, hand on heart, spit on grave and all that - that's all there is to it. You believe me... you don't... like I give two monkeys :rolleyes:

Therefore, wether that makes me Nintendo's prime marketing target for the Wii or not, I couldn't care less. I've had every piece of Nintendo videogaming hardware ever (including VirtualBoy, Gameboy Pocket Light and very obscure Asian versions of a both a portable NES and aportable SNES), so no, I'm not a non-gamer.

The point I was getting at was that we don't know what Nintendo's strategy is (etc.) Again you are looking at the portable market and juxtaposing it onto the home console market

I don't believe there's anything puerile in discussing the merits of a business strategy. For all your other points, as I have posted before, I'm in agreement with you: portable>lounge is indeed what I'm hypothesizing Nintendo have done/are following, I don't sit on Nintendo's Board and neither do you, so we don't know. Only hypothesize, me on the basis of my experience and you on the basis of your disagreement with me. Fair enough?

(portables) they are totally different. Nintendo have gotten away with it so far because there is no real competition in the handheld market. Home console market is totally different, you don't carry a wii about with you, it doesn't have to look good or be neat, it will sit on a shelf and stay there.

You should tell Sony that, they clearly thought (still do?) they were onto a winner ...and Sega and Atari and NeoGeo and Nokia and let's not forget Quickshot/Supervision, etc... well, all those would be competitors that have had a go (best hardware in each case notwithstanding of course )

(NB: again, I'm at pains to point out - this is meant as a joke, not in a condescending way)

First? I could have swore the PS2 did it years ago. What would I honestly go for? I'd not buy either. €10 for a ten year old game? No thanks Nintendo, I will get it for free on my pc, hook it up to my tv and play it with the original pad... thanks anyway. Same goes for MS. People will say that is an invalid argument cos it's not legit but it is a valid argument since the majority of people with broadband who are interested in these old games know about roms, know they are free and know how to get and use them.

Atari did it first about 20 years ago with the 7800 (accepting all 2600 carts). Nintendo did it next with the GB Pocket (accepting all GB carts) at least 10 years ago. PS2 was the first to do it with CDs, I'll grant you that.

Anyways... those savvy enough to find Roms, use ZSNES or MAME or whatever Emu and interface a PC on a TV (with sound), use a USB-to-(console brand) pad interface with the original pad (or a direct retrogaming product, e.g. a USB Nintendo NES pad, they also exist) aren't exactly non-gamers, are they?

At the end of the day, we generally agree to disagree. I've bookmarked the thread with a postmark to check in a years' time. I'll pm ya if need be

To other posters, my apologies for taking up your valuable reading time