Wii U

[mirhagk]

I think it's time somebody said something about it.

What do you guys think?

Personally I believe that it is a pathetic attempt to get back into the market, and it's going to be worse than when they made the 3DS (which wasn't specifically bad, just wasn't any better).

The biggest thing they have going for them is that it's graphics are almost as good as the ones that other consoles that came out 6 years ago. The only thing it has that hasn't been around for 6 years is the new controllers, which while not worse than a regular controller (actually they could be, they look kinda awkward) is really not worth the extra money.

A tiny touch screen to be used in conjuction with a TV kinda doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. It could be cool for certain applications but 99% of the time it'd either be a pain, or be unused.

And if the controller is essentially just a DS, they should just provide the capability to hook up the DS as a controller lol.

EDIT: Also worth discussing is whether Sony and Microsoft will respond.

My guess is that microsoft will not release a new console for a while (unless sony comes up with an actually good idea for a new console). They have been releasing software updates, making the actual product better without having to charge more for it (sony has been doing the same I believe), and this seems to work much better for users, not having to buy new hardware every 2 years. Sony and Microsoft seem to agree on the aspect of don't put out a new system, unless it's actually worth it, whereas Nintendo seems to be following the Apple trend of release a new system every time you think of a new feature.

[Insectoid]

It's gonna flop, I think. They should have just released an updated Wii with more accurate motion control and better graphics. The new controller looks ridiculous and gimmicky.

Microsoft and Sony won't respond, because they won't need to. I don't think it will take off, lots of people will still be playing the original Wii because there's no real reason to upgrade, so developers will keep developing for the wii and Nintendo's lineup will be even more fragmented than it is. How many handhelds are they supporting right now?

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.

[ProgrammingFun]

It's a fail. If they really wanted to try out the new controller, it could have been released as an add-on for the current version. However, as much as I think it should flop, it won't due to the audiences the Wii currently holds (women, old people, little kids). These areas of the market will keep it running.

The only time I see Sony upgrading the PlayStation line is when a newer medium of holding data gains popularity (PS1: CD, PS2: DVD, PS3: BluRay). The next medium should be hard drives but that won't be happening until the average internet speed around the world jumps significantly and the average internet access per captia also jumps. At this time, we will see a PS and Xbox refresh. Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.

Microsoft + Sony don't need to respond to Wii because they still hold the "hardcore" or grown-up audience. In addition, they also have their own innovative technologies to attract new audiences (particularly Microsoft with the Kinect).

[Insectoid]

Quote:

Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.

Are you aware that this statement is an oxymoron? Microsoft and Sony exist to make money. If it makes money (and isn't *too* illegal) it's useful.

There will be a refresh probably in 2013/14, weather or not a new storage medium has been developed. The PS3 and 360 will 'feel' old, because people have had them for so long. If it feels old, people will buy a new one. And that is their objective.

[ProgrammingFun]

Insectoid @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:24 pm wrote:

Are you aware that this statement is an oxymoron? Microsoft and Sony exist to make money. If it makes money (and isn't *too* illegal) it's useful.

I should have specified more, I meant useless for the consumer, obviously not for the producer.

Insectoid wrote:

There will be a refresh probably in 2013/14, weather or not a new storage medium has been developed. The PS3 and 360 will 'feel' old, because people have had them for so long. If it feels old, people will buy a new one. And that is their objective.

That is probably true, though the companies do say that they want their products to last 10 years...and the longer the consumer waits, the more they will appreciate (and pay for) a newer product. If there is not a new medium, the refresh would be exactly like the Wii U issue we are discussing here.

[Insectoid]

Why is a refresh necessary? I bought Portal 2 on a CD, just like I bought Quake in the 90's, also on a CD. The medium hasn't changed, except that larger games are on dvds (Portal 2 might be a dvd actually...but still).

I don't see why you need a new medium. It would instantly break PS3 backwards compatibility if it didn't have a disk drive, and Sony wouldn't want to do that for at least a few years. Just because Sony released each of its consoles with a new format, doesn't mean it has to be that way always.

The Super Nintendo used cartridges. So did the 64, and so does every Nintendo handheld ever made (except maybe the more recent models, I've not been following it). Almost all of Nintendo's consoles were successes (A notable exception -the gamecube- was released with a new medium, cd's).

People will not pay more for the new product. The PS3 had very low sales initially, because it was priced so high. Now that it's down in price it's much more popular. You can't blame lack of innovation for it- this console blew the PS2 and xBox out of the water, and even has superior hardware to the 360.

There is no correlation between a new medium and a legitimate next-gen console. Please stop making these claims.

[Dan]

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

Personally I believe that it is a pathetic attempt to get back into the market, and it's going to be worse than when they made the 3DS (which wasn't specifically bad, just wasn't any better).

Back in? There leading the both the console and handheld market in sales. The 3DS did not go over as while as nintendo wanted, however they have now lowered the price and will be giving the eraly apodotrs 20 free virutla console games. I have a feeling this price drop, plus many new 3DS titles coming out before christmas this year will save the 3DS.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

The biggest thing they have going for them is that it's graphics are almost as good as the ones that other consoles that came out 6 years ago.

The current supposed specs for the Wii U would put it at better graphics then all current consoles, but i think your missing the point. Nintendo has never realy been about graphics, they allways favor qaulity, game play and invitation over the raw specs of there systems.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

The only thing it has that hasn't been around for 6 years is the new controllers, which while not worse than a regular controller (actually they could be, they look kinda awkward) is really not worth the extra money.

Thats what they side about the Wii, and it brought about the hole motion based game play revolution and even the PS3 and XBOX are copying it in some form.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

A tiny touch screen to be used in conjuction with a TV kinda doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. It could be cool for certain applications but 99% of the time it'd either be a pain, or be unused.

It's hard to judge with out having played one, but i can see alot of possible applications. I think the big issue is weather they will be able to get multiple screen controllers hooked up at once.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

And if the controller is essentially just a DS, they should just provide the capability to hook up the DS as a controller lol.

They are.

Insectoid wrote:

It's gonna flop, I think. They should have just released an updated Wii with more accurate motion control and better graphics. The new controller looks ridiculous and gimmicky.

Thats exctactly what the Wii U is. Updated graphics, backwords comptable (including with the old controllers) plus there trying out a new touch screen controller. Games can still use the old montion plus controllers (or even the first gen wii controllers).

Insectoid wrote:

Microsoft and Sony won't respond, because they won't need to. I don't think it will take off, lots of people will still be playing the original Wii because there's no real reason to upgrade, so developers will keep developing for the wii and Nintendo's lineup will be even more fragmented than it is. How many handhelds are they supporting right now?

The last time Microsoft and Sony chose to ignore Nintendo they stole the market place with the Wii and made them look like fools with there copy cat (more so for the PS3) motion offerings years latter. Nintendo has allways followed a simular pattern when releasing consoles and putting a new one out after 6 years is hardly that shocking. As for devlopers, Nintendo allready acounced serveral key devlopers are allready working on games for the Wii U inclduing EA and Ubisoft with games such as Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, Tekken, Ghost Recon, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Battlefield 3.

Insectoid wrote:

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.

I think we need to see innovations in the console market or we will be stuck with limited DRM riden PCs that come with controlers. Simply making them fast and more powerfull each generation is silly as PCs will allways be faster and more felxiable. Console need to provide somthing the PC platform can not if they want to surive. However i will say that your idea of moving from a disk based system could be intresting. A cloud based system like steam on a console could be very intresting and conveient but it also comes with many risks, you can no longer lend games to firends, no longer buy used games or rent games and your hole collection could be wiped out if somthing goes wrong on the providers end.

ProgrammingFun wrote:

It's a fail. If they really wanted to try out the new controller, it could have been released as an add-on for the current version. However, as much as I think it should flop, it won't due to the audiences the Wii currently holds (women, old people, little kids). These areas of the market will keep it running.

There is nothing wrong with targeting the casual market. Personaly I hate most modern FPS so for me the type of games that come out on Nintendo platforms are noramly more apealing. However what Nintendo aims to do with the Wii U is bridge the two markets. They hope to keep the casual market from the Wii while updating the graphics to get the hardcore market. With games like Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, Tekken, Ghost Recon, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Battlefield 3 planed for launch, they very while could acomplish this.

As for the controller, i don't think it is possible with the current Wii specs, which is why they need the hardware upgrade. However even if you hate it (which is a bit premature unless you where at E3 to try it) you can use the old Wii controllers with the Wii U.

I perdiect this thing printing money like the Wii if the controller works and even more if they can get multiple touch screen contorllers working at once.

ProgrammingFun wrote:

The only time I see Sony upgrading the PlayStation line is when a newer medium of holding data gains popularity (PS1: CD, PS2: DVD, PS3: BluRay). The next medium should be hard drives but that won't be happening until the average internet speed around the world jumps significantly and the average internet access per captia also jumps. At this time, we will see a PS and Xbox refresh. Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.

Microsoft + Sony don't need to respond to Wii because they still hold the "hardcore" or grown-up audience. In addition, they also have their own innovative technologies to attract new audiences (particularly Microsoft with the Kinect).

Having all your games on your harddrive or a could service has alot of risks and limiations which I pointed out above. I think Sony and Microsoft will be forced to upgrade as they will no longer have the console with the best graphics which for some reason is a big issue with the "hardcore" FPS style gamers out there. They will however be at a great advantage if they wait for the Wii U to come out before upgrading there own systems as they will be able to ensure theres are more powerfull and be able to copy any sucessfull features of the Wii U faster this time :p


[quote="ProgrammingFun"]

Insectoid @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:24 pm wrote:

That is probably true, though the companies do say that they want their products to last 10 years...and the longer the consumer waits, the more they will appreciate (and pay for) a newer product. If there is not a new medium, the refresh would be exactly like the Wii U issue we are discussing here.

I don't think any console has gone 10 years with out an upgrade unless there manufacture went out of business or changed direction away from consoles. Nintendo for example:

Wii -> Wii U: 6 years
GameCube -> Wii: 5 years
N64 -> GameCube: 5 years
SNES -> N64: 5 years
NES -> SNES: 6 years

The Wii U is acutatly about 1 year over due.



I think many of you place way to much value in graphics and tehcical specs of a system and not enough in any kind of real innovation. Nintendo is willing to take risks with there systems and some times they pay off like with the Wii, while other times they run in to trouble like with the 3DS (tho they still have time to turn it around). 5 years has prity much been the standard time for a new console lanuch for Nintendo so it seems a bit silly to be surprised that 5 years after the Wii they announce an upgrade.

[Insectoid]

Quote:

Quote:

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.

I think we need to see innovations in the console market or we will be stuck with limited DRM riden PCs that come with controlers. Simply making them fast and more powerfull each generation is silly as PCs will allways be faster and more felxiable.

I didn't say stifle innovation. I just want innovation in the direction of convenience and to make console gaming even more streamlined. Add support to allow developers to easily implement things like level pre-loading to reduce or eliminate loading times. This is my only real example atm, but, I'd like ultimately for the console and its hardware limitations to be invisible during gameplay. I don't want to put a disk in. I don't want to wait for the thing to turn on. I don't want to wait for loading. I don't want to deal with crappy menus (I really dislike the 360's UI), or updates. All of this, should be invisible. I want to be able to pick up a controller, select a game, and start playing.

I really like the PS3's integration into the Bravia line (sync your PS3, TV and sound system via your TV remote. Signals are passed on through hdmi to the target machine). This is an innovation I approve of. It's not perfect yet, but it's the right idea.


As for marketability of the Wii U, I still don't think it will take off. Motion gaming has been around for a while. Tiger Electronics had released standalone motion-control consoles for Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more before the Wii was even released. I had the LotR one, and it was fun as hell. Motion gaming already had a market, and Nintendo just consolidated it into a single console.

Motion-control with a touch-screen? That's something new. Nintendo is creating this market from scratch. It will take Apple-esque marketing to get this thing going. Nintendo will have to prove that the Wii U is the next-gen console.

[mirhagk]

Dan @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:35 pm wrote:

Having all your games on your harddrive or a could service has alot of risks and limiations which I pointed out above. I think Sony and Microsoft will be forced to upgrade as they will no longer have the console with the best graphics which for some reason is a big issue with the "hardcore" FPS style gamers out there. They will however be at a great advantage if they wait for the Wii U to come out before upgrading there own systems as they will be able to ensure theres are more powerfull and be able to copy any sucessfull features of the Wii U faster this time :p

People really don't understand graphics nowadays. Graphics in consoles has grown to a point where it is no longer the hardware's fault if graphics are not good, it's the softwares fault. Look at Halo 3, then look at Halo Reach. The difference in graphics between those two games is WAY more then anything else.

Also how do you know that the Wii has better graphics? All Nintendo said was that it would definetly be able to compete with Xbox 360 and PS3, and if you are going off of what the demo showed, well that WAS Xbox 360 and PS3 graphics.

Honestly I see the touch screen as ending up like the kinect for 360 and the move for PS3, something that's extra that's there, but gets in the way of serious gaming. Considering the fact they are trying to target the hardcore market, they are providing the wrong thing for it. And innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was (yes PS3 offered blu-ray, but the seller for more people was simply just a better system).

And the game line-up for the Wii U is old news, we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game, except this time you can interact with a couple things via touchscreen.

If you guys think that the touchscreen is going to be used a lot, thing about this, they give you essentially Xbox360/PS3 controllers with a touchscreen in the middle. And the touchscreen has a stylus. Do you really think that you can use the controller and the touchscreen at the same time? For most games the screen will be for minigames.

[Dan]

Insectoid @ 16th August 2011, 6:08 am wrote:

I didn't say stifle innovation. I just want innovation in the direction of convenience and to make console gaming even more streamlined. Add support to allow developers to easily implement things like level pre-loading to reduce or eliminate loading times. This is my only real example atm, but, I'd like ultimately for the console and its hardware limitations to be invisible during gameplay. I don't want to put a disk in. I don't want to wait for the thing to turn on. I don't want to wait for loading. I don't want to deal with crappy menus (I really dislike the 360's UI), or updates. All of this, should be invisible. I want to be able to pick up a controller, select a game, and start playing.

I really like the PS3's integration into the Bravia line (sync your PS3, TV and sound system via your TV remote. Signals are passed on through hdmi to the target machine). This is an innovation I approve of. It's not perfect yet, but it's the right idea.

But none of that has any real effect on game play or even warents a consoles existence when compaired to the PC alternative. Innovations in terms of making consoles more streamlined and easier to devlope for are greate but they all allready be done on the PC for years in most cases (in the last few years i don't think i have bought any software on a disk and it has all been downloaded once bought), so your innovations in this area would just be making consoles more like PCs but lagging serveral years behind.

What the market needs is inovative game play, we don't need 1000 more versions of call of duty but with faster consoles that are sightly more easy to devlope for and use.

Quote:

As for marketability of the Wii U, I still don't think it will take off. Motion gaming has been around for a while. Tiger Electronics had released standalone motion-control consoles for Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more before the Wii was even released. I had the LotR one, and it was fun as hell. Motion gaming already had a market, and Nintendo just consolidated it into a single console.

If we want to go that far, Nintendo has been doing motion controls since the NES with the power glove, ROB, that duck hunt gun and other controllers.

Quote:

Motion-control with a touch-screen? That's something new. Nintendo is creating this market from scratch. It will take Apple-esque marketing to get this thing going. Nintendo will have to prove that the Wii U is the next-gen console.

They did not have to prove the Wii was the "the next-gen console" to sell the most consoles. I think it is rather easy to see how the Wii U could be very successful, they have the casual gamers hooked from the Wii and will get some share of the hard core market with the graphics update and more "hardcore" game line up at launch (i allready listed some of the planed games in another post). If the price is right i don't think casual gamers will have a problem upgrading consdering the Wii U will be fully backwords compatable including full support of the Wii accessories, no need to buy any more controlers (unless of course more then one motion controller can be hooked up).

Also being first to the market in the next generation has some advantages, since there hardware will be more powerfull for a short time, they will get a larger share of the devlopers looking for a system with powerfull graphics to push out there "hardcore" games. In this short time it is possible that they could suck in enough gamers that value graphics that a large share of the hardcore market will have Wii Us in turn convcing more developers to make hardcore Wii U games, getting more gamers, and so on.

I think the key factors that will determine if the Wii U sells is the price (keep it at the Wii price or cheaper), the online game play (no more firends codes, and free online play), if can get multiple motion controllers hooked up, how well the montion controlellers work (tho the reports from E3 where postive) and how soon Microsoft and Sony lanuch a new console. Noramly the lanuch game line up is what screwes nintendo over (e.g. as was the case with the 3DS) however they seem to have there shit togher in terms of a 3rd party line up for the Wii U.

[Insectoid]

Quote:

we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game

Lol. Nintendo has been rehashing the same games since the NES. What was the last game franchise Nintendo came up with? Mario and Donkey Kong are older than I am. There's a mario kart for every system since the snes. People bought it anyway, and they still will.

Quote:

innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was

The original xBox and the PS2 couldn't render the graphics that the artists could draw. The 360/PS3 nearly can, and the next-gen consoles certainly will, because they'll have 2010+ hardware. Current PC hardware can render graphics that artists don't have the time to draw. Look at Battlefield 3. That's damn impressive, and that runs on current hardware.
Microsoft and Sony want to release a new console (to make money). They can't very well just sell hardware that no game will ever fully take advantage of. There has to be something new and exciting to convince people to buy it.

Imagine the public reaction if the PS4's tagline was "It only does everything the PS3 did". Nobody would buy it.

[Dan]

Sorry for the double post, did not see your post when i posted mirhagk.

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 7:09 am wrote:

People really don't understand graphics nowadays. Graphics in consoles has grown to a point where it is no longer the hardware's fault if graphics are not good, it's the softwares fault. Look at Halo 3, then look at Halo Reach. The difference in graphics between those two games is WAY more then anything else.

This is only true to an limited extent. The first generation of games on a new console do noramly have worse graphics then the last generation on the same console (a greate example on the SNES was Mario World vs. Mario RPG, or on the gamecube wind waker vs twilight princess) as devlopers learn how far they can push the system and how most enfiently code for them. However there are limits. There is no way you could be runing games like Fallout, Crysis, etc on a Wii with the same level of graphics. I am a Wii fan but even i would not way the Wii's graphics could be as good as the 360 or PS3 with just better software.

Quote:

Also how do you know that the Wii has better graphics? All Nintendo said was that it would definetly be able to compete with Xbox 360 and PS3, and if you are going off of what the demo showed, well that WAS Xbox 360 and PS3 graphics.

It was satated at E3 they would be, and i am not going off the demo you are refuring too (tho there where real Wii U demos focusing on graphics, the zelda tech demo and the bird one). And honestly why would they not be? There hole push with the Wii U is to hit the HD and hardcore market and it will be trival to upgraded the graphics with 6 years of advaments in graphics thechogly. The only trick is making it not unresonable price wise. I don't think it is an exporandary claim by any means that a console company that has been devloping consoles since the 80s could put out a console today with better graphics then a console reasled in 2005 (xbox 360).

Quote:

Honestly I see the touch screen as ending up like the kinect for 360 and the move for PS3, something that's extra that's there, but gets in the way of serious gaming. Considering the fact they are trying to target the hardcore market, they are providing the wrong thing for it.

It's hard to say either way with out trying it. I would have not though the wii mote would have been greate for FPS style game play when i first hured about it and did not think it would make such a greate mouse for a TV. Now i wish my media center had one (yes i know there are drivers to do this on a PC).

Having played many Wii games, i don't think the controls get in the way at with one very big condition, that devlopers do not try to force you to do lame motions with the Wii mote that are totaly out of place. Games like twilight princess, and super smash brothers are good examples. Mario kart is also a good example in letting the player pick what kind of controls they want to use. That game supperted everything from crazy using the Wii mote as a steering wheel to using a clasic game cube controler. The key is blance and only using motion controls when they add somthing to the game or make it easier to play.

Quote:

And innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was (yes PS3 offered blu-ray, but the seller for more people was simply just a better system).

This is why i don't have a PS3 or 360 when i have a PC.

Quote:

And the game line-up for the Wii U is old news, we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game, except this time you can interact with a couple things via touchscreen.

Of the games i blive only Batman: Arkham City and possibly Assassin's Creed are ports of currently resleased games. Also the point was that they have the attnetion of 3rd party devlopers and it is not longer going to be games either come out of 360 and PS3 or Wii but that they can come out on all 3 now (but with better graphics of the Wii U, assuming my asumption is correct). Also you are forget (or ignoring) Nintendos vast IP collection which they are more then willing to use. You can almost be certian that there will be a new Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Mario platfromer, Animal Corssing, etc for the Wii U and only the Wii U. A FPS metorid game with online game play could be admazing on the Wii U.

As consoles become more and more like PCs we are going to be seeing games coming out on multiple platforms, which is why i think invoation is imporant if consoles are going to surive. To use your same arugment, why buy an 360 or PS3 when i allready have a more powerfull PC and many of the games I like come out on all 3 (PS3, 360, PC)? The only things holding the PC back is exclusive titles and costing more.

Quote:

If you guys think that the touchscreen is going to be used a lot, thing about this, they give you essentially Xbox360/PS3 controllers with a touchscreen in the middle. And the touchscreen has a stylus. Do you really think that you can use the controller and the touchscreen at the same time? For most games the screen will be for minigames.

You can see good examples of this kind of setup on the DS, DSi and 3DS. However it's not just a touch screen in a controller, it also has AR (augmented reality) and accelerometer capablities. If you saw some of the tech demos at E3 you could see the use as basicly a window into the game in your hands. Think of a wii zapper (gun controler basicly) with a screen on it that changes based on where you are aiming. Tho it does remain to be seen how devlopers will use it and if it will be worth it.

[Dan]

Insectoid @ 16th August 2011, 7:30 am wrote:

Lol. Nintendo has been rehashing the same games since the NES. What was the last game franchise Nintendo came up with? Mario and Donkey Kong are older than I am. There's a mario kart for every system since the snes. People bought it anyway, and they still will.

They have been rehashing the same characters since before the NES, however it would be silly to say the same games or that there game play is identical. PreNES donkey is nothing like the SNES donkeykong games which are nothing like the N64 games. Simluarly games like mario kart, mario rpg, mario glaxy, mario etc, all have mario but none of them are even in the same genre of game. Also if you look into it, it is about 1 new Zelda game, Mario platformer, Mario kart, etc per console, which is about 5-6 year time span. To be fair XBOX has only been through 2 generations and playstation 3, while nintendo has been through at least 5 (depending on what consoles you count), so Nintendo has a much longer history. If you look at games franchies like Halo, call of duty, etc they acuatatly have a greater number of realses per year then any of the nintendo characters, nintendo has just been around for a shorter time. Wait till XBOX is on there 5th console and see how many Halo games there are.

[mirhagk]

Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:20 am wrote:

Wait till XBOX is on there 5th console and see how many Halo games there are.

My hope is that they won't get to 5th gen for a while. To me it seems like the average gamer is getting a little bit smarter/cautious about buying things, so releasing a console for releasing a console's sake won't really get them as far. Honestly there is not a huge need for a better system, I would like to point out that COD's graphics probably could be done on the Wii (if the wii supported HD that is), it would just take more development time.

Modern day programming has progressed from runtime effiecency to creation effiecency, so as engines for the same machine get older and older the graphics/physics/sound can keep getting better, without needing new hardware. Yes new hardware might make it easier, but for the past 6 years the graphics and physics and AI have gotten better and better without any sign of slowing down. Look at the upcoming Skyrim. That engine is surely a great deal better than their previous engine (not just in the elder scrolls). I personally believe that we have a long way to go before the system's capabilities are truly maxxed out (considering PS3 supposedly has better theoritical graphics, yet these graphics have never been utilized).

[Dan]

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 12:35 pm wrote:

Honestly there is not a huge need for a better system, I would like to point out that COD's graphics probably could be done on the Wii (if the wii supported HD that is), it would just take more development time.

To support HD it would need a hardware upgrade, Nintendo is not limiting it to 420p for fun.

Quote:

Modern day programming has progressed from runtime effiecency to creation effiecency, so as engines for the same machine get older and older the graphics/physics/sound can keep getting better, without needing new hardware. Yes new hardware might make it easier, but for the past 6 years the graphics and physics and AI have gotten better and better without any sign of slowing down. Look at the upcoming Skyrim. That engine is surely a great deal better than their previous engine (not just in the elder scrolls). I personally believe that we have a long way to go before the system's capabilities are truly maxxed out (considering PS3 supposedly has better theoritical graphics, yet these graphics have never been utilized).

No mater how good graphics, physics and AI algorthims get, they are not going to make P = NP. And if some how P is equal to NP i am going to be more woried about by bank accounts and servers then console hardware.

As for your skyrim example, it is falwed, just look at the recomened system specs for the games. The newer game is clearly taking advantage of advances in PC hardware.

As for the Wii, which this topic is about, it desperatly needs an hardware update to support HD. The console is losing out on many 3rd party cross platfrom games becues it is lacking in the graphics deparment. Personaly i don't care about graphics, but devlopers do.