Crono1973 said:
Cheesepower5 said:
If all you care about is specifications, I guess. I couldn't give two shits how strong a console is, I don't build it myself. I want good games. If it's another 7 years of two watered down PCs and a unique console with Mario, Zelda and a few fun third party titles, I think I'll just skip the watered down PCs this time. I dunno', I might skip Wii U too, though. Zelda and SMTxFE can't really justify hundreds of dollars.
Although I really hope SMTxFE will come close. ;_;
Oh no, it's not that I only care about specs, it's that if the gap is too big then the WiiU will be left out in the cold and will not have the most important thing, games.
I have to tell you that I didn't care much for the first party games on the Wii. I prefer 64 and Sunshine to the Galaxy game and I prefer Wind Waker to Skyward Sword, Super Paper Mario was the worst entry until Sticker Star came along. Most of what I played on the Wii was Virtual Console stuff. It's all about the games but after the Wii I no longer trust Nintendo to put out better games than third parties.
Now Jeffers seems to think that porting won't be an issue and that the WiiU will be able to run next gen games on low settings. I hope he's right but even still, who would prefer the lowest settings version of a game?
I don't know. People evidently were happy with low-settings versions of games like Resident Evil 4 on PS2. Probably the same people who put good gameplay and strong art direction above pure graphics tech.
And you may not like Galaxy or Skyward Sword, and that's totally your right to (though personally I think you're a bit odd for not liking Galaxy at least), but you also should recognise that on a general level, Nintendo's games tend to be reviewed incredibly well. It's very rare that Nintendo puts out a legitimately
bad game. It's not often that they put out a mediocre one. Generally, the worst you can say about most Nintendo games is that they may not live up to expectations, but that's usually at their worst. You may not like Sticker Star, for instance, but it still got the best Handheld awars at D.I.C.E. Other M got a rocky response, but as a
game it worked perfectly fine. It was more the story that people got really upset about.
And at their best, Nintendo release games which get absolutely rapturous receptions from critics and gamers. Games like Galaxy, Metroid Prime Trilogy, DCKR, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Mario Land 3D, Skyward Sword, Kirby's Epic Yarn and others. And they seem to be able to do that with more reliability than any other developer out there, bar Valve. Other publishers like EA or Ubisoft regularly put out stuff that turns out to be crap, or engage in generally dickish behaviour. Nintendo, you have to dig to really hard to find the turds.
And that gives them a massive advantage. Microsoft
has to rely on third parties, because they've only got two exclusives worth a damn, and both of them are already starting to show their age. Sony has got more exclusives, but very few of them have the same level of acclaim. Nintendo has managed to carve out a reputation on first-party titles of a very high caliber, and that
does sell consoles. Right now, Nintendo is still keeping its first-party heavy hitters like Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros and Metroid under wraps. Once they start revealing and releasing them this year (which they've already hinted at) sales will pick up. They always do. Until Nintendo starts shitting on their legacy and making actually crap games, new Nintendo games will always get people's attention.
