Nintendo don't have the financial clout to compete with Sony and Microsoft.
In the multi-billion dollar range it doesn't make much difference. What Nintendo has are execs that aren't prepared to hedge the company's assets on a colossal commercial failure like the Xbox was and the PS2 almost was and the PS3 might very well be. Their handheld sales could cover the massive loss MS took from their console divison and probably still come out ahead, but that's a really stupid way to run a business.
Accept that beta screens of unfinished games at the beginning of a console's lifecycle aren't an indication of anything.
Even if the final version of Far Cry looks like an N64 game, that wouldn't magically change the hardware specs.
Many of the screens on MGS4 look amazing, picking one or two(which are still way above anything Wii does) isn't fair. Especially considerring the PS3 is [i]new[/i] hardware and the Wii has most of the same functionality and architecture as the GC.
Many of the screens on MGS4 look amazing, picking one or two isn't fair.
So you're saying that the quality of a system is determined by the BEST it can do, not the WORST?
Especially considerring the PS3 is [i]new[/i] hardware and the Wii has most of the same functionality and architecture as the GC.
Actually that hasn't got any fucking thing to do with anything. All IBM-compatible PCs have most of the the same functionality (COMPUTING OLO) and architecture (INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS WOW!) and the spectrum of performance is huge.
You're also full of shit, since we know very little about the Wii hardware at this point since Nintendo hasn't said anything. They've said it'll be several times more powerful than the GCN but not that it'll be based on the hardware--although I'd be happy if it were, since that wouldn't mean anything about the performance but the Cube was by far the best-designed machine of the last generation even though they housed it in purple plastic.
The Wii is a jump into the next generation, not through graphics, but through a next generation style of game play. Which is something that consoles need, considering the fact that we are baring the edge of graphics, and games are getting so self-centered on graphics, the game play is barely paid any attention to.
I think the 'next-gen' buzzword is losing its meaning now. In the past each generation was a huge jump in not just graphics but what was actually -possible- with games, but this time around it's just more complex models and filters. I'm yet to see or hear about anything that wouldn't have been possible on last-gen hardware.
Wii stuff does look interesting, but it'll probably be like the DS in that the really great stuff won't come out for six months. I might pick one up for Twilight Princess at first, but I'll probably upgrade my PC before that. I'll possibly get a 360 when its library expands a bit.
The jump is realestic. To say you expected Mario to look any more real would be kinda stupid. I loved lots of the games on the Gamecube and I expect the same great games with tweaked graphics. Im not buying the Wii because of numbers. The Gamecube came out with beautfiul games like Prime which in my oppinion look just as good as any Xbox game even though the numbers say otherwise.
===So you're saying that the quality of a system is determined by the BEST it can do, not the WORST?
Which is why I asked for screenshots of Wii games that actually do look like they couldn't be run on an overclocked gamecube.
My main issue with the Wii isn't just graphical splendour, but the fact that it's AI will be more limited and it will never be able to handle vast Oblivion like worlds with loads of characters on screen quite as well as it's competitors. Yes, I know I'm basing perceptions of the graphics, but that generally is the earmark of general power. I doubt they'd put in a super powerful CPU and a crappy GPU.
It looks to me like they're setting it up for very arcadey games, which is something I tire of. I'd rather pay $70 for a 360 title that lasts me months than $50 for a Wii title that I keep coming back to again and again for about a week.
Nintendo have overpriced things before. I don't see what's so hard to believe. The only reason they're charing $250 is because the reaction to it was so positive they got overconfident. That's why they were holding out on the price - to gauge quite how much they could charge.
Meanwhile, in Europe, we're getting charged the equiv. of $315. No way in hell you're telling me that's all taxes. Nintendo got sued in Germany once for artificial price fixing. I hope they do again.
===You're also full of shit, since we know very little about the Wii hardware at this point since Nintendo hasn't said anything.===
We can tell plenty from the screenshots, and what we hear from developers.
===They've said it'll be several times more powerful than the GCN but not that it'll be based on the hardware===
It is not "several times". They initially said 2-3 times and it looks like it's even less than that.
Saying it's "several times" isn't really saying much anyway. What's several times more powerful?
The GPU? The CPU? The FBSQRGQ? What I see is that the graphics really haven't improved much since
last generation GC. GC Zelda is a launch title, FFS. It looks more jagged and less shiny than
the other games, that's about it.
===since that wouldn't mean anything about the performance but the Cube was by far the best-designed machine of the last generation even though they housed it in purple plastic.===
It was mainly the best designed because it was ridiculously cheap to make.
The Cube was $200 when it was a top of the line console.
The Wii is $250 when it is very, very much at the bottom of the line.
This doesn't look good, at all, no matter how good the controller is. They should have charged
$200 - implying that the relative power has been replaced by the controller. But the extra $50
is seriously pushing it - people could have spent that on another game instead, one that took
more than a week to make(Wii Sports).