blog
- Why the Wii is, Indeed, Next-Gen
- Posted About 1 year ago by Author_Jerry
This is especially true when you consider that its competitors, Sony and Microsoft, have both made advances in HD gaming by equipping their video game consoles with HD compatibility. By doing so, they've made HD gaming more accessible for the casual gamer to experience. The instinctive thing for Nintendo to do was offer HD-quality graphics on their console, to keep up with its competition.
But this was not Nintendo's philosophy when designing the Wii. Their intentions were to not offer incredible graphics in their games. No, Nintendo wanted to shake-up the video gaming world by revolutionizing the way we play games, not look at them. It has already done that with its hand-held system, the DS, and Nintendo aims to do the same with console gaming. Yet, gamers have questioned this philosophy regarding Nintendo's unique approach. Let me first start with pricing.
I certainly believe that the Wii's $250 price tag is worth it for Nintendo's first-party titles alone. I think what Nintendo has learned from the Gamecube is that if it expects to compete against Sony and Microsoft, it has to differentiate its console from the competition. By instead of focusing on the graphics department like Sony and Microsoft, they chose to shift their next-gen experience towards gameplay.
Another way they differentiate themselves is the price. If they intended to attract not only their loyal fans, but the more casual and non-gamers as well, one way to do this is to sell their console for less than the competition. The easiest way to do that, I presume, was to cut the graphical power of its system. (How else can Nintendo attract even the untapped non-gamer market if the system is so expensive?)
How can this be a positive for Nintendo? Let me elaborate. The reason the Gamcube sold so poorly in the last-generation market was because their system was too much like its competition. Why should gamers buy the Gamecube for third-party titles if they can get many of those games on any of the other two consoles (presuming that, like many gamers, you had at least one of the other consoles)? That only left room for Nintendo to rely on the support from their loyal fans to sell Gamecubes based on their first-party titles.
The Wii's price is definitely justified on the basis of its first-party games' potential of being more enjoyable than last-generation. In fact, the reason I got a Wii is to play Nintendo games on it. Then there's, of course, the Virtual Console. There are quite a few games I'd like to play that I never had the chance to before, such as those from the SNES, Sega Genesis, TurboGrafx-16, and the N64 that were never remade or ported. And, compared to the price of remakes or ports, the games that are available are at a reasonable cost to the consumer; though, many would argue to the contrary.
Does anyone remember when Nintendo was re-releasing NES games on the GBA? They were selling ports of NES games for $20 each. Where were all of the complaints for the outrageous pricing then? Now, you can get most of the NES games currently available on the VC for five U.S. dollars. How is that for a deal? Besides, downloads are brief, and it's convenient to have all of these VC games on the Wii. Isn't that better than going through the hassle of hooking up your old systems to your TV--which, I might add, many people don't have anymore?
Even though, this console might not be for everyone, it shouldn't be discredited on the basis of its inferior graphical power like many people so often do. As long as Nintendo can utilize the Wii controls for their first-party games properly, I'm seeing many enjoyable hours with it in my future--despite the graphics being below HD quality. If you want HD quality graphics, there's the Xbox 360, the PS3, and the PC for you to choose from: take your pick.
However, if you want to play new console first-party titles from Nintendo, you have only the Wii to choose from. And, with its unique control scheme, I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a step up from its predecessor gameplay-wise, and isn't that the reason people play Nintendo games: for the fun gameplay? Nintendo is able to offer a something fresh to their popular franchises. Isn't that what next-gen is truly about? To offer something new to experience that wasn't possible with its last console?
But this was not Nintendo's philosophy when designing the Wii. Their intentions were to not offer incredible graphics in their games. No, Nintendo wanted to shake-up the video gaming world by revolutionizing the way we play games, not look at them. It has already done that with its hand-held system, the DS, and Nintendo aims to do the same with console gaming. Yet, gamers have questioned this philosophy regarding Nintendo's unique approach. Let me first start with pricing.
I certainly believe that the Wii's $250 price tag is worth it for Nintendo's first-party titles alone. I think what Nintendo has learned from the Gamecube is that if it expects to compete against Sony and Microsoft, it has to differentiate its console from the competition. By instead of focusing on the graphics department like Sony and Microsoft, they chose to shift their next-gen experience towards gameplay.
Another way they differentiate themselves is the price. If they intended to attract not only their loyal fans, but the more casual and non-gamers as well, one way to do this is to sell their console for less than the competition. The easiest way to do that, I presume, was to cut the graphical power of its system. (How else can Nintendo attract even the untapped non-gamer market if the system is so expensive?)
How can this be a positive for Nintendo? Let me elaborate. The reason the Gamcube sold so poorly in the last-generation market was because their system was too much like its competition. Why should gamers buy the Gamecube for third-party titles if they can get many of those games on any of the other two consoles (presuming that, like many gamers, you had at least one of the other consoles)? That only left room for Nintendo to rely on the support from their loyal fans to sell Gamecubes based on their first-party titles.
The Wii's price is definitely justified on the basis of its first-party games' potential of being more enjoyable than last-generation. In fact, the reason I got a Wii is to play Nintendo games on it. Then there's, of course, the Virtual Console. There are quite a few games I'd like to play that I never had the chance to before, such as those from the SNES, Sega Genesis, TurboGrafx-16, and the N64 that were never remade or ported. And, compared to the price of remakes or ports, the games that are available are at a reasonable cost to the consumer; though, many would argue to the contrary.
Does anyone remember when Nintendo was re-releasing NES games on the GBA? They were selling ports of NES games for $20 each. Where were all of the complaints for the outrageous pricing then? Now, you can get most of the NES games currently available on the VC for five U.S. dollars. How is that for a deal? Besides, downloads are brief, and it's convenient to have all of these VC games on the Wii. Isn't that better than going through the hassle of hooking up your old systems to your TV--which, I might add, many people don't have anymore?
Even though, this console might not be for everyone, it shouldn't be discredited on the basis of its inferior graphical power like many people so often do. As long as Nintendo can utilize the Wii controls for their first-party games properly, I'm seeing many enjoyable hours with it in my future--despite the graphics being below HD quality. If you want HD quality graphics, there's the Xbox 360, the PS3, and the PC for you to choose from: take your pick.
However, if you want to play new console first-party titles from Nintendo, you have only the Wii to choose from. And, with its unique control scheme, I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a step up from its predecessor gameplay-wise, and isn't that the reason people play Nintendo games: for the fun gameplay? Nintendo is able to offer a something fresh to their popular franchises. Isn't that what next-gen is truly about? To offer something new to experience that wasn't possible with its last console?
| Share this article: |
|
Comments
Nintendo has always produced all around good titles that have kept me fascinated for years now.
I was surprised to get a response on your page, it was a nice surprise though, I agree with you the gamecube had really good graphics, but even if the graphics are lacking for some of the nintendo games the pure enjoyment you get out of actually playing the games more than makes up for it. I always thought nintendo graphics were done well keeping that cartoonish look to them...thanks for the response
@ Mellow: I agree with you. I love fantastic graphics like the next guy--which is why I have my PC. However, that is not to say that the Wii isn't capable of beautiful visuals. Look at screens for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and you can easily infer that these graphics were not possible on the Gamecube. Not only that, they both have wonderful artistic appeal.
That is what Nintendo specializes in: artistic visuals. Sure, they'd look better in HD, but it would take longer to produce. Don't Nintendo games take long enough to get in our hands as it is? I'm content with the current graphical quality. As long as Nintendo continues to produce engaging video games, I can wait for a more appealing graphical upgrade.
@ Gorthus: I understand your frustration with a lack of quality Wii titles. Until the great Wii games are released (Fire Emblem, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, et al), there is the Virtual Console. Of course there are other video game systems you can play with in the mean time.
@ Coop: Thanks, Coop.
Very well said, Jerry. Nintendo decided they would rather be different then mediocre, and they sure found their way to do that. I even think it has some soild titles so far. Zelda, Strikers, Metroid, Wii Sports, all solid.
looks aren't everything, but they sure do help out....