My understanding was Nintendo admitted this from practically day 1, so I fail to see the relevance of this thread. Shit, they used it as a selling point to developers for chrissakes.
-Rob
My understanding was Nintendo admitted this from practically day 1, so I fail to see the relevance of this thread. Shit, they used it as a selling point to developers for chrissakes.
-Rob
The moral is, don't **** with Uncle Tim when he's been drinking!
But isn't that part of the problem? Imagine you're a developer and you want to make the biggest, baddest, best looking games. You get the dev kit for the 360, the one for the PS3, and then you basically get an 11 page handout from Nintendo saying, "It's basically a gamecube".Shit, they used it as a selling point to developers for chrissakes.
The bottom line is that this industry runs as more on testosterone than good business sense. Hype and "my dick is bigger" marketing loom large. So most of the devs will ignore Cube 2.0 and move their multi-million dollar dev budgets to the 360 or PS3. Is this a good move business-wise? No, but I think the the prevailing attitude is, "let the other dev team make the 'practical' game. I want to make cutting edge stuff." The problem is, anyone making anything worth shit begs out of the Wii.
If you don't think that's a problem to the future viability of the Wii, then yes, this thread is irrelevant.
Last edited by UniHamachi; 10-02-2007 at 09:30 AM.
I'm not sure about that. Yes, third-parties want to make cutting-edge software, but it seems like the least powerful hardware usually gets pushed the furthest each generation.Originally Posted by UniHamachi
As I've posted before, third-parties supported the NES more than the SMS, which was more powerful. Third-parties supported the Game Boy more than the Lynx, Turbo Express, and Game Gear, which were more powerful. Third-parties supported the PlayStation more than the Nintendo 64, which was more powerful. Third-parties supported the PlayStation 2 more than the Xbox and GameCube, which were more powerful. Third-parties are supporting the Nintendo DS more than the PSP, which is more powerful.
By your logic, third-party developers would have flocked to the Dreamcast in 1999 so they could make cutting-edge games with amazing graphics, but they didn't. Many third-parties ignored the Dreamcast and continued to make games for the old, weaker PlayStation instead.
Last edited by Rob2600; 10-02-2007 at 10:12 AM.
The difference between any of those pairs you mention is dwarfed by the difference between the Wii and it's competition. The Wii is a mild upgrade to the Xbox and PS2 graphics-wise and doesn't hold a candle to the 360 or PS3. The Dreamcast was nice, yes -- but it wasn't crazy better than the PSX. It's like the GBA vs. the PSP. Or the Genesis vs the NES. And while the Dreamcast looked nice and sold well at launch, the developers went gaga over the PS2 and developed for that instead.
Last edited by UniHamachi; 10-02-2007 at 10:47 AM.
Really? The House of the Dead 2, Virtua Tennis, Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, Quake III Arena, Ferrari F355 Challenge, Sonic Adventure, Crazy Taxi, Metropolis Street Racer, NBA 2K, NFL 2K, Phantasy Star Online, and Virtua Fighter 3TB weren't "crazy better" than what the PlayStation could do?
All but a few things on that list are first party games. And yes, do those look a lot better than your run of the mill PSX game? Yes. But crazy better than Tekken 3 or MGS or FFVIII? Even so, the difference between, say, Heavenly Sword and RE4 is staggering, and RE4 is one of the best looking games on the Wii. I'm not going to argue about which is the better game (obviously), but note that I had to rack my brain for a Wii example, and the best I could do was a GC port. I guess BioShock vs. Carnival Games is patently unfair?
Yes, regarding technical power, Virtua Fighter 3TB, Soulcalibur, and Dead or Alive 2 on the Dreamcast are "crazy better" than Tekken 3 on the PlayStation, Shenmue and Resident Evil- Code: Veronica are "crazy better" than Metal Gear Solid, and Phantasy Star Online, Grandia 2, and Skies of Arcadia are "crazy better" than Final Fantasy VIII...as they should be. After all, the Dreamcast was released four years after the PlayStation.
My point was that many third-party developers didn't instantly flock to the more powerful Dreamcast. In 1999, even after the Dreamcast was released, many third-party developers continued to develop games for the older, weaker PlayStation instead. Graphical power didn't matter.
Hence, the Xbox 360 and/or the PlayStation 3 won't automatically outsell the Wii just because they're more powerful. Again, the most powerful consoles are usually not the most popular each generation and the least powerful consoles usually are.
Yes, that would be an unfair comparison.So is comparing first-generation Wii games to second-generation Xbox 360 games, which people seem to be doing in general.
Last edited by Rob2600; 10-02-2007 at 12:49 PM.
This had nothing at all to do with 3rd party preference of the NES hardware and everything to do with Nintendo's iron-clad licensing agreements. If you made games for the NES you basically couldn't publish for any other platform. This finally ended when Nintendo was taken to court for monopolistic practices. Notice how once the license argreements were killed, sales for the Sega Genesis rose? It wasn't a coincidence.
3rd parties were basically kicked to the curb by Nintendo's bone-headed decision to stick with cartridges. See: Square's Final Fantasy VII.Third-parties supported the PlayStation more than the Nintendo 64, which was more powerful.
Playstation 2 benefitted from brand loyalty, much to the detriment of the excellent Dreamcast library and the Xbox's great online set up. The same thing can be said about the DS. Nintendo has owned the handheld business since 1989, and everyone knows that games made for its portable will reach the biggest audience. It certainly hasn't been because of the touch screen, or we'd see more games using it. I'm also inclined to think that companies are publishing for the Wii because of how much it has sold and not because of its motion-control scheme. That would really suck in the long run if it turns out to be true.Third-parties supported the PlayStation 2 more than the Xbox and GameCube, which were more powerful. Third-parties are supporting the Nintendo DS more than the PSP, which is more powerful.
Dude, you're comparing apples to oranges. Sega didn't just burn its bridges with 3rd parties, it nuked them from orbit. There's no way on God's green Earth that companies would choose the gasping DC over the sales juggernaut that was everything Playstation. Nintendo has never been in that position.By your logic, third-party developers would have flocked to the Dreamcast in 1999 so they could make cutting-edge games with amazing graphics, but they didn't. Many third-parties ignored the Dreamcast and continued to make games for the old, weaker PlayStation instead.
I still think the gulf between, say the 360 and the Wii is bigger than Dreamcast vs. PSX. I'd say much bigger. And I think the devs wanted to wait for the PS2 instead of making Dreamcast games (being burned by the Saturn did not help matters). Right now, it's only Wii, PS3, or 360.
Carnival Games vs. Perfect Dark Zero?Quote:
Originally Posted by UniHamachi
I guess BioShock vs. Carnival Games is patently unfair?
Yes, that would be an unfair comparison. So is comparing first-generation Wii games to second-generation Xbox 360 games, which people seem to be doing in general.
Excite Truck vs. Project Gotham Racing 3 or Motorstorm?
Better.Carnival Games vs. Perfect Dark Zero?
Metal Slug Anthology vs. Heavenly Sword.
BTW, Metroid has great art direction, but the graphics themselevs were very Gamecube looking at times, and the frequent aliasing was annoying.
A couple of the bosses were OUTSTANDING. Monegar and Helios were totally awesome.
Last edited by UniHamachi; 10-02-2007 at 02:37 PM.
I thought we were talking 3rd party developers not in-house?Better.
For the 360:
Quake IV vs. Red Steel
GUN vs. Far Cry
Call of Duty 2 vs. Call of Duty 3
Better yet
Need for Speed Most Wanted and Ridge Racer 6 vs. GT Pro Series and Monster 4x4 World Circuit
For the PS3:
Resistance vs. Red Steel
Ridge Racer 7 and Formula One Championship Edition vs. GT Pro Series and Monster 4x4 World Circuit
Yes, 3rd party. I got side-tracked.
BTW, the fact that 3rd party Wii games look like ass is even more discouraging considering the 5 years experience with the GC should have well prepared them for the Wii. And yet, no one outside of Nintendo has come close to RE4, and that's really a GC game. So 3rd party devs are not even trying.
I'll take Carnival Games. I'm not into FPS at all.Carnival Games vs. Perfect Dark Zero?
Bacon, Bacon, Bacon, IT'S BACON!!!!
Need for Speed Carbon was released in December 2006 for Wii. Why not compare that?
I agree with you about that. Some third-party developers are producing nice-looking Wii games, like EA and Ubisoft, but overall, third-party Wii games should look much better.
Julian Eggebrecht of Factor 5 agrees, too. This is from IGN.com's interview with him on February 8, 2007:
"IGN.com: Resident Evil 4 was a beautiful GCN title. Rogue Squadron was doing things at launch that developers still haven't done on Wii. Why do you think that is? Are studios getting sloppy on Wii?
Julian: Yes. I'm so disappointed knowing exactly what the Wii can do - and I still think nobody knows it better than we (no pun intended). I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed! They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does. But I still don't see enough bump and normal-mapping, if any. I still don't see enough post effects, even though you have insane fill-rates with Wii. I don't see any of that. I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, 'Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?' And I am at a loss. I really am."
http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762984p1.html
We were actually comparing soley on graphics. I know, it's shallow.I'll take Carnival Games. I'm not into FPS at all.
Because Carbon was not a system release for the 360. Compare Carbon for the 360 and Carbon for the Wii, and there is no comparison.
Even better, compare Carbon for the Wii and for the PS3, both system releases, and there is still no comparison.
Other than perhaps Kart racing games, I do not see the Wii being a successful platform for the racing genre. Most of your hardcore racing enthusiasts are going to want the superior graphics and will not care about the gimmicky Wiimote controls. If they wanted something like that they'd more than likely just purchase a steering wheel controller. I've played Excite Truck, GT Pro Series and Monster 4X4 World Circuit, and graphics aside, they simply do not hold my interest. Excite Truck is nothing more than a tech demo IMO.
Last edited by esquire; 10-02-2007 at 05:42 PM.
I'll still take Carnival Games. I prefer cartoonish to realism.
Bacon, Bacon, Bacon, IT'S BACON!!!!
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
