My Thought on Nintendo, the Wii, Wii U, 3DS and Everything Nintendo Related.

[Jesse]

trying to make this short

so nintendo says its oriented toward casual gamers? I think thats a load of _______. They were always ahead of the curb in gaming. the fact is they fell behind for some dumb reason and are using that as an excuse because no third party company wants to make a REAL game for them. yeah it was better than the ps2 and xbox, but by how much? I mean the 3ds can pretty much do everything the wii can.

I think the Wii U will be an amazing console.. With that said, the ps3 and as much as i hate it the new xbox will blow it out of the water. If the ps3 really will have 4k resolution.... wow. I mean by the time the ps3 is here tvs will have 4k resolution being standard unlike the 1k or 1080p that is now.

i think nintendo is going to make the wii u a little more powerful than the ps3 is now which i would say is almost 150% of what the 360 is. the fact is yes the ps3 is better than the 360. fan boys dont get upset. an easy fact is final fantasy 13. and skyrim. for one i remember g4 talking about skyrim. they were being showed a video fo skyrim before it was out. the announcer said is this for pc or ps3? the guy said this is running on the 360. the g4 guy said WOW, I wouldn't have thought this was the 360. with final fantasy 13. the 360 was given a DUMBED down version of the game so it would run on the system. 360 games are scaled up to HD and ps3 games run NATIVE HD. The thing with the wii U is yes it SUPPORTS 1080p that doesn't mean every game will be in 1080p honestly we could get something like 540p and get jipped. who knows.

SONY and MICROSOFT HAVE MONEY. Nintendo from the rumors are losing money. yeah they sold more. so what... if im broke i buy generec dr pepper over the real thing. its not better but im poor sometimes. make sense? also if I have 100 cookies sold at 1$ each and 20 cookies sold at 10$ each. I sold less cookies with the 10, but i have a ton more money out of the deal.

i think nintendo is making the wii u as CHEAP as possible for the new generation to make a quick dollar off of us, because they don't have money to make the wii u the way it should be. so it will ACTUALLY be able to compete with the next gen consoles. Here is what I think is going to happen.


PS3 > 360 > Wii
Wii U > PS3 > 360
720 > Wii U > PS3
PS4 > 720 > Wii U


ok to spell it out right now

the wii gets the dumbed down version of games.

when a new console releases graphics for systems get better.

the wii u releases and game devolopers treat the 360 like the Wii is now.

good games go to Wii U and PS3 cause they have the power needed to run highend games. while the 360 gets dumbed down call of duty and other games.

than the 720 comes out and it stays even between them all and the ps3 eventually slips down

the ps4 comes out and trumps everything. all 3 consoles get pushed to their limits and the wii u slowly trickles out of the race and starts getting dumb games again.

but they forgot one thing. i would rather play Zelda in 1080 p with wii U detail than call of duty on ps4.


well maybe not depending on how good it looks =) I'm not a graphics junkie, but i cant deny a game that looks beautiful. with that said


yeah... teh graphics and gameplay have to even out.

 

[JJGenesis]

This just seems to be a blow-out about the graphics of the current and next generations. I have never cared for graphics. It's not what gaming is all about. Yeah sure flashy graphics are nice to have, but everybody these days seems to look more for flashy HD graphics over quality of game play. Take Skyrim for instance, absolutely stunning graphics but the game play was plagued with glitches. Then look at a game for the Wii like Skyward Sword. Strong Graphics not PS3 quality but still strong compared to many other titles, but it has brilliant game play with only one major bug, which got fixed quite quickly. Another thing is that Nintendo has never been about graphics, they have always delivered the better gaming experience and they always aim to innovate with their consoles to make a different experience. Where this innovation may quite possibly the downfall you mentioned as I have noticed Nintendo have been falling behind since they went all gimmicky with the Wii and DS, but it provided a great alternative to the norm.

 

[Jesse]

its not just graphics. its the fact that a more powerful can do more stuff. i mean aside from looking better, nintendo could do way more on the 64 than they could on teh super nintendo because of it being more powerful. when talking about more powerful systems you are talking about much more than graphics. your talking about the entire engine running the game. from realistic water and wind. realistic movements. if nintendo REALLY didn't care about graphics and REALLY only wanted to prove what they say is true about graphics not being important and only focusing on gameplay. they wouldn't be worried about making the next system run in HD. they would just let be a 480 P powerhouse or give it multiple video outputs to play split screen or something on seperate tvs. anyways back to the power thing. i see it as yes a more powerful system can make better graphics, but we can also have better sword battles and just better everything. like miyamoto ALWAYS wanted to have sword fights on horseback, but just couldn't do it cuz he was limited by the 64's power. he was finally able to do it on the gamecube cuz it had the more power. i could go on. id hate to ramble though.. ive already done enough. btw i know a lot of stuff is misspelled. i typed super fast and didn't correct ANYTHING =p

 

[Jesse]

blue. ur not even real? what are you doing here? on a side note. no the wii is the best console ever because it has zelda. this is true. also my laptop can play twilight princess, skyward sword, oot, mm, mc, ww, all in HD. does this make it better on the pc and than the original console yes. =) and to me realism does equal enjoyment. well mases posted something about realism vs something . i forgot what it was called, but anywaysi consider WW more realistic than OOT. even though OOT looked more REAL WW had wind that blew better and just a bunch of improvements over its physics. idk. im confused. BEEF JUEURKRY


hey blue. whats 2+2=? ? ?

no u can't answer. fake stuff cant do math. =p

 

[Batman]

so nintendo says its oriented toward casual gamers? I think thats a load of _______. They were always ahead of the curb in gaming. the fact is they fell behind for some dumb reason and are using that as an excuse because no third party company wants to make a REAL game for them. yeah it was better than the ps2 and xbox, but by how much? I mean the 3ds can pretty much do everything the wii can.

SONY and MICROSOFT HAVE MONEY. Nintendo from the rumors are losing money. yeah they sold more. so what... if im broke i buy generec dr pepper over the real thing. its not better but im poor sometimes. make sense? also if I have 100 cookies sold at 1$ each and 20 cookies sold at 10$ each. I sold less cookies with the 10, but i have a ton more money out of the deal.

Firstly, Nintendo stated from the very beginning that the Wii was going to focus on casual gamers as well as appeal to Nintendo's base. The name 'Wii' is meant to imply the notion that the console would focus on people gathering to play games and create a 'party atmosphere'. Now, whether that was a good idea or not is another topic (hint: no, it was not). They also knew they would find huge support from the vast amounts of Nintendo fans, and satisfy them with great titles like Zelda and Mario. I think Nintendo still wanted 3rd party support, but after the hardware proved insufficient, they indeed tried to strengthen the notion that the Wii was not meant for 3rd party games in the first place, to feign lack of embarrassment. However, in business terms the Nintendo Wii has greatly outsold both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 put together. They have also made a larger profit off of the system and hardware than Microsoft and Sony (i looked it up).

Supposedly, the Wii U will be quite a bit beyond the PS3 and X360 in terms of graphics capabilities and hardware innovation. It will become the leader for the next year or two. However, when Sony and Microsoft come out with their 8th gen console, it's going to be 'lights out' for Nintendo, imo. It'll be a very similar situation to the current status of the Wii.

I have looked around on the web, and I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Nintendo is losing money. Perhaps they are, but I can't find anything about it. Everything I’m reading seems to suggest otherwise. I think this is just a rumor.

i think nintendo is making the wii u as CHEAP as possible for the new generation to make a quick dollar off of us, because they don't have money to make the wii u the way it should be. so it will ACTUALLY be able to compete with the next gen consoles.

No disrespect, but this is a little silly. Nintendo has ‘plenty’ of money in their pockets. They have all the money and resources they need to make a great game system. And I do think the Wii U will be a great system. I’m confident that Nintendo will deliever with the Wii U; and I just hope it can tangle with the PS4 and X720. (Which I seriously doubt)

They were always ahead of the curb in gaming.

This is very true, and it pains me to see Nintendo lose its status of greatness it had with so many hardcore gamers back in the day. I hope that Nintendo can figure their future out, and come back strong as the leader in video gaming. As a diehard Nintendo fan, I believe that they can, but the choices they have made recently are troubling. Nintendo is trying to find a market with casual gamers, and I understand that; but they are going to have to find a balance. They will have to figure out how to cadre to casual and party gamers, satisfy their fan base, as well as support the hordes of hardcore gamers in the current market; all of them wanting solid hardcore gaming experiences. I wish Nintendo the best of luck in that endeavor.

 

[A Link In Time]

Very interesting stance, Jesse. I was waiting for a thread of this caliber to be posted.

While I agree that Nintendo has been catering to a more laid back audience, they certainly haven't lost touch with gamers or fallen along the curbside as you argue. Truth be told, the distinctions "casual" and "hardcore" are extremely subjective and if you're going to use them at all, then apply them to play style, not types of games played. "Hardcore" playing of Angry Birds for three stars on every level is just as possible as "casually" playing Call of Duty for fun.

I don't understand why people are still arguing tech specs. Just from the info released at last year's E3, we were able to confirm that Wii U will outpower PS3 by not a slight margin but a rather notable one of 1.5:1. Given that Nintendo stated the system will be shown in its final form at E3 2012, it's highly possible that some alterations were made to the hardware to make it even more creative, appealing, and powerful.

Whether or not all games will be in true 1080 p is at the discretion of the developers. You're painting a very biased portrait showing Nintendo to be the red handed one here, however, that could not be farther from the truth.

In regards to the economic crisis of all three companies, it's important to note that Microsoft and Sony are in many different and branching enterprises such as computer hardware and software, television. radios, and so much more. Truth of the matter is, in regards to the videogame sector, both giants have experienced massive losses over the past generation. That's teh price for releasing HD consoles in 2005 and 2006, respectively, without having the necessary resources to do so. Nintendo has had a fair load of problems of its own, however, the company is quickly picking up. Wii and DS may be flagging but 3DS is dominating the hardware and software charts worldwide whereas with the exception of the 360 in America, all other systems are on the decline. Straight from the site itself, Nintendo's total nets assets for the 2011 year were $15 million. That's a pretty hefty sum of money if you ask me. Those game "economists" highly dramatize these situations.

Wii U has already been demonstrated to pack quite a punch. The Zelda Wii U Tech Demo had better shading than any 360 or PS3 games I've seen. The real hit or miss, however, will be the touchscreen controller. We'll see if that causes another buyer frenzy just as the original Wii's motion control remote did back in 2006. If it does, Nintendo has itself a seller. Heck, even without too fundamentally groundbreaking hardware, systems can sell well as the 3DS proved and continues to do.

 

[Ventus]

I don't agree that Zelda automatically makes Nintendo's systems great. I mean, yeah it worked for NES-GC, but it doesn't quite work as well with the Wii IMO. As I've my own opinion, I was head over heels disappointed with Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess. They weren't good, not up to expectations that is. Just way too disappointing. Mario Party 8 and 9 pretty much made the Party series become brain dead and useless, no longer is it fun. Many other Wii games have disappointed me just like SS/TP have, and the entire reason is because Nintendo decided to go to the gimmicks rather than good gameplay or graphics.

Like it or not, graphics attract customers. Frame rate attracts customers. Solid gameplay attracts gamers. This is precisely why series like Halo, Call of Duty, and so on do so well even with little to no variation between titles -- they're solid games and they work extremely well. No gimmicks, really. Sure, annoying little things like the knife in CoD or something-that-I-can't-list-due-to-never-playing-more-than-Halo1 exist, and the games don't change too much (to a typical Zelda fan, every CoD is the same which is a ridiculous notion and is incredibly untrue), but their psychics and gaming engine are just great.

The same cannot be said for most Wii games. Choppy graphics, decent frame rate on most games but they rely too much on the Wii controller which is gimmicky (see: Mario Party 9 which has you flipping the controller -- yes it's for comfort but switching the controller from vertical to horizontal every two minutes gets...gimmicky), the gimmicks are there just because and don't create substantial, noteworthy gameplay (this isn't true of Zelda Skyward Sword where the entire game feels GREAT due to a set play style and great use of WM+, or Super Smash Brothers Brawl where you can use iirc four different controllers for the same gameplay which is only aided due to the better graphics etc.).

In case none of that that make sense, these are what the PS3/360 have running for them that the Wii doesn't:

• Graphics -- If for example Square Enix makes Kingdom Hearts 3 on the PS3, it'd no doubt benefit crazily good from Crystal Tools which is only possible due to the sheer power of the PS3 and 360's GPU and CPU. The Wii cannot run the Crystal Tools engine, heck anything ont he Wii is automatically dumbed down because it can only play 480p max and there is a distinct lack of anti-aliasing (removal/cleaning up of jagged edges) on the Wii.
  
  Examples of games with amazing graphics [and engines while I'm at it]:
  - Elder Scrolls V Skyrim
  - Resident Evil 5
  - Final Fantasy XIII
  - Final Fantasy XIII-2
  - [whenever it's made] Final Fantasy Versus XIII
  - Soul Calibur V
  - Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3
  - as i recall SSX
  - Star Ocean The Last Hope
  
  Compare any of those games to games such as:
  - Zelda Skyward Sword
  - Mario Party 9
  - The Last Story
  ...list goes on.
  
  Don't go "durrhrur this is because the Wii is a weak system and tailored to casual fanbase". That is only what it looks like -- truth is Nintendo wasn't prepared and knowingly created a weaksauce system just for accessibility (which is good, don't get me wrong -- I like that Wiis are cheap to produce because that means more people get to play); the big N didn't think about decent gameplay this time around. They just wanted cost effective stuff so that they could make a profit.
  
  
• Substantial controller -- this is, non gimmicky gameplay that only lends itself to the enjoyment of the game, not the rage against the game.
  
  Think of a game like Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil Zero. This is a game where motion controls truly are nothing but tacked on afterthought -- I'd go so far to say that the motion controls were just there because it was a Wii port. If you go, however, to a game such as Zelda Skyward Sword, of course you'll encounter a dramatic gameplay shift where everything feels and moves amazingly. But, did you know that SS is almost a one of a kind game? Where motion controls are actually USEFUL to the game experience, not just there because the Wii can use motion controls and having the absence of them may or may not be seen as a con?
  
  On the flip side, due to controller layout and other things, PS3/360 games such as Tekken 6, Street Fighter 4, Soul Calibur 4, Castle Crashers, --Heavy Rain--, and so on have comfortable gameplay that cannot be seen as gimmicky (outside of in game gimmicks, such as a combo chain system that makes for cheap, unamusing gameplay). The point here is that Sony and Microsoft thought ahead and decided to make a standard game controller that isn't filled with gimmicks.
  
  Do not say "OMG SONY AND M$ COPIED WITH KINECT AND PSMOVE", this is obvious but these things were only made in response to the WiiMotion+, which was released too late in the Wii's life cycle to be of any use then but Sony and M$ knew that Nintendo was smart -- it could use WM+ technology or the logistics behind it in a theoretical Wii 2 so Kinect and PSMOVE were born to kepe Sony and M$ up to date to gimmicky controllers and attract even more buyers who don't really support the game necessarily but only buy the product because it "sounds cool".
  
  I think in Nintendo's defense is a couple of statements from E3 2011's Iwata Asks Interview
  
  

  Iwata:
  
  Nintendo released the Wii console, and now that it has been accepted in many people's lives, what went through your mind Miyamoto-san? What are you envisioning in the road ahead?
  Miyamoto:
  
  Hmm… I guess, as a device in people's living rooms, I think I fundamentally wanted to have Wii become a more fulfilling device.
  Iwata:
  
  Right.
  Miyamoto:
  
  And, I wanted it to become a tool that everyone in the household would use everyday. I made Wii Fit1 because I wanted it to be something that entire families would use. In that sense, I wanted it to be a tool in the living room that people would proactively turn the power on without putting much thought into it. If I could go further, I want people to turn the power on the Wii first before they even turn on the TV.

  
  There Miyamoto clearly says that he wanted to "have Wii become a more fulfilling device", this gives off the impression that the Wii was rushed, but that Nintendo DID put thought into their design. So my saying Nintendo wanted to make cost effective hardware for a quick buck was highly incorrect and I apologize for the blasphemous comment.
• Third Party Support -- this ties in with the gimmicky gameplay/controller, but Nintendo has no third party support with the Wii for the most part, so they don't have TIME to make great games. Rather than usher in many great games from Square Enix, Namco, Capcom etc, as well as the obviously great first party Zelda, Mario, Kirby and so on titles, the Wii has hampered itself into losing almost all good 3rd party support so it cannot stand on two legs in the market.
  
  Sony and Microsoft due to their powerful systems and great non gimmicky controllers can afford to get 3rd party support from legends like Square Enix, Namco, Eidos Interactive, EA, so on and so forth. Heck, Indie developers are 100x or maybe more/less common to go to Sony/Microsoft to broker in a deal for some silly flash-like game on PSN and/or XBL than they are to make a WiiWare game [which btw feel more like demos of an inde than Indie games, which inherently are short]

I am NOT saying that the Wii only makes bad games, I'm sorry if I accidentally typed that or any string that gives that impression. I'm saying Nintendo totally bailed on the HD market for accessibility, and didn't truly put any thought into it's system. We got a few gems, but a few is not many.

This also doesn't mean the Wii U will fail automatically. Yes, the Wii U is only a catch-up system; Nintendo will only now get into the HD market and seeing as they've absolutely no knowledge on HD as far as we're concerned (when has an HD console made by Nintendo ever existed?), they won't exactly know what they're doing but 4000x resolution (y'know, the stuff they use the Movie Theater and for amazing visuals and movie production) and all the other stuff only used in the Hollywood-type [extremely rich, billions in cash regularly flowing in] is not likely to be released on any gaming system for a while. I mean decades, possibly.

With the graphics boost, Nintendo is sure to rack in 3rd party support from the golden age of N64 *ASSUMING WII U DOESN'T HAVE A CONFUSING DEV KIT* and supervise/produce great 3rd party games along with 1st party games and return to it's previous spot.

The controller of Wii U may not be as hampering as it may seem. As long as the Circle Pads aren't anything like PSVita's small analog circle things, I think the controller will feel classic enough for gamers of the previous generation [6th gen; I know Wii U is technically 8th gen and thus previous to it is 7th which is Wii, but here I mean GameCube/PS2/Xbox], and new enough for...gamers of the new generation. Comfort plays a part, as does the gimmicky things like the camera and supposed "PLAY GAME WHILE TV IS IN USE".
------
As far as handheld market goes, Nintendo has always been on top. The DS did great, little to no competition from the PSP because the DS had a great start and the gimmick here (touch screen) lended itself to Japan's gaming demographic and even abroad (in Japan, most people have little to no time play games for extended periods of time at home due to work and traffic commute, so something easy to open up and put away like teh NDS is perfect for them). Graphics mean little here; to expect PS3 graphics on a handheld will burn a hole through your pants or whatever you hold your handheld on, and the battery life would be like 2 seconds or so [portable N64s exist and they need a steady electric current or something supplying them -- keep in mind portable N64s aren't officially made by Nintendo here].

With the advent of the 3DS, though it had a horrible start [seriously, where are the GOOD launch titles?], it picked itself up with OoT3D, SM3DLand and just recently Kid Icarus Uprising which, ironically enough attracted some of the "hardcore" fanbase of the PS3/360 who currently are awaiting some great titles on their respective systems.

The PSVITA currently is Nintendo's only true trouble as far as handheld gaming go. This doesn't take into account mobile phones -- I don't consider them gaming though silly flash games like Angry Birds definitely are hurting the portable gaming area [AB owes all it is to Crush the Castle, which owes itself to an arcade game of the 80s iirc -- point is, AB shouldn't be where it's at IMO as it isn't a 'game' in the sense that fans portray it to be].

 

[MW7]

SONY and MICROSOFT HAVE MONEY. Nintendo from the rumors are losing money. yeah they sold more. so what... if im broke i buy generec dr pepper over the real thing. its not better but im poor sometimes. make sense? also if I have 100 cookies sold at 1$ each and 20 cookies sold at 10$ each. I sold less cookies with the 10, but i have a ton more money out of the deal.

I'm a third year accounting major so naturally this paragraph stuck out to me. First off Nintendo's 2011 annual report (that A Link in Time linked to) shows that Nintendo had a little under ten billion dollars in their cash account at year end. So Sony and Microsoft by virtue of being much more diversified companies have more total assets (Sony is about 8.4 times larger and Microsoft is about 5.5 times larger based on total assets), but Nintendo by no means is poor or strapped for cash.

The reports that they are losing money are true though in the sense that for these last few periods they are not bringing in as much money as is going out. The Wii is dying out faster than they had hoped so now they have to report tremendous losses. However, the 3DS is doing great, and with Wii U set to release they will be just fine in the coming years at least. It's just that the product life cycle for a video game console is more than just a year so naturally in a year when an older console is on the way out a company will be doing badly for those reporting periods.

Also you have to remember that Sony and Microsoft have initially been selling consoles for a loss for two generations of game consoles now whereas Nintendo has been able to mark-up their prices (there's a short discussion on the bottom of this pageLoss leader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Obviously Sony and Microsoft end up making a killing on games and accessories so they recoup their losses, but it's not good when your competition is making a profit on something when you're selling at a loss, AND the competition manages to outsell you by a tremendous margin. Now Sony and Microsoft are finally catching up in this generation, but Nintendo is just going to head on to the next.

 

[Emma]

SONY and MICROSOFT HAVE MONEY. Nintendo from the rumors are losing money. yeah they sold more. so what... if im broke i buy generec dr pepper over the real thing. its not better but im poor sometimes. make sense? also if I have 100 cookies sold at 1$ each and 20 cookies sold at 10$ each. I sold less cookies with the 10, but i have a ton more money out of the deal.

Sony and Microsoft have a harder time selling consoles because they don't casual appeal. But they get a lot of money from licensing games to their console. Third parties love them and they get a of money from game sales.

Nintendo absolutely is focused solely on casual pleasing. Most casuals that wanted a Wii wanted it for one thing: Wii Sports. And they buy a couple casual games at most, if any at all beyond the included Wii Sports. And the Wii itself is very expensive to port a game made for the other two consoles to. So it's extremely unappealing to third parties. Combine these two factors and you get generally terrible overall game sales. Most Wii owners are not buying games, because they're casual players that have little interest in it. They just wanted that bowling game. That's what my parents and grandparents wanted when they go theirs. Same with all my sisters. They thought that bowling game looked fun. That was it. Nintendo makes most of their cash in console sales. Not game sales. With Sony and Microsoft it's the other way around. It's a lot more profitable for them because they have vast third party support and they have consoles and controls more appealing to hardcore players that are going to buy a lot of games.
It's pretty simple really.