Wii "hardware basically a GC" says Miyamoto

[quote name='Michaellvortega']I thought Miyamoto was retiring soon anyway, who cares what he says. Let some fresh blood breathe some new life into Nintendo.[/quote]

He'll sit as an advisor until the day he dies. Mark my words.
 
[quote name='botticus']Before anyone gets carried away with this on either side of the argument, please keep the context of the interview in mind:

Yes, the GC is "basically a GameCube," but Miyamoto is hardly discussing the technical capabilities of the system, he's commenting from the development standpoint.[/quote]

Yup. Thanks for being the one to point that out. Too many people are missing that...
 
As long as the Wii feels next-gen im ok with. if not then i'd rather play Mario on

a 'Cube than play the same game with a gimmicky controller.
 
[quote name='botticus']Miyamoto:
For a brief period of time, some of the staff said, "The Wii has better capabilities than the GC so lets improve the graphics." But Zelda fans aren’t really looking forward to a improved version of the game and are only looking for it to be fun so, I said all we have to do is make something fun for both the Wii and GC. Recently, we finally reached the conclusion that, "the Wii isn’t a console seeking for the next generation graphics." Of course, there are games that seek to have good graphics so you’ll see the titles split up that way.[/quote]
Hey, Miyamoto, when you redesign the Wind Waker, can you make the last portion of the game fun and not such a hunting around shitfest? I would venture to guess that would make the game more "fun".

BTW, I could care less if it was a souped up N64 as long as the games are fun. Look at how many sweet DS and GBA games are out with inferior graphics .. quite a few.
 
02.jpg
 
hey since the wii is "just a GC" then is this the reason why it still has codenames Broadway and Hollywood in its system specs since they are the same as GC's... just a thought
 
"Lincoln was shot" says Miyamoto
"Dinosaurs roamed the Earth" says Miyamoto
"Let there be light" says Miyamoto
 
[quote name='Sgt. Baker']Disney World is family friendly too. But that's expensive. Is Disney World bullshit? Or are you just pissed they don't send you the console for free in the mail with samples of Tide?[/QUOTE]

Disney World cost countless ammounts of money to develope and biuld and mantain. All Nintendo has to do is build a system with tech that has been around for years and stick it in a box. The developement of the Wii is not worth $150+.
 
[quote name='David85']Disney World cost countless ammounts of money to develope and biuld and mantain. All Nintendo has to do is build a system with tech that has been around for years and stick it in a box. The developement of the Wii is not worth $150+.[/QUOTE]

Let's be honest. We can't prove that either way.

Just like we can't prove that Bluray is worth X amount.

And thankfully, that's not our decision.
 
[quote name='David85']Disney World cost countless ammounts of money to develope and biuld and mantain. All Nintendo has to do is build a system with tech that has been around for years and stick it in a box. The developement of the Wii is not worth $150+.[/QUOTE]
Oh, how I love ignorant posts like this.

And I mean ignorant in its true definition, sans its negative connotation. "Without knowledge." That is, without any epirical evidence to back anything up, but that's easily fixed. Speaking about something you've only read about on the intrawebz like you know every stage of its development is just silly. Wait until you have some real experience with it and then judge whether or not it's worth it to you.

And Botticus hit the nail on the head (as others have after him). Cube software can be ported in-tact to the Wii. Wow, big surprise these, it's plays them natively. Does that mean it can't do far and away more than the Cube? Not at all. Will it? Most likely.

But seriously, if someone is buying the Wii for some super graphics machine, they've not been paying attention and just don't get it.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']What thread are you talking about? Almost everything I've been reading about the Wii both here and elsewhere has stated that it won't be much more than a GCN. This is no big shock.[/QUOTE]I don't know, there's a lot of people here that seem to want to believe the Wii will outpower the 360, and everything Nintendo's shown has been purposely made to look like Gamecube graphics to surprise us. In retrospect, those are truly the most retarded things I've ever heard.
 
[quote name='Strell']Um.

They won't. At least Nintendo won't. And we've known that for a while.

Dunno why people think making a case about something they've already been given the details about somehow makes them look strong in argument.[/quote]

Tell that to people who STILL complain about XBL being $50 a year considering the experiance and seemless presentation you get compared to what others are offering. Not to mention not having to worry about lame ass gameshark/lag cheaters. The pros and cons have already been discussed I agree, but yet people still toss it back into the arena so don't fault me for it.

Back to topic, I hope the VC takes off and wakes Nintendo up to the capabilties to the online community. It's be nice to do some co-op with the classics. Will it happen? I'm not holding my breath.
 
I only brought up the cost of Microsoft's Live because I asked the question (now for the 3rd time which still hasn't been answered) what are you getting for your $400-$600 dollars that's gaming related besides better graphics with a PS3 or a 360? Javeryh pointed out LIVE is a great service that you are getting with the 360...however it is a pay service not something you are getting included in your $400 premium system.

So now by everyone's math:

$50 is not too much for Microsoft Live
$50 more than $200 is too much to buy a Wii at launch
$50 for a wireless Xbox 360 controller is not too much
$60 for a wireless Wiimote is not worth it
$50 is the amount not to buy a Wii but its ok to spend $150 to $350 more for not a Wii.

So where is the logic exactly? So it's way too much to spend $250 for a newer (ish) gamecube but to spend $150 to $350 more for better graphics is a completely sane and sound investment?

Maybe the wiimote isn't worth $250 but I'd like to be the one to make the judgement on that.

In the end it all doesn't mean shit....because if you spend $100 or $1000 as long as you are getting your money's worth out of it then its worth it.
 
[quote name='jkam']I only brought up the cost of Microsoft's Live because I asked the question (now for the 3rd time which still hasn't been answered) what are you getting for your $400-$600 dollars that's gaming related besides better graphics with a PS3 or a 360? Javeryh pointed out LIVE is a great service that you are getting with the 360...however it is a pay service not something you are getting included in your $400 premium system.

So now by everyone's math:

$50 is not too much for Microsoft Live
$50 more than $200 is too much to buy a Wii at launch
$50 for a wireless Xbox 360 controller is not too much
$60 for a wireless Wiimote is not worth it
$50 is the amount not to buy a Wii but its ok to spend $150 to $350 more for not a Wii.

So where is the logic exactly? So it's way too much to spend $250 for a newer (ish) gamecube but to spend $150 to $350 more for better graphics is a completely sane and sound investment?

Maybe the wiimote isn't worth $250 but I'd like to be the one to make the judgement on that.

In the end it all doesn't mean shit....because if you spend $100 or $1000 as long as you are getting your money's worth out of it then its worth it.[/QUOTE]

Answer:More 3rd party support, a wider selection of games, proven online capability.

Either way it breaks down to preference and what it's worth to YOU.
Your either going to buy something or not, and trying to prove that something is good or not to the gamer types on a message board is pointless because their mind is made up already.
 
My problem with the Wii is that it doesn't feel like enough return on the investment, as far as what you're getting in the box. Sure, you could make the argument that it's a great value:

$100 GameCube
$60 Wiimote
$20? sensor bar
$50 Wii Sports

$230, which is basically what many of us assume the Wii actually costs to make. This does not include the new WiFi, etc.

Still, I just expected a little bit more. Now, granted, Nintendo has warned it would only be 2-3 times more powerful, but I suppose I haven't really seen that so far in the games. The best looking game is maybe still Zelda, and as everyone points out it's still a GC game basically. I don't expect it to rival the X360/PS3, but I do expect it to outpace the XBOX/GC/PS2. I haven't seen that yet in the games. Which, of course, leads one to think that it is essentially a second GC we're paying for with some accessories. That's not really, at the moment (having not played any games), worth $250 to me. The X360 and PS3 have noticeably better hardware than last generation. So, I'm not paying for an XBOX with wirelesss controllers, but an actually, noticeably better system spec wise. Same with PS3.

I also don't really buy the argument that people don't care about graphics. If they didn't, they wouldn't rush out and buy new systems on launch day, as rarely do they offer new gameplay experiences, as much as they offer flashier graphics. Graphics aren't the end all, be all, but they do matter. There's a reason, as many of us have discussed, that SNES games hold up better than NES, and GC/PS2/XBOX games will likely hold up better than PS/N64 games over time.

The Wiimote is a great idea, but I'm not completely sold on it yet. If Nintendo can give me 5 or so games that play like AAA titles, then I may reconsider. Otherwise, I am hesitant to buy it when I still have GC games left to play. Here's hoping they wow me at launch.
 
[quote name='elwood731']

$100 GameCube
$60 Wiimote
$20? sensor bar
$50 Wii Sports

$230, which is basically what many of us assume the Wii actually costs to make. This does not include the new WiFi, etc.[/QUOTE]

How about they don't include the $50, yeah right like anyone would pay $50 for that, Wii Sports and sell me the system for $180-$200?
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']I thought Miyamoto was retiring soon anyway, who cares what he says. Let some fresh blood breathe some new life into Nintendo.[/QUOTE]

Every game developer in the world does.

The man is the father of modern video games and he doesnt sit as CEO, but rather producer or executive producer. This means he doesnt have to actively worry about the business side and focus on creativity. As mentioned above, he'll be advising Mario and Zelda games from his deathbed. He probably wont be actively involved in any future hardware generations, but I dont think he has ever been too involved with the R&D group.
 
[quote name='David85']

[quote name='elwood731']My problem with the Wii is that it doesn't feel like enough return on the investment, as far as what you're getting in the box. Sure, you could make the argument that it's a great value:

$100 GameCube
$60 Wiimote
$20? sensor bar
$50 Wii Sports

$230, which is basically what many of us assume the Wii actually costs to make. This does not include the new WiFi, etc.[/QUOTE]

How about they don't include the $50, yeah right like anyone would pay $50 for that, Wii Sports and sell me the system for $180-$200?
[/QUOTE]

Because as he points out his estimate leaves out the WiFi and other components built into the system. The WiFi, built in flash, and most importantly the built in wireless recievers for the Wiimote. I've read that the hardware cost of the Wii is currently $170 a unit, assuming its valid once you add in the Wiimote you are in the $210-$220 range.

Nintendo probably sells the console to stores for ~$235 meaning their profit isnt that great on each console. If the $170 includes the Wiimote in terms of cost, then you can blame Sony and Microsoft for giving Nintendo the gaul to give the $250 price point a go.

They include Wii Sports because we arent likely to buy that game, because lets be honest, it isnt going to set the world on fire graphically*, but it does show off the Wiimote* and all of its functions. But if you want the system for $200, well wait 10 months it will see a price drop as soon as Sony or Microsoft drop their prices.

*I should not I have indeed played Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wario Ware, and Excite Truck. With regards to the first three games the grpahics are inferior to the 360 in terms of textures and sheer polygon count, but what was showed had no slow down and amazing fluidity. In the case of Excite Truck it didnt look like the realistic driving games on the 360, but I wouldnt be surprised if it held up well against a more comical game like Twisted Metal. It was also fluid in terms of animation and most amazingly steering.

*I'm not 100% sold on the Wiimote, I have a few reservations from playing games at the Fusion show. But I did enjoy myself and I "trust" Nintendo to deliver on their promises of fun games, and they havent let me down over the 8 consoles I bought from them.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']Answer:More 3rd party support, a wider selection of games, proven online capability.

Either way it breaks down to preference and what it's worth to YOU.
Your either going to buy something or not, and trying to prove that something is good or not to the gamer types on a message board is pointless because their mind is made up already.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for giving an answer...it seems no one else wanted to even attempt it or just couldn't really think of anything.

I kind of think 3rd party support and a wider selection of games falls under the same thing.

I think that 3rd party support is something that Nintendo needs but without the system actually being out I think its a little bit unfair to say that the 360 or the PS3 will have more support or a wider selection of games. If you are using the XBOX-PS2-GC era as your basis well then I would definitely agree. I think the lower development costs may help Nintendo this go around.

I find it really odd that $250 is too much for something that is trying to be innovative but $400-$600 is fine for something that isn't innovative at all. It seems the main argument is that the cube + new fangled controller is NOT worth $250. They state that its really not innovative enough....so under that assumption it seems people see better graphics as innovation. I am still deciding if I should grab a 360 or a PS3 besides a Wii but either way I look at it better graphics don't equal innovation for me. It's been done every generation. It's losing it WOW factor.

I agree it really does break down to preference. I guess I just wish everyone would be a little more fair in their assessment of things.
 
[quote name='jkam']
I find it really odd that $250 is too much for something that is trying to be innovative but $400-$600 is fine for something that isn't innovative at all. It seems the main argument is that the cube + new fangled controller is NOT worth $250. They state that its really not innovative enough....so under that assumption it seems people see better graphics as innovation. I am still deciding if I should grab a 360 or a PS3 besides a Wii but either way I look at it better graphics don't equal innovation for me. It's been done every generation. It's losing it WOW factor.
[/quote]
I agree with you. It is the same reason I am not rushing out to throw down a lot of money on a HDDVD or Blue Ray player or an HDTV, but I was willing to buy a DVD player and cable television. Graphics are nice, but the jump from where graphics were to the PS3/BluRay isn't nearly as impressive as the jump from VHS to DVD or SNES to N64/PS1 or N64/PS1 to GC/PS2/XBOX. I think Sony and Microsoft are going to realize that graphics are subject to marginal returns to scale. There is a curve, and either it has or is about to peak.

Look at digital cameras as an example. For a while, they kept shooting up in mega pixel count. However, once they hit the 4-6 MP range and that became common, the focus of the industry shifted to other features. Options and functions became more important. Sure there are digital camera's out there with ridiculous amounts of pixels, but they aren't mainstream. 4-6 MP is good enough for the average person, and beyond that, if they are going to spend more money, they would rather get more features than more pixels. And if you are going to choose between a 4-6 MP camera with some cool features and a 10 MP camera for twice the price, and call me crazy, but I think I know which one I am choosing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top