1.when i said ubisoft games are not consistently good, i mean that they make some games that often vary in quality, some good, bad, and just average...
As does Nintendo.
2.yes its true that if you buy a nintendo system its very likely that they want nintendo developed games, but nintendo cant make a game for every single genre, its left up to the 3rd parties to make those other games
Which is why Nintendo needs to stop putting Mario in every game type imaginable. Mario makes products sell, so of course a Mario racing game will outsell a third-party racing game, no matter the quality of the two titles.
3.thats not true some of the best games didnt have the best graphics, GTA is a fun game but in terms of graphics, ive seen n64 games that looked prettier...final fantasy 7 as blocky and cluncky as it looked, many still hold it with high regard even though square has produced ff that are graphically better than it is.
You haven't seen an N64 game that looked prettier than GTA3. I defy you a screenshot comparison of any game vs. a GTA3 screenshot which favors the N64 title.
And Final Fantasy 7 had amazing graphics for it's time.
4.ok, so the japanese bother to put effort in their games, good for them western developers should take note. But as pretty as red steel was compared to rayman raving rabbids, rayman won, because it was fun and easy to play.
Rayman Raving Rabbids is a Ubisoft title and is not Japanese. Capcom, a japanese company, is doing porting just like Ubisoft and other western companies like EA and Activision.
5.like hippie hunter said rare was a second party developer...though the term is not used often it still applies. Rare was partially owned by nintendo but still a seperate entity, sort of a owned third party.
Rare was still third-party. They self-published some of their own games and could have even made PS1 games had they wanted. They had a lot of N64 devkits the software tools and the experience/fanbase on the platform. No publishers commissioned them for PS1 games so it just never happened.
i was trying to explain if you would be a bit open-minded, that even though halo and gears of war are miles ahead of 007 in graphics and AI, i still prefer 007 because the game is fun that i dont mind the way it looks.
I assure you, there are people who prefer Gears of War and Halo to Goldeneye not because of the graphics in those games, but because they are better experiences both in online and in singleplayer. Goldeneye didn't have the plethora of game mechanics, the level-size, the physics, the co-op, 16-player multiplayer matches and the list goes on.
If people could stop thinking that graphics are the only thing that mattered they would see that the wii brings new ideas to the table. you do realize that we are very close to getting photo realistic graphics on home consoles/pcs right? where do we go from there? what will microsoft and sony do then? Video games became popular because they kept evolving and changing, but what do you do once you hit a plateau?
You made a big error in judgement by suggesting the 360 and the PS3 can "bring nothing new to the table". I'm seeing a lot of Wii games that only offer new experiences on the hardware end. Where's the matching software? You could play Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Brothers Brawl on a Gamepad. The Wii couldn't handle Portal's complex rendering technology (essential to the gameplay) or Oblivion's huge open world with radiant A.I. (essential to the gameplay), though. You're making the mistake that power is only used for graphics, when the fact of the matter persists that power is mandatory for world-size, A.I., physics and graphical effects that effect gameplay (SplinterCell's lighting, Portal's portals, FarCry's jungles and draw distance) and are much more than just eye candy.
You keep saying that the graphics on the wii are this and the wii cant do that and the wii is handicapped because of it. But in the end the 360/ps3 will be the ones that are handicapped, if all they can do is make my game pretty and make the AI a little smarter,then whats the point of playing video games anymore. Is that what these 30+ years of advancing the videogame industry was for? To make me just a pretty game, nothing else?
As stated above, software innovations are far more meaningful than input innovations. I would rather play a game with fascinating worlds and concepts than play a sidescroller with a mildly interesting input device.
The first game i played on a console and got me into the world of video games was Super mario 64, I was young at the time so i really didnt know whether or not thr graphics were good or bad, all i knew was that it was fun. period. I didnt know or cared how many pixel were on the screen, if it was kiddie or mature, or how casual or hardcore it made me. I had fun playing it and in the end thats all that really mattered. Maybe that's why i can play a wii game and not go "Oh my god those graphics are so horrible" or "This game would be better in HD". Because I have enough god given sense to realize that at the end of the day fun>graphics anyday.
And here's your self-defeating point: Super Mario 64 was only possible with the increased power in the N64 over the SNES that made 3D-world generation possible. Had the N64 had less power, Mario 64 would have not been a reality.
Very true, but the Wii has been out for a year now. Like what we're seeing with the Playstation 3, developers should have a better idea on what to do with the system.
Unfortunately while we're seeing more and more developers going forward with the Playstation 3 (asides from Electronic Arts), Western developers are going backwards with the Wii developing crap like My Sims, EA Playground and porting Playstation 2 games and simply tacking Wii controls on them.
But the Japanese are doing so much better by PORTING Resident Evil 4, Okami and others, while offering up their own versions of low-scoring games?
I admit, they're putting in a little more creative effort, but the results remain: the games aren't scoring well.
The solution is that Western third parties should stop making so much crap. Nintendo shouldn't drop Mario Tennis, Mario Kart, and Mario Golf, franchises that have been around for generations, just so third parties can make sub-par games.
EA and Ubisoft have entire studios dedicated to Wii development.
Microsoft most likely dropped their sports line because they were unable to make football games and most people bought EA Sports and 2K Sports games.
Amped, Links, NFL Fever 2004, Rallisport Challenge and Top Spin were very well recieved. Shane Kim just decided that with EA and Take 2 already competing with each other so strongly, that it would be better to shift resources elsewhere. It was in that same time when it was decided that Microsoft would just focus on strong franchise-building which resulted in the multi-game deals with Bioware, Silicon Knights, Remedy and Epic. So far, it's worked out for the better.
And that's because Nintendo's games such as Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, and Mario Strikers Charged are far better than what the Western third parties do.
Well to be fair, Metroid Prime 3 was made in Texas, which absolutely counts as "western". Still, hypothetically if you were to release a Wii version of "Project Gotham Racing" up against "Mario Kart" you would get slaughtered, because despite the quality of your product, you bought your system for Nintendo's franchises.
Note how I say Western third parties because Japanese third parties aren't doing as bad as the Western third parties do. Sega does rather well with Sonic on the Wii. Capcom does rather well with Resident Evil. Square-Enix does well with Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. And Namco-Bandai does rather well with Soul Calibur.
Ubisoft has done well with Rayman Raving Rabbids, despite that game being rather mediocre while "Capcom" merely did fairly well with "Zack and Wiki" despite that game being very good.
I'm not knocking third party titles on the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 because we do get some great titles from third parties on those consoles for the very reason you said. I'm calling Western third party games on the Wii to be absolute crap because they're lazy and have no idea what to do with the Wii. It seems as if the only titles that are quality on the Wii are Nintendo's first and second party titles and the Japanese third party titles.
Japan's given the Wii it's share of crap. Fire Emblem (Intelligent Systems), Bleach (Sega), Samurai Ghost (Namco) are awful. And in comparison, Rockstar's Manhunt 2 - port seems like a gift from heaven.
You know that they are not directly representational to the graphics of the game. I say that you know because I know that you're not stupid. Watch the videos of Wii and you'd see that the graphics of games such as Super Mario Galaxy, Mario & Sonic, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, etc. are far better than what the pictures show.
Well then, I defy you to take the very BEST Wii screenshots you can find, and compare them to the WORST screenshots of any game I posted a picture from. The Wii will still show it's lack of power.
That's very right and the solution the problem is if the Western developers make GOOD games. The Japanese third parties aren't facing the same problems the Western third parties are facing.
Again, Japan's making a lot of crap as well.
No, they aren't a pleasant surprise, they show what the Wii is actually capable of instead of having anime like games such as Cooking Mamma, Playstation 2 ports, and games that look as graphically poor as Wii Sports.
From Nintendo's marketing and business approach, graphics are trivial. Mario Galaxy could look like a PS2 game and it wouldn't make a difference.
"
