Print 40 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Jun 10 at 8:08 PM

Reggie Fils-Aime doesn't see a problem with it, insisting that Wii U games will look similar when it launches

Yesterday proved to be an exciting time for Nintendo as it announced the Wii's successor, Wii U, at its press conference at E3. While the improved system specs and tablet-like controller seemed to have won many Nintendo fans over, the game footage looked like nothing the video game company has ever made before, and that's because it wasn't Nintendo footage at all

Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, admitted that some game footage at Nintendo's E3 press conference was taken from Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games. 

Why did Nintendo think this would be appropriate, you ask? Fils-Aime insists that Wii U games will be "comparable" to the graphics and game play of Xbox 360 and PS3 games once it releases. 

"We're talking a year away from when the system's going to launch," said Fils-Aime. "The system's going to be 1080p. You're going to see games that take full advantage of a system that has the latest technology and can push out some incredible graphics."

The game footage shown at Nintendo's press conference was from Xbox 360 and PS3 games like "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Online," "Madden Football" and "Assassin's Creed 2."

Nintendo Wii, Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3 are all part of the seventh generation of video game consoles. The Xbox 360 launched in 2005 while the Wii and PS3 were later released in 2006. Competition amongst the three consoles is pretty stiff as new game, hardware, and online networks are introduced in order to offer a better gaming experience. 

Sony and Microsoft's recent E3 briefings have brought news on a new portable PlayStation Vita, and Kinect-compatible games as well as voice recognition features. But out of the three competitors, Nintendo is the only one releasing a brand-new home console. 

Wii U will feature 1080p high-definition graphics over HDMI, an IBM Power-based multi-core processor, four USB 2.0 ports, and a built-in Secure Digital slot. The controller will feature an integrated 6.2" color LCD screen, two analog pads, a cross control pad, L/R buttons, A/B/X/Y buttons and ZL/ZR buttons. It will initially be featured in white, and will be released in 2012.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Nintendo
By theslug on 6/8/2011 3:23:57 PM , Rating: 4
Yes you'll have to excuse Nintendo for putting an emphasis on gameplay rather than on graphics and hardware.

And as far as using footage from other systems - who cares? The point was to show it was on par with what they were displaying.

RE: Nintendo
By MindParadox on 6/8/2011 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yes you'll have to excuse Nintendo for putting an emphasis on gameplay rather than on graphics and hardware.

I completely agree with this, when did gaming become more about what the game looks like than how it plays?

RE: Nintendo
By Lonyo on 6/8/2011 3:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well CPU power is somewhat of a concern. There's only so much you can do if you are limiting your CPU power.
GPU wise though, he's correct, you don't need amazing graphics to make a good game (sometimes it can help by adding atmosphere but it's not always required).

RE: Nintendo
By Fraggeren on 6/8/2011 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, imagine if you were still having to play on the Amiga, so excuse me if I would like more real physics, smoke and just more details and stuff in the world.

Anyway the core gameplay is more or less the same as it was 10 years ago, at least in the shooters I like to play. But of course I favor gameplay before graphics, it's just that the graphics is boring me now, look at unchartered 3, it just doesn't look good anymore.

RE: Nintendo
By Homerboy on 6/9/2011 1:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin.

RE: Nintendo
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 6:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with this, when did gaming become more about what the game looks like than how it plays?

It's not about how games look. But there is at least a MINIMUM standard for graphics, and the Wii just does not meet that. Sorry but it's not 1980 anymore, and we're not wowed by Pong. Are you also against Blu-Ray DVD's and HDTV's? I guess a VHS is "good enough", right?

Having said that, I'm not sure we should accept your premise that Nintendo has "great" game play. Some titles are fun, but the vast majority is kiddie crap and recycled Mario ports.

RE: Nintendo
By B3an on 6/9/2011 10:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, a post by you that i agree with. Nice.

RE: Nintendo
By robinthakur on 6/10/2011 6:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Nintendo got it about right with the Wii. Whilst I have a 3D 50" screen in my living room and HD Surround sound, I would never presume that everybody does. The wii looks just fine on it if you take into account that it isn't an HD console. It hardly looks like pong or VHS video is just wrong and elitist. The games are still enjoyable to play, and that is THE most important thing really. Anyway, the Wii U *is* an HD console so what are you getting your panties in a bunch over exactly?

If Sony, MS or Nintendo listened to bitter old trolls like you on the Internet they would probably go bankrupt overnight. Nintendo was king of the console business when you were probably in diapers.

RE: Nintendo
By boobo on 6/8/2011 7:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
And when did they become mutually exclusive?

The fact is that Atari 2600 games were fun but, as kids, we looked at the box art and wondered why the game graphics could not look like that.

We care about graphics because they are still not good enough... by far.

We want the holo-deck. If companies worry only about gameplay and not about advancing graphics, we are not going to get there in our lifetime... and who cares if we get there after that?

RE: Nintendo
By Strunf on 6/9/2011 8:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
Since ever?! Pick for instance trees, bushes, rocks, houses and what not, I sure wouldn't enjoy playing BF: Bad Company 2 if there was neither of them regardless of the gameplay, actually the visuals are one of the biggest part of the gameplay feeling cause after all your eyes are what allows you to see the game.
If you think I'm in the wrong go pick a PS, NES or win 95 game and play it again, I loved RE 2 on the PS and when I was going to play it on my PS3 I didn't even went past the menu screen, it just looked horrible beyond belief.

RE: Nintendo
By epobirs on 6/9/2011 8:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with this, when did gaming become more about what the game looks like than how it plays?

I think it was around 1975 or thereabouts. The first time someone produced a Pong knock-off with more attractive graphics than Pong, it got more interest.

Graphics capability has ALWAYS mattered. It isn't the sole make or break of games but it is a huge part of it. It sets the bar higher and makes everyone work harder to do more with the older hardware. I saw this when I was at a game developer in the late 80s. The primary platform was the Amiga but the big money maker was the Commodore 64. This was due to much larger installed base of the C64 but the Amiga was what was driving new creativity in the market and pushing C64 developers to perfect new and better optimizations. Consequently, the C64 delivered a lot more than it likely would have without that challenge to meet.

Whole genres depend on advances in graphics functionality. Take snow boarding games, for example. There had been attempts at capturing downhill skiing since the beginning but until the mid-90s generation of consoles there wasn't the right level of graphic capability to really create the appearance of hurtling down a steep slope and draw the player into the game. Since then, increasing power has meant not just better visuals but more complex interaction with those elements.

The Wii U is not likely to greatly raise the bar on graphics but it will at least draw even with the current competing consoles and not suffer too severe of a gap when Sony and Microsoft introduce their next generations. Unlike the Amiga/C64 days, publishers are far less inclined to produce a game for a weaker console unless they can come up with something unique to that version. Such ideas have been hard to find on the Wii and so sales have declined. Worse, some of the biggest sellers on the system don't rely on the Wii controllers and are easily duplicated on other platforms, much like how the bargain priced Ty the Tasmanian Tiger series closely followed the gameplay of the Jak & Daxter series.

Another benefit of more horsepower is making things accessible to developers on lesser budgets. A company like Square can spend tens of millions squeezing the most out of a machine but companies making less mainstream projects cannot come close to such expenditures for the revenues they can expect. Consider the progression of the Final Fantasy series on the PS1, then look at how the PS2 let anyone get similar results with far lesser investment. Things got that much better for everybody, developer and consumer alike.

It may be that Microsoft won't make as big a leap in their next generation either. It seems likely they'll want to make Kinect a standard part of the next Xbox and that will eat up a good chunk of the price tag, meaning either a higher launch price or a lesser chunk of the budget for the CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a more diverse set of console choices but it's a mixed bag for developers. The cost of each version increases but the difference can also improve the chances of selling more than one SKU to the same customer. Not every game lends itself to such variation. If such choices were easy, everybody would be a game publisher.

RE: Nintendo
By augiem on 6/9/2011 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, a long time ago. About PS1 era I'd say. To me, the game industry left me and others like me behind that day.

RE: Nintendo
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 6:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
Yes you'll have to excuse Nintendo for putting an emphasis on gameplay rather than on graphics and hardware.

Why must they be mutually exclusive? Since when did that happen? Sony and Microsoft can manage to offer great graphics AND game play.

It's 2011 for fuks sake. If you can't manage at least average graphics AND great game play, then I don't know what the problem is. Almost everyone has an HDTV today, you know?

RE: Nintendo
By BansheeX on 6/9/2011 3:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
That is such a lame copout. By that logic, the bigger emphasis on gameplay would be sticking with the hardware you already own instead of wasting resources developing a new one. Tell you what, I'll release a system with the power of a calculator and claim an emphasis on gameplay 1000 times greater than that of anyone.

Zelda and Metroid and Mario would look and play far better on more capable hardware, but Nintendo is too busy selling shallow lagwand titles in Apple white boxes by the truckloads to soccer moms and kiddies.

RE: Nintendo
By NobleKain on 6/9/2011 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
The "fanboy" aspect of this argument is that simply because PS3/XBox 360 has better graphics, they also have comparable gameplay to the Wii. That simply is false. (FYI: There's a reason most XBox360/PS3 owners ALSO own a Wii, but not necessarily the other "Graphics" competitor)

When Wii came out, they did innovate as much as PS3/XBox360 did... they just did it in gameplay. And they were so freaking successful with their innovative "motion gameplay", that now Microsoft and Sony are copying them. In otherwords, all 3 companies made a choice: Wii chose to innovate on the gameplay side, and the otehrs on the hradware side. If you ask me, Ninetendo chose the harder of the decisions, and managed to execute.

So with that in mind, look at where we are today: Wii is being hardware upgraded (Next-Gen hardware), and XBox360/PS3 are being gameplay mechanics upgraded (Also Next-gen hardware - i.e. Kinetic, etc.).

In essence, Wii is only "behind" because the others have already released their "next gen hardware".

So the point stands: To use "graphics hardware" as justification for a patently false argument that Nintendo has been "behind the times" is just pure stupidity. The only true "innovators" of the last battle were Nintendo employees... and as a sign of their genius, Sony and Microsoft have finally "caught up" to them (some might argue that Kinetic surpasses the Wii - myself included - but the point is: Wii's success was obviously the inspiration). Hey - plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery right? ;-)

RE: Nintendo
By tastyratz on 6/10/2011 11:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
that's the "problem" in that they are selling them by the truckload. If it wasn't any good they wouldn't, would they?

I agree personally that a good game is fun to play, but good graphics are what make the experience immersive. You might watch a crappy movie but be impressed, but you might also watch an incredible movie with poor underfunded cg and it takes away from the experience. There needs to be a balance and these elements go hand in hand. Not every game is going to be a great game with amazing gameplay, it is going to be hinged around a concept which if poorly executed leaves you a crappy game... with crappy graphics. At least on a more powerful system more powerful graphics can make up for some less stellar titles.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Latest Headlines

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki