Nintendo Conference

monkeyfudge

Super Paper Mario for the gamecube looks fun.

Good to see the gamecube hasn't been completely forgotten just yet.

ObeyGiant

Microsoft came across as a company just catching up. Example quote: "We're going to have GTAIV from day one!!!"

Sony came across as a company who are flailing. Example quote: "And we've ripped off Nintendo's controller. But with our controller too! Remember, the one that went with the fifty bajillion Playstations out there!"

Nintendo came across as a company who actually understands the 'casual gamer' and the idea of 'growing the market' and understands that forcing consumers to shell out the better part of 500 euros on games that are likely to give them post-traumatic stress disorder is not the way to do it. Example quote: "Zelda at launch" (enough said).

Ciaran500

http://files.nintendev.com/FACT_Upcoming_Games_Wii_FINAL.pdf

Noteworthy up coming Wii games
Resident Evil
Call of Duty 3
Metroid Prime
Super Mario
Zelda
Spongebob

monkeyfudge

Elebits? Is that the one that looks like a cleaning up your room simulator?

evad_lhorg

lol yea it is. and kitchen. i wont even do that at home so it isnt happenin in a game.

projectmayhem

am i the only one slightly concerned by the complete lack of graphical ability the wii has? i mean, i've seen better on the PSP.

while i get nintendo's idea of "feeling is believing" rather then "zomg HDR!", it's still nice to have some eye-candy to go along with the gameplay. it's not that expensive to bung a nice graphics card into a system these days

Goodshape

They did look nice though.

In my opinion console graphics took a huge step forward with the original XBox and GameCube (in comparison to PS1 and N64.. I could never get over the low res blockyness of it all). Graphics on those machines are still very impressive tbh. The next step that Sony and Microsoft are taking strikes me as being less impressive or important.

Judging by what the GameCube can do, something 'only' about three times as powerful sounds good enough to me. Like I said above, watching the demo of Red Steel got a lot more interesting when I stopped scrutinizing the graphics and started taking it in as a whole - imagining I was the one holding the wand. Then it didn't matter, it just looked like a fantastic gaming experience.

I'm also a big fan of the fact that developers will be familiar with the hardware, hopefully meaning we get more games sooner (no lag as they become accustomed to the machine) and they'll be able to concentrate on getting the most out of it - both in terms of graphics and control. 27 games on the floor this week would seem to support this.

Ciaran500

Some of them looked abit bland but Red Steel and Zelda looked great. It definatley has the potential for good graphics.

ObeyGiant

projectmayhem wrote:

am i the only one slightly concerned by the complete lack of graphical ability the wii has? i mean, i've seen better on the PSP.

while i get nintendo's idea of "feeling is believing" rather then "zomg HDR!", it's still nice to have some eye-candy to go along with the gameplay. it's not that expensive to bung a nice graphics card into a system these days

Well, I think there's two answers to this.

First is that Nintendo are positioning themselves towards the more casual market. To pull this off successfully, they can't be gearing themselves towards games that cost EUR50 a pop. Cheap-and-cheerful graphics (a la Brain Age) that cost next to nothing to develop will fly off the shelves. Well, hopefully. That's the theory anyway.

The second answer is that, as a load of first-generation games with developers just getting to grips with the hardware, they were quite nice. In terms of horsepower, we can put the Wii at "slightly better than Xbox" and "Good bit better than PS2". Look at the recent releases for those systems - Black is as pretty as any game I've played on any system. Shadow of the Colossus is just beautiful. My point here is to give developers time to understand the hardware and we'll start to see the benefits.

hairball

also folks as we've seen before, specs don't necessarily add up to performance...if it IS 3 x gamecube i'm sure it'll be able to handle some beautiful games but as previous poster said it's not just about the graphics, tbh, it IS nice to see graphical advancements made in games but not at the cost of originality or innovation, also, i'm sure a lot of these games have right up to launch date dev times remaining, so i'm sure extra polish will get added.
tbh tho if i want games running at ridiculous resolutions with beautiful textures and loads of everything happening onscreen, i'll play my PC, it's how the experience will differ from my PC that's attracting me to Wii

Blowfish

projectmayhem wrote:

am i the only one slightly concerned by the complete lack of graphical ability the wii has? i mean, i've seen better on the PSP.

while i get nintendo's idea of "feeling is believing" rather then "zomg HDR!", it's still nice to have some eye-candy to go along with the gameplay. it's not that expensive to bung a nice graphics card into a system these days

I kindof am, but in reality (despite the fact that I love programming graphical stuff) graphics doesn't actually mean that much to me. I find as long as the graphics are done well enough for it to be playable, and the gameplay is fun, i'm happy. In fact, I have gone back to emulation/old PC games instead of newer stuff, simply because they are more fun. Dungeon Master anyone?

RE*AC*TOR

projectmayhem wrote:

am i the only one slightly concerned by the complete lack of graphical ability the wii has? i mean, i've seen better on the PSP.

while i get nintendo's idea of "feeling is believing" rather then "zomg HDR!", it's still nice to have some eye-candy to go along with the gameplay. it's not that expensive to bung a nice graphics card into a system these days

it IS that expensive. Look how much the PS3 is going to cost - $600?

I would expect the Wii to be closer to $250. Couple that with the supply issue. I'm sure it will be a lot easier for nintendo to massproduce their system in the shorter time period, because they are using less cutting-edge components.

Bottom line for anyone who has an issue with this - get a PSP and a DS. Get a few of the better games for each - come back and tell me which one you play more.

I've had both, I no longer have the PSP. Some of the games on the DS I class as the best games I've ever played. Without the graphical oomph.

Vegeta

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

it IS that expensive. Look how much the PS3 is going to cost - $600?

I would expect the Wii to be closer to $250. Couple that with the supply issue. I'm sure it will be a lot easier for nintendo to massproduce their system in the shorter time period, because they are using less cutting-edge components.

Bottom line for anyone who has an issue with this - get a PSP and a DS. Get a few of the better games for each - come back and tell me which one you play more.

I've had both, I no longer have the PSP. Some of the games on the DS I class as the best games I've ever played. Without the graphical oomph.

the PS3 is costin $600 because of the Blue Ray player and uber powerful processor. Graphics cards aint that expensive but that is not the reason the Wii appeared to have poor graphics, firstly these are first gen games for the console (PDZ looks like polished crap) and secondly the feeds over the internet are crap quality in the first place, crap in = crap out

flogen

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I've had both, I no longer have the PSP. Some of the games on the DS I class as the best games I've ever played. Without the graphical oomph.

here here.

The Wii will have better looking games from an eariler stage too (in theory), because the architecture is the same as the GC; the others are new and so take time to get to grips with... that means that devs wanting good graphics will know all the tricks to squeeze as much life out of the machine as they can.

Saying that I'd rather an original game with NES graphics to a dull GTA clone with hyperrealistic graphics that look more real than life itself.

As for it costing more; I'm not sure about hardware but for Developers making ultradetailed games they need more workers, more workers pushes cost up which is why 360 games cost a tenner more than the last gen.... Im sure the ps3 games will be no different

Blowfish

flogen wrote:

here here.

The Wii will have better looking games from an eariler stage too (in theory), because the architecture is the same as the GC; the others are new and so take time to get to grips with... that means that devs wanting good graphics will know all the tricks to squeeze as much life out of the machine as they can.

Saying that I'd rather an original game with NES graphics to a dull GTA clone with hyperrealistic graphics that look more real than life itself.

I wouldn't be quite so convinced about the Wii having greater graphics early on. I've looked at the API's(code libraries) for the PS3, and they are pretty damn good, and very easy to get to grips with. Sony and IBM have put a hell of a lot of work into making them very easy to get the best out of.

I definitely agree with you about the original games though. It's one of the reasons that i'm planning on getting a Wii, and will be ignoring the 360 completely.

projectmayhem

ObeyGiant wrote:

Well, I think there's two answers to this.

First is that Nintendo are positioning themselves towards the more casual market. To pull this off successfully, they can't be gearing themselves towards games that cost EUR50 a pop. Cheap-and-cheerful graphics (a la Brain Age) that cost next to nothing to develop will fly off the shelves. Well, hopefully. That's the theory anyway.

while that's a nice sentiment, i don't think that's how it'll work. the cheap and cheerful games on DS still cost the same as the bigger budget games (Burnout and what not), i'd say it'll be the exact same for the Wii.

ObeyGiant wrote:

The second answer is that, as a load of first-generation games with developers just getting to grips with the hardware, they were quite nice. In terms of horsepower, we can put the Wii at "slightly better than Xbox" and "Good bit better than PS2". Look at the recent releases for those systems - Black is as pretty as any game I've played on any system. Shadow of the Colossus is just beautiful. My point here is to give developers time to understand the hardware and we'll start to see the benefits.

this is true, but i remember looking at the PS2, xbox and gamecube at launch and thinking how much of a giant leap they took. same goes for ps3 and 360 (though it's slightly dampened by the fact i bought a fancy PC), but not for Wii. i don't doubt there'll be great games, i'm just worried that in 3 years time there'll be a PSP2 or Xbox Mobile that's 2 or 3 times more powerful then the Wii, which potentially makes the Wii a novelty item, rather then a cultural icon.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

it IS that expensive. Look how much the PS3 is going to cost - $600?

I would expect the Wii to be closer to $250. Couple that with the supply issue. I'm sure it will be a lot easier for nintendo to massproduce their system in the shorter time period, because they are using less cutting-edge components.

Bottom line for anyone who has an issue with this - get a PSP and a DS. Get a few of the better games for each - come back and tell me which one you play more.

I've had both, I no longer have the PSP. Some of the games on the DS I class as the best games I've ever played. Without the graphical oomph.

PS3 is expensive because they spent billions on CELL and RSX. truely massive pieces of technology. €600 is a bargain for that technology. it'd be a €2,500 PC for that kind of power.

buying a year old graphics card costs very little. when you're nintendo, and mass produce that technology, the cost drops by 2/3rds. the technology maybe slightly old, but it'll pump out something that can keep up with sony and microsoft.

though i do agree - there are some manky looking games in terms of graphics on DS, but they're far superior to PSP games..

i'm more worried about 3 years down the road, when ps3 and 360 are pumping out graphics that look better then real life, and nintendo's stuck with a cheap as hell console with great games that hurt your eyes.

Ciaran500

projectmayhem wrote:

PS3 is expensive because they spent billions on CELL and RSX. truely massive pieces of technology. €600 is a bargain for that technology. it'd be a €2,500 PC for that kind of power.

It would be a bargin if the Cell and RSX were as good as we were told they were. So far none of the ingame footage has really surpassed anything on the 360.

Giblet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Htp7p02w4

projectmayhem

Ciaran500 wrote:

It would be a bargin if the Cell and RSX were as good as we were told they were. So far none of the ingame footage has really surpassed anything on the 360.

MGS4 is better then anything i've ever seen in my life, PC or 360. and resistence: fall of man is better then any of the FPS games at least on 360 (IMO)...

and before you retort about mgs4 not being in-game footage, it's the engine rendering all that in real-time. it's not just an indication of "what it can look like"... that is what it'll look like.

Ciaran500

Just cause its in engine does not mean that what the game can look like. It only has to load a limited area with limited sounds, limited amount of textures and isn't running AI or physics.

This is why so many of those trailers look amazing and are a step above ingame footage.

flogen

projectmayhem wrote:

and before you retort about mgs4 not being in-game footage, it's the engine rendering all that in real-time. it's not just an indication of "what it can look like"... that is what it'll look like.

Aren't we going over old teritory from the PS2 launch with this though?
MGS4 and Halo 3 are both rendered in real time on their respective machines, but I don't think either game will actually look like that... it's like the facial detail demos we saw for the PS2 which the machine was capable of, but only when it was working on that one segment and nothing else; I bet the same applies here, when the footage is not actual ingame footage a lot of the demand can be taken away and the machines can focus on other aspects.

Don't get me wrong, if either or both games look as well in game as they do in their trailers I'll be a happy man, but I'm not expecting it at all

Giblet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPPXIUoM9Mk

GrumPy

Giblet wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPPXIUoM9Mk

cool.

evad_lhorg

I like light guns:)

Ciaran500

hairball

projectmayhem wrote:

MGS4 is better then anything i've ever seen in my life, PC or 360. and resistence: fall of man is better then any of the FPS games at least on 360 (IMO)...

and before you retort about mgs4 not being in-game footage, it's the engine rendering all that in real-time. it's not just an indication of "what it can look like"... that is what it'll look like.

yup possibly it is..as for resistance...seen crysis at all??

evad_lhorg

hey what happened to my photo?!

steviec

flogen wrote:

Aren't we going over old teritory from the PS2 launch with this though?
MGS4 and Halo 3 are both rendered in real time on their respective machines, but I don't think either game will actually look like that... it's like the facial detail demos we saw for the PS2 which the machine was capable of, but only when it was working on that one segment and nothing else; I bet the same applies here, when the footage is not actual ingame footage a lot of the demand can be taken away and the machines can focus on other aspects.

Don't get me wrong, if either or both games look as well in game as they do in their trailers I'll be a happy man, but I'm not expecting it at all

Yes we are going over old territory from the PS2 launch. And in that case MGS2 looked just as good when released as it did at E3 when everyone was saying it was prerendered.

MGS4 will look exactly as it does in that trailer I have no doubt. Although I'm far more intrigued with what Hideo is thinking about that tilt sensor right now.

The Halo video I've no idea, nothing about it looked like it couldn't be done real time, there's tons of untapped potential in both the 360 and PS3 and games will keep pushing the boundaries for the next few years.

ObeyGiant

projectmayhem wrote:

while that's a nice sentiment, i don't think that's how it'll work. the cheap and cheerful games on DS still cost the same as the bigger budget games (Burnout and what not), i'd say it'll be the exact same for the Wii.

Anything to back this up? Because as I understand it, Brain Training - one of the biggest sellers on the DS and the game that has succeeded in marketing the DS to the older generations (and the game I chose as an example of a "cheap and cheerful" game) - took a team of just 9 developers 90 days to complete. Unless these nine developers were getting paid in pure gold, I can't see how this costs the same as a larger, AAA title.

And this is just within the DS itself. I'm not going to even bother comparing the cost of developing an average game for the DS to the cost of developing an average game for the PSP.

For further reading, you should check out Iwata's keynote speech from this year's GDC. In it, he talks about how the Revolution's business model will also take into account cheaper, riskier games.

projectmayhem wrote:

buying a year old graphics card costs very little. when you're nintendo, and mass produce that technology, the cost drops by 2/3rds. the technology maybe slightly old, but it'll pump out something that can keep up with sony and microsoft.

I had written out something very long here to explain how you're missing the point and that Nintendo aren't interested in "keeping up with sony and microsoft", but if you still don't get it after all this time, I don't think my one post will make much of a difference.

projectmayhem

hairball wrote:

yup possibly it is..as for resistance...seen crysis at all??

aye but crysis, as it stands right now, is a PC-only game. and the developments in PC gaming are coming thick and fast so i don't expect PC's to be eating anyones dust