6th Gen Nintendo--should it try to be the most powerful?

[Anarchist420]

I was hoping what they'd do is go with a 20 nm manufacturing process, a 5770-class (or better) GPU and they could use an 8 core Power PC @ say, 1.3 GHz. They should use a traditional controller, let you use your own hard drive (have an e-SATA port or two), and have direct downloads only. Plus a traditional controller and option to use a mouse and keyboard of your choice for games that need it. And of course, be compact, run at low temps and be 100% reliable like the 1st model of the Sega Saturn was.

They really shouldn't go with a custom GPU. The Gamecube's GPU had too many trade-offs compared to the PS2. It had better textures, but a lower precision zbuffer (the PS2's extra 8 bits of depth precision was apparent and even surpassed the DX9 spec which was only D24S8) and could only display 262,144 onscreen colors while the PS2 could display 16,777,216 colors plus 8 bit alpha blending; the difference was apparent in the banding and blotchiness that a lot of gamecube games had. Gamecube games appeared more colorful because of better textures, but they also had more artifacts due to having a weakass 18 bit RGB frame buffer.
It also used YUV output and had a tradeoff of having fast load times but limited storage.

They really failed the hardcore gamer with the Wii.

I think that would bring the audience they lost back, and they could make their franchises how I envisioned them. Also, they would be making it the first time since the Super NES that their system's version of a multi-platform title would be the best a majority of the time.

They can still be innovative enough with powerful hardware, they've got a huge surplus and a good enough relationship with their partners to sell a powerhouse 2 years from now for $299 at a profit.

Should Nintendo take that road, or should they focus solely on being the innovator again? I really wanted to know what other people thought about it.

 

[zerocool84]

They could care less if they failed the hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamers don't bring in enough money. Casual gamers are the big target. Casual gamers make games like Call of Duty and Madden huge.

 

[Aikouka]

I was just thinking about this and a somewhat interesting thought came to my mind...

Zero is right that casual gamers is really Nintendo's current aim... they noticed people playing games such as Bejeweled and enjoying simplicity as well as ease of use. Now, the market has one more of what I believe you could call a big player in the casual gaming atmosphere... Facebook.

It may sound a little silly and it's not really Facebook but actually the applications that are created for it (Farmville, etc). But one thing these apps can gain are interactions with your friends through Facebook.

Imagine if Nintendo took advantage with this and partnered up with a site like Facebook or took their own route (probably a bad idea)... they could create a "networked" console allowing similar connections in games.

Now, this is probably making a few people reading it throw up in their mouths a bit, and that's understandable, but you have to consider that some people would actually like this sort of consolized social network gaming (and still including normal games... Mario, Zelda, etc).

 

[boomhower]

Nintendo has hit a gold mine with the Wii. The question is was it popular because it was for casual gamers or because it had a new control mechanism and a lower price?

 

[Anubis]

Nintendo has hit a gold mine with the Wii. The question is was it popular because it was for casual gamers or because it had a new control mechanism and a lower price?

both to a degree but moreso IMO its because of the gamers/games on it being really fucking fun and simple.

they gave the market what it wanted, fun games, instead of going the Xbox/PS3 route and just pumping out shit with really good graphics

 

[BD2003]

I'd love them to, but they wont. Lets not kid ourselves. Theyve been incredibly successful doing the exact opposite, by racing to the bottom, not the top. They'd be insane not to continue that trend.

I'd be shocked if the next nintendo console will even match the current xbox 360.

To answer the last post's question...yes. It was popular because it was for casual gamers, AND had a new control mechanism that casuals could understand, and a lower price they were willing to pay. All while maintaining the kid friendly appeal, and the longtime appeal of key franchises like mario, zelda and metroid.

Because whatever they do with the next console, when the next mario, zelda, metroid, smash bros, etc come out, we all already know we're going to buy it, and love it, regardless of the specs.

 

[smackababy]

All Nintendo systems have sold well, except maybe the Gamecube. It isn't because of the system itself, it is because of the first party titles they produce. At this point, Nintendo doesn't even care if third party developers are on board.

I would say their next console is something similar to the Wii, only "better". It will be more powerful, but the next gen Xbox and Playstation will be far more.

 

[darkswordsman17]

As time goes by, the more it seems to me that Nintendo should get out of the hardware business, from the home console standpoint. I think they'd do very well with a portable, and then making their games for someone else's system, possibly with their own branded peripherals. This way they don't have to worry about so many of the technical aspects, which, personally, it seems to me they're pretty lacking in. In fact, I think that is why Nintendo didn't aim for a system more competitive in horsepower, they are lacking in the ability to take advantage of it.

If they did that, I'd expect they would try to partner with someone such that they have significant input on the system (sorta like what they were planning back with Sony before that fell apart). Microsoft would be a good fit, as I think they really fit different demographics (age, regions) so they'd really fill in gaps for each other's business. Microsoft has a better online system and would offer good software support. That being said, I think Apple would be a good one as well, as they seem to have somewhat similar philosophies, and there's been rumors that Apple's been wanting to get into gaming in a big way.

I don't really think we'll see Nintendo do that, rather I would like to see them do that. Then they could license tech and focus on the gameplay and other aspects as that's what they do best. Just thinking about Metroid and Zelda on say UE 4.0 makes me drool.

I'm actually glad we haven't seen a WiiHD, as it would pretty much just be the Wii upconverted, which is pointless and won't fix their graphics inferiority.

 

[Fox5]

The less cutting edge a system is, the less reason there is for it to exist. We're at the point where TVs and blurray players could cheaply integrate hardware on par (or better than) the wii. Why not just partner with every CE manufacturer and get the wii embedded into just about every electronic device?

 

[purbeast0]

both to a degree but moreso IMO its because of the gamers/games on it being really fucking fun and simple.

they gave the market what it wanted, fun games, instead of going the Xbox/PS3 route and just pumping out shit with really good graphics

lol @ wii having better games than the xbox/ps3.

the reason it's doing so well is because of how casual it is and how easy it is to pick up and play and it's very cheap entry price (granted if accessories are bought the price quickly rises).

it also doesn't have the 'geek/nerd' vibe that the ps3 and xbox360 have, and it has a more childish vibe to it. parents can play it with their kids as well without having to have any real good hand/eye coordination required for hardcore games.

the simple party wii games are fun for people to play who don't even like video games (or didnt prior) because of the new control scheme. instead of bowling with a tiny stick in your thumb, you actually wave your arm. but little do those people know you can bowl just as well w/the flick of a wrist.

granted the accuracy of stuff like that is terrible and not even close to being realistic, but the casual gamer does not give a crap and neither do mom and dad who are still having a good time bowling.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Most of the comments in this thread assume that better graphics means a better gameplay experience. While I like looking at superb graphics as much as the next guy, there are a lot of cases where it isn't warranted. Wii Sports Resort doesn't get any more entertaining with photorealistic graphics. Hyper-realistic Mario doesn't retain the cartoony appeal of the character.

Would I love to be able to get cross-platform titles on the Wii and have them look like they do on other consoles? Yes, but what's the business case? If you increase the hardware costs and the software production costs, how much are you expanding your market (particularly given a likely increase in those costs to the consumer)? The current generation suggests not nearly as much as not trying to compete in that space.

 

[Onita]

As time goes by, the more it seems to me that Nintendo should get out of the hardware business, from the home console standpoint. I think they'd do very well with a portable, and then making their games for someone else's system, possibly with their own branded peripherals. This way they don't have to worry about so many of the technical aspects, which, personally, it seems to me they're pretty lacking in. In fact, I think that is why Nintendo didn't aim for a system more competitive in horsepower, they are lacking in the ability to take advantage of it.

If they did that, I'd expect they would try to partner with someone such that they have significant input on the system (sorta like what they were planning back with Sony before that fell apart). Microsoft would be a good fit, as I think they really fit different demographics (age, regions) so they'd really fill in gaps for each other's business. Microsoft has a better online system and would offer good software support. That being said, I think Apple would be a good one as well, as they seem to have somewhat similar philosophies, and there's been rumors that Apple's been wanting to get into gaming in a big way.

I don't really think we'll see Nintendo do that, rather I would like to see them do that. Then they could license tech and focus on the gameplay and other aspects as that's what they do best. Just thinking about Metroid and Zelda on say UE 4.0 makes me drool.

I'm actually glad we haven't seen a WiiHD, as it would pretty much just be the Wii upconverted, which is pointless and won't fix their graphics inferiority.

They were the most successful console of this generation, and printed money because of their console. They weren't selling for a loss (ever?). Why would they leave the console business and get into games?

EDIT: One of the reasons I think they were so successful is because of age. Wii has the most games friendly for young kids and parent's don't have to worry as much about violence, etc.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

The PS3 and XBOx target teenagers. The Wii targets pre-teens. It is a rather simple forula. They have the market cornered and their audience doesn't even know what a GPU is. The important aspect is cost. Low cost will keep parents happy.

Cost will drive architecture. PERIOD

 

[mugs]

Most of those words in your OP didn't mean anything to me. I look at a picture and it's either pretty or not pretty, I don't care why or how it was generated.

I had high hopes for the Wii. I knew Nintendo wanted to attract older gamers, at least in the past (i.e. Resident Evil 4), and I thought with all of their hype and the resulting market share they'd be able to attract developers who would make GOOD games for the Wii. Didn't happen.

I think Nintendo has already lost older gamers (I'm talking about older gamers, not older people who play games).

Nintendo has done a great job of exploiting their "niche," and they should keep doing it. It's not really a "niche" when it's the biggest part of the market. I mean, The Sims is the best selling PC game of all time. We are the niche. Nintendo is swimming in money because they ignored us. At least Microsoft and Sony aren't ignoring us while they also go after Nintendo's market. And Nintendo still gets money from those of us who still buy their systems just to play their awesome first-party games.

I don't expect that I'll buy the next Nintendo system when it launches, but I'll probably buy it eventually. As long as they continue to make great Zelda, Mario, Fire Emblem and Advance Wars games I'll keep buying their systems.

 

[fatpat268]

Hyper-realistic Mario doesn't retain the cartoony appeal of the character.

I agree, but at the same time, better hardware allows nintendo to explore new avenues. Personally, I'm kind of tired of mario, zelda, donkey kong, etc. These game mascots have carried nintendo for more than 20 years, but it's time for something new IMO.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

i really thought this thread was sarcasm....they would be really stupid to turn their backs on this very nice niche market they have carved out.

 

[Deeko]

I was hoping what they'd do is go with a 20 nm manufacturing process, a 5770-class (or better) GPU and they could use an 8 core Power PC @ say, 1.3 GHz. They should use a traditional controller, let you use your own hard drive (have an e-SATA port or two), and have direct downloads only. Plus a traditional controller and option to use a mouse and keyboard of your choice for games that need it. And of course, be compact, run at low temps and be 100% reliable like the 1st model of the Sega Saturn was.

They really shouldn't go with a custom GPU. The Gamecube's GPU had too many trade-offs compared to the PS2. It had better textures, but a lower precision zbuffer (the PS2's extra 8 bits of depth precision was apparent and even surpassed the DX9 spec which was only D24S8) and could only display 262,144 onscreen colors while the PS2 could display 16,777,216 colors plus 8 bit alpha blending; the difference was apparent in the banding and blotchiness that a lot of gamecube games had. Gamecube games appeared more colorful because of better textures, but they also had more artifacts due to having a weakass 18 bit RGB frame buffer.
It also used YUV output and had a tradeoff of having fast load times but limited storage.

They really failed the hardcore gamer with the Wii.

I think that would bring the audience they lost back, and they could make their franchises how I envisioned them. Also, they would be making it the first time since the Super NES that their system's version of a multi-platform title would be the best a majority of the time.

They can still be innovative enough with powerful hardware, they've got a huge surplus and a good enough relationship with their partners to sell a powerhouse 2 years from now for $299 at a profit.

Should Nintendo take that road, or should they focus solely on being the innovator again? I really wanted to know what other people thought about it.

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure you're just being sarcastic or something here. Its obvious that your first paragraph about what it should have is the exact opposite of everything Nintendo is aiming at.

 

[tk149]

More advanced hardware = higher costs

Nintendo's target market prefers lower prices to prettier graphics.

Even a mouse/kb control combination is more complicated than what the casual gaming market would like.

 

[Imaginer]

I agree, but at the same time, better hardware allows nintendo to explore new avenues. Personally, I'm kind of tired of mario, zelda, donkey kong, etc. These game mascots have carried nintendo for more than 20 years, but it's time for something new IMO.

Nintendo did give us something new. Pikmin and Elite Beat Agents. Also revived Punch Out, the Excite series, started something new with the Wii Sports. People just don't care about new things from Nintendo as they expect the familiar to show up.

 

[Onita]

I agree, but at the same time, better hardware allows nintendo to explore new avenues. Personally, I'm kind of tired of mario, zelda, donkey kong, etc. These game mascots have carried nintendo for more than 20 years, but it's time for something new IMO.

Yes, getting rid of what you are known for is always a good business decision.

 

[fatpat268]

Yes, getting rid of what you are known for is always a good business decision.

I never said they had to get rid of their staples, just add something new and compelling.

Sure, they've tried with a couple of different games before, but they don't throw the same weight behind those games like they do with mario or zelda.

Wii sports will probably be their next big franchise, but as it is, it still feels like a glorified tech demo.

 

[smackababy]

I never said they had to get rid of their staples, just add something new and compelling.

Sure, they've tried with a couple of different games before, but they don't throw the same weight behind those games like they do with mario or zelda.

Wii sports will probably be their next big franchise, but as it is, it still feels like a glorified tech demo.

Name a Zelda game that was a let down? Despite "carrying" Nintendo for 20+ years, they are are all, have been, very good games.

 

[Anarchist420]

They were the most successful console of this generation, and printed money because of their console. They weren't selling for a loss (ever?). Why would they leave the console business and get into games?

They should leave the console market or at least make high-tech games of their franchises for the PC or other consoles.

The Super NES was one of their most successful, so if they went back to that, they could do just as well.

I agree, but at the same time, better hardware allows nintendo to explore new avenues. Personally, I'm kind of tired of mario, zelda, donkey kong, etc. These game mascots have carried nintendo for more than 20 years, but it's time for something new IMO.

EXACTLY. Better hardware can make just as big of a difference with fantasy games as it does with realistic games.

More advanced hardware = higher costs

Nintendo's target market prefers lower prices to prettier graphics.

2 years from now though, a 5770 GPU would be like $70-80. And the wii is pretty damn expensive if you want the most out of it. All the accessories really add up.

 

[Deeko]

They should leave the console market or at least make high-tech games of their franchises for the PC or other consoles.

The Super NES was one of their most successful, so if they went back to that, they could do just as well.

per wiki -

Gamecube - 22 million
Nintendo 64 - 33 million
Super Nintendo - 49 million
NES - 61.91 million
Wii - 70.93 million and counting

SNES falls right in the middle, with the Wii (which you're railing against) leading the pack with plenty more to sell. Not to mention their success in the portable market - which is pretty much always lagging behind the competition in terms of raw power (Game Boy vs Game Gear, DS vs PSP come to mind)

 

[Onita]

They should leave the console market or at least make high-tech games of their franchises for the PC or other consoles.

The Super NES was one of their most successful, so if they went back to that, they could do just as well.


EXACTLY. Better hardware can make just as big of a difference with fantasy games as it does with realistic games.


2 years from now though, a 5770 GPU would be like $70-80. And the wii is pretty damn expensive if you want the most out of it. All the accessories really add up.

I have no idea what you're arguing now. You want them to leave the console market... why?

And what incentive do they have to make games for other consoles? Is Halo made for ps3? Why would you ever make a game for your competitor's product? If i want to play Mario and its for the xbox, that ruins one incentive for the Wii.