The Video Game Critic

I know this is a fairly obvious point but, as good as the Wii is doing now, how is it going to look in say 2011? I mean, the graphics aren't an issue(yet) but what about four years from now when the power of the Wii has been tapped and the other two systems still have untapped resources? Now, mind you, I'm not that big into graphics but when they affect who puts what on which system then it becomes an issue. I mean, the Wii is still getting ports from last gen but what happens when the last gen is completely dead and the 360 and ps3 are too advanced to port over? I read an interview with the director of Assassin's Creed who said that a Wii port is ABSOLUTELY OUT OF THE QUESTION. When you have such a blunt answer, such as that, it's not a matter of "no, we refuse to do it" but rather "it's impossible to pull it off."

As much as I love the Wii, I do think Nintendo should have thought twice about the amount of power they put into their system. I don't think they should have stood toe-to-toe but maybe narrowed the gap just a bit more than they did. The graphics aren't the problem, it's what developers are going to be willing to put out four to five years from now. Yes, a developer could make a 2D sequel to Ninja Gaiden at a rock-bottom development cost but, aside from the minority of 2D diehards, who in the hell is going to play it? I think the Wii will do well, maybe it'll even surpass my expectations, but I think for the next race Nintendo should look at the horsepower as some sort of factor. Once again, before you start flaming, just think about that: how many brand new games are being announced for the Wii monthly as opposed to games being announced for the ps3 and 360? The Wii is getting games but if the 3rd party games don't sell then they'll stop coming...that's one problem Nintendo has. Hardly anybody that buys a Nintendo systems invests in third party titles and that's what hurts them!

Well some systems like the NES or original Playstation, or indeed the 2600 carry on for ridiculous periods of time after they become obsolete technically speaking, so it is possible for the Wii to continue even if it is far behind the other two.

If the Wii holds up and is a big success I think a lot of publishers will seperately develop games for it, and it will get completely different games from the other two and will go in a different direction. It should still get plenty of software that way. Of course if it doesn't keep up its momentum it could die a very rabid death once the other two really pull ahead, but current performence does not suggest that happening.

The responsibility (outside of providing good, cheap dev kits, which Nintendo has in fact done) to sell third party games on the Nintendo is squarely the responsibility of the 3rd parties themselves. They must make good games the public is willing to buy.

However, it is a mythology to think that 3rd party games haven't sold well. Ubisoft in particular had excellent success with Red Steel (in terms of sales: it was the second most purchased title during the launch period). EA has done well. Konami has been a great early adopter, with Elebits being a sleeper hit early. Any system with popularity is going to get loads of CRAP thrown at them. Look at the used PS2 game rack lately. You are going to find a lot of crappy games for under ten bucks at the local Gamestop. It appears very clear that the Wii is going to be the system that gets the largest install base in the early going. So, you'll see some great games, but also a TON of crap. But the crap doesn't mean that third party games aren't doing well.

But to your point: If the worst case scenario for Wii is that it sells well for a few years (maybe running out of gas by 2011) and runs out of steam, it is still a BIG win for Nintendo, so as long as the sales rates hold and they recapture market share.

Even still, you have to remember that the price point is as big a factor as anything else. Honestly, I wondered if they weren't making a mistake in making the system $250 instead of $200 (they didn't because I didn't realize Wii Sports was such an important game; it's the pack in game that drives up the price). In any event, you have to believe there will be another price slash at some point (with a "no pack in" system at minimum), which will drive up adoption rates even more.

Spending more money on more power would have surely put the Wii on Xbox 360's footing, which would have hurt Nintendo's efforts considerably.

But remember, we are talking about a machine about 2.5 times as capable as the Gamecube was. It isn't as weak as some of the early efforts make it look.
Have you played Sonic on Wii yet? It's looks (easily) as good as any of the early Xbox 360 efforts, save for Fight Night.

-Rob 

Most 3rd party games are being developed for the PS3 and 360. I don't think there are any games (aside from movie tie-ins) that are being developed for all three. Now, if Nintendo sells 100 millions Wii's it won't matter, people will make games for it. Right now 3rd party games are just terrible (for the Wii)and the outlook is bleak. It will be interesting a year from now when it can be determined if the Wii is some bonafide hit or a novelty that the casual fans have tossed aside. I was going to buy one but I barely have time to enjoy my 360 and PSP so I am going to pass on it.

It doesn't matter to me, it won't matter to a lot of people. It certainly won't matter to the casuals they are hoping to court, but right now the good ship Wii is getting swamped so bad at the dock by the hardcore,  that they can't even steam to their blue ocean. I recently read my favorit Beat-, er Nintendo exec, George Harrison, say they will not address hardware upgrades until it is absolutely neccesary so to do. Basicly, they are unconcerned and don't care. Nothing like overwhelming success to put that chip back on Nintendo's shoulder.

Look no further than the success of PS 2 this past Christmas in spite of 3 new gen system to compete against. Clearly, cash is a much bigger issue to gamers than processing power.

Also, realize we are heading into a new chapter in the world of gaming, where budget concernes will begin to play a much bigger role than hardware capabilities in the development of how good a game will look. The cost may become greater than the reward, and the time spent on visuals will continue to take away from time spent on other important aspects of making a game good. You cannot have the best of both worlds, game quality may begin to drop and stagnate because of overemphasis on graphics.

No More Heroes, Dewey's Adventure, Manhunt 2, Opoona, The Bigs, Madden 08, NBA Live 08.

That's off the top of my head.

Can I bargain with you and at least get you to think it is "passable?" (-:


-Rob

Well, remember back to 1977 and the blocky mono-colored games that came with the 2600. No one would guess by 1982 we'd have stuff like DEMON ATTACK and PITFALL, then by the end of the decade, SOLARIS and ROAD RUNNER! Who sez the wii's graphics won't get better over time too? I think they will. Developers gotta get off their lazy butts and work AROUND the problems, and not just say "it can't do it!"... we'd be playing all pong-like games in the 2600 library if old programmers had that attitude!

The Wii's graphics will be fine. I never saw a first party Gamecube/ Wii game where I thought it was too ugly to play.

Funk

Touching on points made by other posters, I think a lot of Wii's success has to do with pricepoint.  As long as Sony keeps trying to sell their unloved PS3 at $600, rest assured, there will be games on the Wii.  Xbox 360 likewise.  When these systems get down to the $250 range, assuming that MS and Sony don't just play a shell game by taking a hit on the console price but insisting on higher game-price-raising kickbacks from developers, they will see wider adoption.  When more of the 360 and PS3 are out in the world, more developers will make and sell more games for them.  That will probably bring the party at Nintendo to an end.

But at this rate, it'll be the next console generation before that happens.

Hey, that makes me wonder: if it takes the companies longer to amortize their investments in the current generation of hardware, do you think the life of this generation will be prolonged? 

Nah, because if Microsoft in particular cared about making Xbox profitable before it moved on, there would be no Xbox 360.

Besides, I think there is a finite amount of time any console can last before you make a new offering. If you don't have something new in the pipeline by year 4 or 5 of your curent console, you are hurting yourself. Nintendo blundered badly by delaying the N64.

-Rob