WiiLoaded.com - Wii Forum and News

Yeah, I'm with you there. But the notion sounds interesting. Always good to at least speculate. Can't hurt.

Maybe instead of bringing one out at the same time as the Wii they can focus on their next gen console and give it even more advanced motion controls and enough power to rival the PS4 and next Xbox. Then Nintendo could really have a chance of dominating the entire market. I just hope they don't stay too casual and still cater for the hardcore group.

but why should they?

Nintendo is already making a killing off the Wii. the library is increasing practically every week. the console they created is one of the best they've made in Nintendo's lifespan. the games they are creating for it are made specifically for it and most play quite well. there are some titles that are there basically just for a cheap thrill like Cooking Mama or Mario Party, but also games which require a good amount of effort to really enjoy the game, like Godfather or Need for Speed with several more currently in development or plan on being produced like a Star Wars title and Manhunt 2. now here are the topics everyone will continue to debate over and many people probably won't even finish my post because they see the world one way and refuse to listen to anything to contradict it. the topics are of course graphics and games for the "hardcore".

graphics is easier, so i'll start there, and it's easily explained with a simple question: Why do you need better graphics? let's go through the entire history of video games and look at the most identifiable games ever created. Pong, Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Final Fantasy VII, (as much as i hate to say it) Halo. out of these games, and many more, how many have had realistic graphics that absolutely blew you out of your seat? which ones made you feel like you were right there in the action? did you wet yourself the first time you saw Pong because it made you think the ball was in your living room? doubtful. were you sweating because you thought the Goomba or Koopa was actually going to bite you in the ass in Mario? i don't think so. of all the highest rated and most enjoyed games ever created, i would say 5% or less had really good graphics. so why did people play those other 95% before? they may have had good graphics for the generation, sure, but better yet, why do people still play them? are Virtual Console games selling well because they look so amazing? no. it's because they're fun. they were fun when you played them 10, 15, 20 years ago and they're still fun. when Final Fantasy VII came out, did people ***** because it had such bad graphics? let's face it, FFVII really didn't have that good of graphics, but that's ok. the story was amazing, the game created emotional responses in gamers, trying to unlock and discover everything created many hours of hard work with great payoff. want a real kicker? in my opinion, the greatest graphics i have ever seen in a movie were from Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. it practically looked realistic. if graphics are so important, why didn't that movie do so well?

and now, the hardcore debate. i don't even want to get into this but i will. basically, all i want to say is, what makes a hardcore game/gamer? do you have to put in many, many, many hours of gameplay? if so, then the Sims or Bejeweled is hardcore then isn't it? maybe the story. the story needs to flesh out and actually tell a story, right? so, all those twists and turns in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess were totally obvious i suppose. i mean, who couldn't see all that from the first five minutes? or is someone going to tell me i'm not hardcore because i didn't drop out of school, quit my job, leave my wife and kids all to just sit in front of a TV to play some games? because i assure you that does not make you a hardcore gamer. that just makes your house smell of rotting pizza in the corner of your room because you are now too involved in a video game [a.k.a. lazy] to throw out the trash. games are meant to be fun. if you're having fun, what's the difference? i enjoy the games i play and that's all that matters to me. nowadays, i'm proud to tell people i'm a gamer. i don't specify i'm a hardcore or casual gamer, and most of the people i know don't either. why are the current systems being broken into these categories then? so many people think the games out for the Wii and coming to it are cheap games no one cares about, but have any of you stopped to remember what originally came out on the PSone and PS2? someone, please, tell me all those games that came out at the beginning of the PS2's life were spectacular? i can't even remember any. it took time for those games to come out and people who bought a PS2 early on were not disappointed by the end of the system's life. buying a Wii is like an investment. i enjoy playing games on it, so the games that come out will be more enjoyable for me than pressing a some buttons and move a couple joysticks.

so, in closing, just a few thoughts for you all to ponder.
I would prefer a video game be entertaining much more than just look pretty. I would prefer some more games for the Wii. I enjoy playing games on my Wii much more than a 360 or PS3. And the big one, I'm glad I bought a Wii.

Now that, was quite a great rebutle. And I would have to agree with you. There will be some very good games for the wii, just have to be patient, and if you really want better graphics then go buy something that has it. I know when i wanna go get a graphics fix I go hop on my pc and play some games. But even though my wii gets played less then my pc i'm still glad I have one also.

@ Nomad, repped for one hell of a swaying argument!

thank you baron. i'm glad someone else remembers why they bought a Wii in the first place. it wasn't because it looked pretty. it was because it's fun. plain and simple

First, I don't want to hear one more person say, "Go buy another console." It's not valid reasoning.

Second, I can respect Nomad's and bluebaron's opinions. But obviously you are the type of people who would fit the bill of the "non-gamer/casual gamer" console. You are satisfied with not being challenged in videogames, you don't care about sound or graphics or story quality, and you don't play games much. But there are people who do care about those things, so why should they ruin Zelda and Mario and Metroid etc for your sake? Why not allow both groups to get what they want?

Why not? Why should games look bad if they don't have to? I am a firm believer that graphics enhance the experience. I dare you to tell me that Metroid Prime would've been just as good on the Nintendo 64, or Gears of War or BioShock. And don't give that "Pong and Mario and Final Fantasy etc were great" argument either. It holds no ground, as there wasn't anything technologically better available at the time they were released. Virtual Console games sell so well because they're good for a nostalgia rush and nothing more. Try to find someone who devotes more time to playing Super Metroid than Metroid Prime 3, or Final Fantasy III than Final Fantasy XII.

As for your hardcore argument you just wrote a 300 word essay on why you're not a hardcore gamer. Great, you can go back to playing the Sims and Bejeweled now. A hardcore game, IMO, is a game with superior audio and visual, a good story, challenging gameplay, longevity, and a certain level of complexity. Games like The Sims or Bejeweled deliver on very few of those points.

Finally, yes it is still early in the Wii's life cycle and all consoles have slow starts, but most consoles also leave something to look forward to. The PS2 had a relatively slow start, but people also knew that in the fufutre they would be getting GTA3, MGS2, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, ICO, Twisted Metal, etc (in fact several of those games did indeed come out in the first year).The Wii? For me right now, I look forward to Mario Galaxy, SSBB, and Mario Kart. Three games in the next year. Pathetic.

Lol I think thats the first time in my life i've been called a casual gamer. d:

Anyways I can see your argument too. But in all honestly Nintendo made a decision to sacrifice something to keep the price down so more people could afford it. They ended up sacrificing graphics. But in the end it turned out to be a very wise desicion for Nintendo cause look how its taken off. While it would be cool to see a next gen nintendo system like the wii with graphic capabilities like that of the 360 and ps3, but i don't think it'll happen cause this last strategy has worked out so well for them.

In all this i have nothing against wanting graphics cause I do love good graphics and good gameplay which is why i'll be playing crysis for months upon months. Its just in the end there is not a whole lot we can do about the graphics situation on the Wii besides complain so I gave up on that quite awhile ago and embraced the Wii for what it was. Pure and utter fun!! d:

Metroid Prime or BioShock would have been just as good on the N64 because they had more to them than pretty graphics. they had gameplay and story, neither of which is dependent on the graphical power of a system.

my point wasn't so much that they were great at the time because of graphics, but that they are still great games. FFVII is still heralded as the greatest Final Fantasy game because of the story and gameplay. by your standards, the best Final Fantasy game would simply be the latest one because it looks the best, but i find it hard to believe many people think Final Fantasy XII is better than VII.

i play FFIII much more than FFXII. there. and i'm pretty sure LMX will be playing Super Metroid until he dies. Metroid Prime 3, probably not.

do you have any idea how few games offer all of that? it's an extremely short list. it's called compromising. if you want something that looks really pretty, the story or gameplay probably won't be very good. want the story to be awesome, then it's probably going to be such a vast game that the graphics will be less. all a matter of what's more important to you, and obviously you just care about what looks good. fine by me. just means when an excellent game comes out which doesn't look quite as good as other games but has a phenomenal story, i won't have to fight you to buy it.

that is so incredibly untrue. nobody knew there was a GTA3 in development, and if people did hear rumors of it, it was expected to be just like GTA1 and 2. Jak & Daxter came out 2 years after the PS2 and many people thought it was going to be another Crash Bandicoot game which was not at the top of many people's wish lists. Ratchet & Clank came out after Jak & Daxter. Devil May Cry was under tight wraps for awhile. ICO came out long after the PS2 debut. the PS2 got it's library of excellent titles after the console became a big hit. developers saw it as a well selling system, which meant many people using it, which meant if they made games for that system they were more likely to sell well. the Wii console is selling very well. developers can see that. many developers are now seeing the growing population of Wii players and are keeping that in mind when developing new titles. there have already been remarks from companies that they are developing titles specifically for the Wii now.

as for me not caring about story, did you not read my post? a good portion of it was stating that story is more important to me than graphics along with gameplay which is why Final Fantasy VII is a great game, because of the story. it's why i love Final Fantasy VI, IV, Tales of Symphonia, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, hell, even World of Warcraft and all its predecessors have amazing stories if you take the time to follow them, but i'm sure you never gave them a second glance because they weren't the greatest looking games.

oh no. it's perfect reasoning. the Wii is what it is and you knew what it was when you bought it. if you didn't want the system for the gameplay element, why the hell did you buy it at all? if you just want pretty graphics you should've bought a PS3. now you have a Wii and you want something else. let's see...how to solve that...OH! go buy something else. how can you buy a hot dog and ***** because it's not a hamburger? why isn't it? BECAUSE IT'S A FREAKING HOT DOG! if you can't understand that then there's nothing else to say.

No. There is no way you can convince that you could get the same atmosphere from those games on the N64.

Wrong again. Ask any real game developer and they will tell you that technically Final Fantasy XII is way better than Final Fantasy VII or Twilight Princess is way better than Ocarina of Time, because the standard has risen significantly over the last 10 years. Those games are so highly regarded because they blew everything else away that was available at the time they were released.

Ok, you found some examples. I downloaded a few games, and it was wonderful to experience them again, but after about 2 days I was reaching for the modern games again. I know many in the same boat.

Let me rephrase that: these are the things that most hardcore games strive for. WarioWare does not. The Sims does not. Cooking Mama does not. Donkey Kong Barrel Blast does not. Wii Play does not. Brain Training does not. Etc. Gears of War does. Halo does. Zelda does. Metroid does. Grand Theft Auto does. Metal Gear Solid does. Etc. It's no coincidence that these games usually tend to offer the best graphics, so if that's the case, then yeah, you won't have to fight with me over a copy of Dewy's Adventure.

No it isn't. Devil May Cry came out in 2001. GTA3 came out in 2001. Gran Turismo 3 came out in 2001. MGS2 came out in 2001. ICO came out in 2001. The PS2 came out in late 2000, so all of these games came within the first year. Jak and Ratchet both came out in 2002. And these are just games off the top of my head.

The point of my concept was not because I just want better graphics (I explained earlier that I have a 360 for this), its because I want better graphics (and the other goodies that come with a more powerful console) in Nintendo games. I really believe that it is a matter of time the way Nintendo is going that Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc will all be gone as we know them as they have already all but killed once great franchises like Donkey Kong or Star Fox. And that's sad for someone who has owned nearly every console they have ever made specifically for these games. Believe me if they ruin Zelda or Metroid that trend will not continue. If I've been a loyal customer buying and enjoying the same freaking hot dog for years (along with many others), and they suddenly start selling hamburgers in order to please a crowd who likes hamburgers better but isn't really that hungry, I'm going to be some pissed!

I like the debate, but I think you're missing the point of my concept. This way we could get the best of both worlds IMO. It's just an idea.

fine. i was wrong on some dates. my bad.

i've never talked to a developer regarding FFVII being better than XII. i've read through many updates to "Best Games Ever" and FFVII is always listed as the top Final Fantasy game. possibly FFX, but usually not. talked to a log of gamers too and get the same response. unless you specifically talk to game designers, i won't take your statement serious that they all think FFXII is better than VII just because "the standard has risen".

and yes, i see what you overall want. you want a system which offers an amazing new playing mechanic to off new, fun gaming experiences. you also want this system to have graphics which make you think you're looking at the real world and sound you think is in the room with you. you may also want to add in that the system needs to crap gold bricks daily, because you'll need it to pay for everything you want. as i said before, it's about compromises. take pretty graphics on the 360 or good gameplay on the Wii. you're not going to get both until Microsoft releases the next XBox and steals something from another company to make it more fun (more than likely Nintendo) and the graphics of 3 360s taped together, and you'll have to sell a kidney on the Black Market to afford it. personally, i want gameplay from my gaming system. if i want realistic explosions, i'll watch Die Hard or set off a cherry bomb. if i want the best possible story, i can read a book (not that games can't offer good stories, but they almost never rival those of authors of books). if i want to see things that look like real life, i'll walk outside. however, if i want experience saving a princess, shooting a bow & arrow while riding a horse, fighting giant enemies and defeating a being with dark magic, i'm going to play a video game, but i want to experience it. i do not experience this from pushing a bunch of buttons and moving a couple joysticks. i experienced it much more playing Twilight Princess on the Wii than anything from the PS2 or even a 360

and my biggest point, it's not going to happen. the Wii is what it is. if you want a system that does everything and costs $2k for it, start a company and do it yourself. otherwise you have the choices of what companies give you. pick one and live with it. bitching does not solve it.

Who's bitching? I posted an idea. Speculation. A concept. You challenged me on it and I backed it up. I know it won't happen. Besides, bitching is better than humping Nintendo's leg for everything they do.

how so? bitching raises blood pressure. least i get my jollies off on the other thing

i never said Nintendo was the greatest thing ever either, i never claimed Nintendo has done nothing wrong, and i never said never said the 360 and PS3 had nothing to offer. i'm supporting my view that i have more fun playing with my Wii than PS3 or 360. overall, that's what's more important to me. not grahpics. for those who treasure graphics over other things, they should get a different system.

i also missed the part where this is for a future system too. i assumed this was yet another person wanting more out of the Wii than what it offers which is just stupid. you can't change what's there. as far as a new system, it's still highly unlikely. good on paper sure, but unlikely. would i love a system that mixed PS3 graphics and Wii mechanics? of course. i'm not stupid, but i'm definitely not going to be able to afford it. hell, if it gets down to it, i'll live off an affordable handheld instead of a console. there are still tons of games on the DS that i can spend hours and hours on, even RPGs, but i'd still like that beautiful piece of hardware sitting next to my TV

It's not valid reasoning. It's advice. It's their advice you don't want to hear anymore. Just like it is your idea that we are tired of hearing you defend by attacking other gamers as not being hardcore.

You sound like a young Nintendo fanboy who has finally realized that Nintendo is here to make money, not cater to hardcore gamers.

That is how Nintendo has always been. It's why they are still here. They've made some stinkers of systems...Virtual Boy, countless Gameboys (the original was great, the DS is getting a lot of play), and I didn't buy a Gamecube until I wanted my wife to play Animal Crossing. But because they are always striving to make the next fun system, they've mostly made great systems and great games. Games that you worship.

The Wii is merely the latest incarnation of what they've always done, and it has proven to be a success even with a small library going up against the PS3 and 360.

The truth is that hardcore "gamers" aren't you. You're a hardcore "give me eye-candy, coddle me with story, and give me something to brag about to my friends" kid. You want a sugar coating on your games.

True hardcore gamers buy whatever system has whatever game they want to play. That means buying an Atari 2600 even today because Pacman and Combat rock. A system you probably didn't even play in your youth.

The game is in the skill in how you perform, and the decisions that you must make. Everything else is a sugar coating that hardcore gamers see right through. You can't seem to see past the coating and that makes you not a hardcore gamer.

What you should really do if you want to play your souped up graphics and surface complexity is buy a PC. You'll get the cutting edge there, and anything that comes out on the 360 and PS3 usually do come out for the PC.

Nice post there, I really do like your points on what makes a true "hardcore" gamer. And yeah, PC is usually the way to go for the best graphics, cept it can get pretty spendy to keep up to date.

Well, you have to spend more money to get new technology eventually. While buying a PC is usually a lot more expensive, you have to compare what you are getting. Especially considering that consoles were just single focus machines. The moment that consoles started to try to be like PC's, they matched their comparable PC's performance and price. You can get a $600 dollar PC that will play everything the newest consoles play if only the game is ported. That even includes the Wii...someone just needs to program the Wii remote drivers for the computer OS.

Saying all that...I do not say that I don't like advanced graphics and features in my consoles. I like seeing my consoles advance. But I really like seeing the Wii at such a low cost with fewer features to go alongside my PC. I'll always have a PC, but I won't buy every expensive console, kick-butt game or not. In fact, this round of consoles has me realizing that I'll have to get my next GTA fix on the PC instead of the console. Fortunately, it's not hard to buy a gamepad for the PC and I have dual wide-screens, so picture size and quality won't be an issue as it might have been when GTA3 first came out.

Wii + DS
PS3 + PS2 + PSP
Xbox360 + ....?

Xbox....... Micro? (soft)

Get it? GET IT?

Thanks for wasting my time by posting what someone else did five posts ago. Save your childish insults and come back with something original to say.

I don't get why some people are so offended by this idea. IMO , everybody gets what they want this way. If you want something cheap, simple, and still fun, buy the casual console. If you're willing to spend some more money to get the best graphics, real online modes, and be challenged by some games, you buy the other one. Simple. It just creates conflict by trying to combine them, especially when you do it so half-assed.

Nintendo has sacrificed quality in order to make more money. Just because you can flick your wrist in a game instead of pressing a button, does not necessarily make it a better gameplay experience.

DS and PSP are handhelds.
if this super wii were to come out 10 years after the wii, then i'd understand, but i dont think that's what the OP is talking about.

seriously though, i think the OP is basically looking for replies like, "omg! that's teh awesum! ur a genious!" he seems to think his idea is infallible. you really cant debate with that sort of mindset.

First of all, yes, that is exactly what the OP is talking about, I'm just using this generation as an example.

Second of all , the "OP" is looking for a legitimate reply who can be insightful and make an intelligent argument without all the smartass comments. There was nothing in the OP that warranted that type of response. Again, its just an idea. You don't have to like it, but I am going to back it up, and if you're going to be an a******* about it, I will not take you seriously.