Topic: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

[Adrock]

According to this, Blu-ray was developed by the BDA. I don't know how that translates to Sony getting most out of the deal.

Things like controller ports still cost money. And I didn't say they were expensive, I said they weren't necessary. Without them, Nintendo would still save money because they aren't being manufactured. And size isn't inherently tied to sleekness. Wii didn't need to be the size of 3 DVD cases to be sleek. It costs money to make a chipset smaller. For example, DS Lite was probably possible in 2004, but it wouldn't have cost $130. Nintendo sacrificed power for size. Wii didn't really need HD graphics, but Nintendo definitely aimed too low. If high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power, Wii could have been somewhere near the upper crust, non-HD area at $250 with Wii Sports still included. Nintendo managed to create Gamecube which is significantly better hardware than N64 and at the same entry price. In 5 years since GCN launched, Wii could have been far more capable. The technology is there, it just depends on which technologies you spend money on.

Good games today are about vision. The big publishers release games with great vision. If Nintendo wants support and they'll need it to attract gamers outside their niche, then it's their job to make sure developers are as happy as possible.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
That being said, I'd buy Wii Play immediately if I can get it without a controller. So no, I'm not anti-wiisports, anti-minigame, anti-grandma or anti-whatever. I'm pro-volume of AAA traditional stuff, which was lacking for years, for whatever reason, be it those other types of games or not. If you do actually detect any condescension, it'd only be a little hobgoblin reaction in response to the brick wall thrown up in response to anything that doesn't spin Nintendo in a positive light. Surely I am the "brick wall" to them until I tow the line. But when discussions are framed to be any varying subtext of "Is Nintendo awesome, very awesome, or perfect" or "Is Sony doomed, dead, or so dead they're already reincarnated and dying again" or else risk someone freaking out, I wouldn't lose any sleep over my "brick wall" status. I don't really rely on a Nintendo fansite for open gaming discussions (no offense to the certainly intelligent ones here).

Talk about straw man arguments, I don't think anyone here has said Nintendo is perfect, I like their strategy but feel they are dropping the ball in other areas as well. Obviously you haven't read many of my posts because I am not afraid to stand up against a Nintendo choice if I truly feel it is detrimental (their crappy online strategy for one).  I'm not sure what the problem is with people relying on this "Nintendo fansite"  for open discussion. This site has been one of the most informative and INTELLIGENT sites I've been too when it comes to gaming discussions. That includes sites like IGN, Gamespot, gamefaqs, Team Xbox, and myriad of others which I've been too. None even touch this one when it comes to balance and above all else rational debate. So I'd appreciate you not harpooning those of us who enjoy it here and do use it for open discussions. Personally I could care less if you respect or don't respect my opinion but there are others here that deserve a tad bit more credit then you are giving them. I usually respect your opinions but I think you are crossing the line a bit by throwing this site into the sludge that is most Nintendo or gaming discussion boards.

[Kairon]

That's cool and all, but the more you learn about the industry the more you learn that developers, for all their vision, simply don't have that sort of power. The publishers do. And all they care about is money.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
According to this, Blu-ray was developed by the BDA. I don't know how that translates to Sony getting most out of the deal.

Things like controller ports still cost money. And I didn't say they were expensive, I said they weren't necessary. Without them, Nintendo would still save money because they aren't being manufactured. And size isn't inherently tied to sleekness. Wii didn't need to be the size of 3 DVD cases to be sleek. It costs money to make a chipset smaller. For example, DS Lite was probably possible in 2004, but it wouldn't have cost $130. Nintendo sacrificed power for size. Wii didn't really need HD graphics, but Nintendo definitely aimed too low. If high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power, Wii could have been somewhere near the upper crust, non-HD area at $250 with Wii Sports still included. Nintendo managed to create Gamecube which is significantly better hardware than N64 and at the same entry price. In 5 years since GCN launched, Wii could have been far more capable. The technology is there, it just depends on which technologies you spend money on.

Good games today are about vision. The big publishers release games with great vision. If Nintendo wants support and they'll need it to attract gamers outside their niche, then it's their job to make sure developers are as happy as possible.

That all may be true, but there are other contributing factors to Nintendo's descision, in Japan it is almost a luxury to have a small, yet capable system. The Wii design was mostly made around what the Japanese consumer wanted. Not sure what you mean by attracting consumers out of their "niche" the Wii seems to be doing just that, getting people who have never held a game controller can now play, that is definately expanding the market. So I'm not clear what you mean by their "niche" and what that entails, because Wii has been one of the fastest selling consoles in history UNLIKE Gamecube or N64. Regardless though we still don't know yet what the Wii can do graphically because it is, at the least 2 times more powerful than the GC.

P.S. BTW ARbok just between you and me, I would have preferred Nintendo sacrifice the size of the Wii for more graphical power. But I also understand that it has benefits as well, especially in a societies where "smaller" is better even if it can't do as much.

[Adrock]

I've been using developer and publisher interchangably since I'm referring more towards the big developers like Capcom or Konami who develop and publish their own titles. I apologize with the confusion.

Yes, I understand Japan prefers small systems. Wii could have been bigger allowing the console to be more powerful and still be considered small.

Nintendo still very much appeals primarily to their core audience of Nintendo fans. That's what I mean by niche. Right now, Wii is still selling off of its newness because the lineup isn't really all that impressive. I don't think you can make the claim that Nintendo has expanded the market yet. Wii may have piqued the interest of non-gamers, but they're not necessarily buying consoles.

I'm not saying a more powerful console is the absolute solution to all Nintendo's troubles. It would've helped though.

[BigJim]

Quote
Talk about straw man arguments, I don't think anyone here has said Nintendo is perfect, I like their strategy but feel they are dropping the ball in other areas as well. Obviously you haven't read many of my posts because I am not afraid to stand up against a Nintendo choice if I truly feel it is detrimental. I also am sorry you feel you are so much better than other people here because it is "Nintendo fansite" who do rely on it for open discussion. This site has been one of the most informative and INTELLIGENT sites I've been too when it comes to gaming discussions. I've been to a ton of different sites, and none even touch this one when it comes to balance. So I'd appreciate you not harpooning those of us who enjoy it here and do use it for open discussions. Personally I could care less if you respect or don't respect my opinion but there are others here that deserve a tad bit more credit then you are giving them. I usually respect your opinions but I think you are crossing the line a bit.

I probably wasn't referring to you then.

One doesn't have to proclaim Nintendo's literal perfection to see how silly it is for some folks to defend any possible counter-point one can bring up. When they can do no wrong in most discussions you partake, and I've sadly been in plenty here, it's actually a bit humorous and I wouldn't qualify them as open discussions. It's gotten better since some fresh blood has come in. That is somewhat refreshing.

Is it snobby to think propaganda repetition is not intelligent discussion? Hmm, probably so. So perhaps you are correct and I should re-evaluate that. However, as I said, I certainly don't blanket the entire forum or all its users. But I have certainly seen plenty of it before. Maybe I look at too many bait threads and not enough at other stuff.

Ok, wanna talk graphics?

The Wii didn't need HD, but I do think graphics were definitely low-balled for $250. I also believe that a fairly priced HD system is possible without being entirely cost-prohibitive (for us or Nintendo).

(Before I say anything else, this entire issue is all a what-if scenarios anyway. We're all talking fantasy here. So nobody needs to be defensive.)

A blue laser diode (either format) is definitely out of the question because of its cost prohibitive... ness? Is that a word? Cost prohibitivization? Did I make a new word? Anyway, it's anti-affordable, much less available, and won't be for a while longer evidently. So they'd have to stick with regular DVD media, which isn't a big deal (IMO).

They don't need to match 360 bit-for-bit to achieve close to visual parity. If anything we know Nintendo appreciates design elegance. Most developers have more of less said that the Xbox is a gnat's penis more powerful than GameCube. If that is true and it was achievable at that big price gap, then we know the appreciable benefit for design optimization. 360 is definitely designed better than the BX1 (you can't do much worse than a system slapped together with virtually OTC parts in 18 months) but it's still a bit inefficient.

I do believe that they could put together a reasonable 720p HD system at $299 and be at or close to break-even. Any offset could still be made up fairly quickly. Go nuts and launch with a party game that needs a lot of controllers. Wii XXXTreme Sports! There. You're caught up.

Aside from hardware, Nintendo has software revenue streams that Sony and MS don't even come within the same hemisphere of touching. Nintendo also doesn't have extraneous business interests that suck additional tens of millions from their bottom line. They could be more aggressive on hardware, price fairly, and still be healthy if they chose. $600 million healthy? I don't know, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it even if I were a shareholder.

I know a higher price flies in the face of "Blue Ocean". But like I said we're talking what-if scenarios. This would be the dawn of the "Yellow Snow" strategy. There's plenty of precedent in consoles proving that people will pay more for what they want. In this strategy, Nintendo would "piss" off their fanboys by pricing it higher and offering more of what people other than their shrinking base wants in a console. It's brilliance! Everybody loves a rebel... err, a Revolution?

Being the value provider, the GameCube's "Purple Rain" strategy, only got them so far. About 15% to be specific. So value only accounts for so much. People 'wanted' PS2 and they paid for it.

But seriously, yes, I do think $299 is doable for "virtual" parity with 360.  

Or they could have at least delivered a premium SD unit at a break-even $250. Some more pipelines wouldn't kill anyone. The Wii as it is is not Nintendo's best foot forward for gamers. It's almost "politically" designed for profit/cost, being a pimped GCN, and the GCN itself profited very handsomely at $100 for a long time.  Last I heard it had an under $60 BOM per unit towards its end?  

[Mario]

I think if you want to make claims like that you need to give one example. Just one. So people know what you're talking about. I'm referring to the top part of your post.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock Nintendo still very much appeals primarily to their core audience of Nintendo fans. That's what I mean by niche. Right now, Wii is still selling off of its newness because the lineup isn't really all that impressive. I don't think you can make the claim that Nintendo has expanded the market yet. Wii may have piqued the interest of non-gamers, but they're not necessarily buying consoles.

Huh?

I KNOW the Wii has expanded its marketshare already. I've lined up for Wiis four times now: the people lining up with me have not been the same people you'd expect to see lining up for a game console.

Beyond that, I've shown the Wii to people, people who don't have a clue in hell about games or gaming, but they HAVE to have a Wii after trying it. These are people who would never touch a game system in their lives but the Wii has sent these people out to the stores in search of one after only one Wii Sports play session.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I know a higher price flies in the face of "Blue Ocean". But like I said we're talking what-if scenarios. This would be the dawn of the "Yellow Snow" strategy. There's plenty of precedent in consoles proving that people will pay more for what they want. In this strategy, Nintendo would "piss" off their fanboys by pricing it higher and offering more of what people other than their shrinking base wants in a console. It's brilliance! Everybody loves a rebel... err, a Revolution?

Wait a second... they're doing this already. The console is pissing off some traditional fans... and people ARE paying more for what they want... in this case what they want being Wii Sports experiences because otherwise by all conventional wisdom the hardware would be cheaper.

This IS yellow snow! OMG!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

All I know is games like SMG are looking quite good, so I am hesitant to jump the gun saying how grossly underpowered the Wii is. Perhaps in a year or two it will be more clear, but now we have a bunch of lazy 3rd Party Developers/Publishers who are putting little to no effort in the visuals. Personally I think though that a 300$ price point would be a bit out of reach when it comes to attracting non-gamers or casual gamers. Yeah I know it is only 50$, but when I thought 250$ was pushing it big time, it does make a difference. Even though I have an HD TV I am quite happy with 480p, granted it isn't as clear as my Xbox 360 games but it still looks good and that is why I would have been willing to give up console size, for Ardoks suggestion of having a top of the line SD system!

[TerribleOne]

I think there's a conflict of interests when it comes to the Nintendo Wii.... us nintendo fans want to see nintendo succeed financially and are happy to see it expand the market. But does that mean that it's pleasing the gamer inside of us? that same internal conflict is happening at nintendo and obviously the non-gamer is winning since they're an untapped market which nintendo wants to (and its succeeding) reach. I'm all for nintendo but i cant be content with that. This is why the system is a bit underpowered because nintendo isn't focusing its resources on the NWR gamer. That's why it pisses me off 2 see people are all yippee-ki-yay about EVERYTHING nintendo does when we arent even the target audience, thus the myriads of problems like the wii codes (wtf?), it's graphic capabilities, online "emphasis.

With that being said.. i think that Nintendo should had compromised a bit for a more capable system. Developers shouldn't be blamed for crappy games just as much as nintendo shouldn't be blamed for emphasis on cost-efficiency because they're both businesses trying to profit and just like nintendo didn't feel the they needed to make the system HD.. developers won't want want to spend the same resources for a Wii title vs a PS3 or 360 title.

[ThePerm]

i think alot of the reason we haven't seen as great of looking qames is because developers haven't pushed the system, if they can put doom 3 and half life on xbox 1 than they can make really good looking games on wii. Super Mario galaxy amazingly is the best example, it has very good lighting and texturing, now combine that with an art style similar to twilight princess, and we have ourselves something that looks every bit as good as a next gen game.

[Kairon]

Hopefully that's the case. If every game had good art direction and look AT LEAST as good as the GameCube game called Zelda: TP, I'd like to think we'd be fine.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
i think that Nintendo should had compromised a bit for a more capable system. Developers shouldn't be blamed for crappy games just as much as nintendo shouldn't be blamed for emphasis on cost-efficiency because they're both businesses trying to profit and just like nintendo didn't feel the they needed to make the system HD.. developers won't want want to spend the same resources for a Wii title vs a PS3 or 360 title.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?

You could of course argue that developers "could" bring the same graphically intense games to the Wii as they're bringing to the PS3 and 360 but I don't think so. The only way that's going to happen is if Nintendo becomes a mini-me. They've always done their own thing and so developers will have to do something different for the system. Does that mean that developers have to avoid high end graphics? No. But they most likely will because in the end they're all cheap-ass bastards.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?

You could of course argue that developers "could" bring the same graphically intense games to the Wii as they're bringing to the PS3 and 360 but I don't think so. The only way that's going to happen is if Nintendo becomes a mini-me. They've always done their own thing and so developers will have to do something different for the system. Does that mean that developers have to avoid high end graphics? No. But they most likely will because in the end they're all cheap-ass bastards.

QFT.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[TerribleOne]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78

I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the system was a little more powerful. Look at what happened with the GC. It was practically on the same level as the XBox but a lot of developers (see: all) managed to make games on it that looked worse than the average PS2 game. All that power going to waste. I can completely understand why Nintendo gave graphics the heave-ho this generation. They played that game last generation and got crapped on for it. Why put something in your system that almost no one is going to take advantage of?

Hmmm.. i see what you're saying but i don't think the last generation should be used  for any indication because of all the factors that led to it, i.e; Disc size, 3rd Party Title sales, GC's consumer composition. However when i mentioned it should had been a bit more powerful i was thinkin more about the future because i believe it will hinder the Wii in a few years when the 360 and PS3 get price cuts and the newness of the Wii wears off. Think about why Sony fumbled the PS3 because Microsoft forced the next Gen on them when they were very happy with the PS2, which is still selling like hotcakes NOW, many systems and years later. Who wouldn't want that kind off success.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
Hmmm.. i see what you're saying but i don't think the last generation should be used  for any indication because of all the factors that led to it, i.e; Disc size, 3rd Party Title sales, GC's consumer composition. However when i mentioned it should had been a bit more powerful i was thinkin more about the future because i believe it will hinder the Wii in a few years when the 360 and PS3 get price cuts and the newness of the Wii wears off. Think about why Sony fumbled the PS3 because Microsoft forced the next Gen on them when they were very happy with the PS2, which is still selling like hotcakes NOW, many systems and years later. Who wouldn't want that kind off success.

The thing is, you just proved that Wii doesn't need any more power. The PS2 is, in your words "still selling like hotcakes". The most inferior system of last generation is selling better than vastly superior next gen systems. Obviously power isn't everything. As for the newness of the Wii, if developers are smart, it won't wear off. There are just so many ideas out there that have yet to even be imagined. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out though. I have faith in Nintendo. 3rd parties? Not so much.

Let me put it this way. I'm not against graphics. I actually like nice graphics. They're pleasing to the eye. It would be nice if the Wii could even blow the PS3 out of the water. But they're not of the massive importance that most people make them out to be. Focus too much on the graphics and you loose sight of what's really important. I'd put up with N64 level graphics if it meant the games were incredibly fun. Well, maybe not that bad.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
and the newness of the Wii wears off.

Like how the newness of the DS wore off?

Games matter. Graphics in games do not matter to the extent that a few graphically excellent games will cause a system to outperform another system with many more games of the same gameplay caliber but lesser graphical extent. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm not worried about the Wii at all. The only question left is how quickly the Wii will outsell the 360 in the US (and the world over).

[TerribleOne]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78

The thing is, you just proved that Wii doesn't need any more power. The PS2 is, in your words "still selling like hotcakes". The most inferior system of last generation is selling better than vastly superior next gen systems. Obviously power isn't everything. As for the newness of the Wii, if developers are smart, it won't wear off. There are just so many ideas out there that have yet to even be imagined. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out though. I have faith in Nintendo. 3rd parties? Not so much.

My apologies, when I mentioned PS2 i failed to also note that I used it because of its' relationship with the other systems. PS2 wasn't as inferior to the GC n xbox as the Wii is to the 360 n PS3. I'm thinking about 2009 and 2010 when all systems are giving us all they got.

BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about  the status of the Wii. Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?
 

[Kairon]

But the PS2 is outselling the XBox 360 right now... with a HUGE graphical (and of course, price) disparity.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
My apologies, when I mentioned PS2 i failed to also note that I used it because of its' relationship with the other systems. PS2 wasn't as inferior to the GC n xbox as the Wii is to the 360 n PS3. I'm thinking about 2009 and 2010 when all systems are giving us all they got.

BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about  the status of the Wii. Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?

You're making assumptions now. No one knows exactly how powerful any of these new systems are. The gap between Wii and PS3/360 could very well be smaller than the gap between PS2 and GC/Xbox. You don't know anything about, well, anything. Until these systems are dead and gone you simply cannot make those kinds of comparisons. And even then it's still subject to even whether or not developers really tried to take advantage of the hardware.

A lot of people were convinced that the PS2 was more powerful than the GC, and looking at most of the games that actually came out for the system it was difficult to circumvent that reasoning. Once in a great, GREAT while did we see that the GC was more or less on par with the XBox. Most of the time though, developers simply refused to attempt to tap the power of the system.

Using the DS/PSP situation may not be completely fair but it is honest. However much you want to completely separate handhelds and consoles they do have one major thing in common: They both play games. They don't have 100% baring on each other but I'm certain they have more than most people are willing to give them credit for.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: TerribleOne
BTW I dont think we can use the DS as an example of anything because it's a whole different monster from console gaming and pointing out it's number #1 shows nothing about  the status of the Wii.

I don't see why not. I've been making comparisons between the Wii and DS since before the Wii's launch and they've all been spot-on, thus far. Both consoles went up against graphically superior pricey behemoths and, using their innovative new approach to gaming, they're both kicking ass and wooing developers who previously hated Nintendo.

I see no reason not to compare the two when both take such an immensely similar approach.

Quote
Plus did you enjoy your GC less because it was #3 last gen?

Due to the fact that it had very little 3rd party support and an overall lack of decent titles, being #3 definitely cut into my enjoyment of the console because half the time I had nothing to play on it.

[Adrock]

I don't like the Wii/DS comparison. Nintendo has never been anything but number 1 in the portable market. That changes the entire comparison. Wii against 360 and PS3 is a totally different scenario than DS against PSP. Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored. Despite the similar philosophy (attract new gamers, innovation and so on), such comparisons are unfair.

Wii is not in the same position as PS2 was. Using DS or PS2 as proof why Wii didn't need to be more powerful is extremely misguided. GCN may have been more powerful than PS2, but Nintendo basically didn't everything they could to make the console a hard sell to both consumers and 3rd parties.

Nintendo is still playing catch up. Having inferior hardware is working against them. It only doesn't matter when you're on top. Publishers will release games on inferior hardware if there's money to be made. Wii is getting more support, but it's still pretty lacking. 3rd parties are wary of the platform because Nintendo has dropped the ball so many times and they were last place. Wii is selling well now which is great. This will hopefully lead to more support.

A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor. Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.

[Kairon]

It's ok. By then the Wii will be so cheap it wouldn't make sense NOT to own one. And the PS3 will still cost an arm and a leg. X360 might find a happy medium though... whole lot of good it'll do 'em in Japan though.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I don't like the Wii/DS comparison. Nintendo has never been anything but number 1 in the portable market. That changes the entire comparison. Wii against 360 and PS3 is a totally different scenario than DS against PSP. Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored. Despite the similar philosophy (attract new gamers, innovation and so on), such comparisons are unfair.

Wii is not in the same position as PS2 was. Using DS or PS2 as proof why Wii didn't need to be more powerful is extremely misguided. GCN may have been more powerful than PS2, but Nintendo basically didn't everything they could to make the console a hard sell to both consumers and 3rd parties.

Nintendo is still playing catch up. Having inferior hardware is working against them. It only doesn't matter when you're on top. Publishers will release games on inferior hardware if there's money to be made. Wii is getting more support, but it's still pretty lacking. 3rd parties are wary of the platform because Nintendo has dropped the ball so many times and they were last place. Wii is selling well now which is great. This will hopefully lead to more support.

A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor. Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.

Nintendo has completely thrown out the ideas of positions and power and graphics are certainly not what's selling Wiis. If graphics were as important as you say they are there would be Wiis sitting on store shelves everywhere. No, it seems graphics are only that important in your head, which makes that your opinion.

As for all this talk of 3rd parties taking games to other platforms because they feel that they won't be able to express their "true vision" using the inferior Wii hardware, could everyone who actually thinks this is an honest and useful argument please put on tinfoil hats so we can recognize you as the idiots that you are from afar? No developer making any game for any console that has ever existed in history has ever been able to realize their vision. They have always had to scale back and/or make due with hardware limitations. If not, we'd all be playing in holodecks in completely realized universes that would go on and on into infinity.

And this is an ESPECIALLY retarded argument when you realize that developers main decisions concerning graphics this generation are going to be weighing whether they'd rather make a game on Wii or PS3 because the lighting and shadows look a little bit better on one over the other. Of course the fact that they could actually create an entirely new type of gameplay instead of just rehashing the same games over and over again will never come into the equation. This is such a non point that I have no idea why I'm even taking the time to respond to it. Probably because I'm a glutton for punishment. Or maybe because I'm just looking for someone else who realizes how stupid this whole situation is.