-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I miss a powerful Nintendo console and I wish they could make a Gamecube 2
- Thread starter Guaraná
- Start date
When they had hotels and cards? Game And Watch, perhaps? Or do you mean R.O.B., the Light Zapper, D-Pad, Power Glove, Superscope, Super Game Boy, Rumble Pack, GBA Connectivity, or Donkey Kong Bongo Drums, which, by the way, all existed before the Wii and DS? Which "gimmick-free" Nintendo? Or are you one of those people who throw that word around without a clue what it means? Today's "gimmicks" are tomorrow's standards in the gaming industry, and they aren't celebrated enough, tbqh.
I feel it would only benefit them more due to being able to acquire stronger 3rd party support. Especially in dry spells like now where a lot of people are just waiting for smash with nothing else to play after botw/odyssey/xeno etc(going off the dusty switch thread). And their stylistic graphics could also benefit.
Last edited:
So was the XBox One and PS4, and EVERY CONSOLE, EVER upon their launch, by virtue of the fact that CONSOLES DON'T ECLIPSE PCS. Your point is!?
Read the thread maybe? People in this thread have been saying that Nintendo games don't need anymore power and aren't gimped by their hardware.
No, you are one that are being silly, fact is that Nintendo doesn't need powerful hardware, Nintendo games on Switch look good even they dont have best IQ, they looked good even on Wii U.
Offcourse that they could look better with stronger hardware but that could be said for any console or platform, even with PS4.
Yea, not blown up on a full-screen TV.
Versus the kind of fidelity we're seeing on other consoles.
60fps vs 30fps, try again Lol
also pls STOP POSTING THE WORST SCREENSHOTS
Last edited:
Funny that OP mentioned GC like example, because for instance GC is only Nintendo console that I never had. :)
Saying that, I understand OP, I remember when I after PS1 bought N64 and was blown away buy Zelda OoT,
but Nintendo will hardly will ever come back in hardware strength race but that doesn't mean we want have great looking Nintendo games.
Saying that, I understand OP, I remember when I after PS1 bought N64 and was blown away buy Zelda OoT,
but Nintendo will hardly will ever come back in hardware strength race but that doesn't mean we want have great looking Nintendo games.
Port begging? Why stop there? next time they should target dedicated servers: 4x+ gpus, 64GB+ ram, 2x+ cpus
I think stuff like Mode 7 and the Super FX pushed the SNES to the graphical edge, but I also think that their main hook was the new gameplay opportunities they opened up. You couldn't have made something with the Speed of F-Zero or the Scaling of Pilotwings without it. Starfox wouldn't have been possible even on the stock hardware. Even a lot of Yoshi's Island's best ideas weren't really doable the previous generation. The N64 being fully 3D opened up its own opportunities too.
And eventually you get to the DS and the Wii which spoked off in another direction from just being more powerful hardware - and both benefited for it.
And eventually you get to the DS and the Wii which spoked off in another direction from just being more powerful hardware - and both benefited for it.
I wish the Switch had at least enough power to run games at 1080p in docked mode. While Bayonetta for example looks nice on the small screen it's pretty rough on my TV.
The days of the GameCube will never come back though. Nintendo isn't willing to directly compete hardware wise anymore. And I think development has become to expensive on that level anyway.
The days of the GameCube will never come back though. Nintendo isn't willing to directly compete hardware wise anymore. And I think development has become to expensive on that level anyway.
And New Donk City being the ugliest place in the entire game. And that gif is not even looking great or anything.
Please, I would ask you to read your own statement. You said that the games are compromised by their hardware (Let's be real here - You, like others on here are using "hardware" as "a catch-all term for the capacity of the GPU", when in actuality, "hardware" does not start and end at the graphics card) - I referenced the Wii U GamePad to show how even meatier systems without such unique content/features can compromise software. Nowhere in my posts did I say that more power can't be useful on Nintendo platforms, because that would be bad faith on my part. It CAN be useful. However, there has to be a ceiling. There has to be a degree of constraint, otherwise developer budgets can start spiralling out of control. There has to be a constraint, otherwise games won't fit on the media they're sold on. There has to be a constraint, because when one is able to determine what is possible within set barriers, they can have an idea of how much more might be needed, what changes might be necessary or could improve the final product, and it can help the industry to be more efficient and not waste more than the handfuls that they can handle. That isn't "gimping", and it's bad faith to say that the games you mentioned are "gimped", all the more so when you realise that with the exception of LOZ: Breath Of The Wild, Nintendo development houses often target a performance of 60FPS.
that's pretty dumb to say when the PS4 is cheaper than the Switch right now...in fact i say they're paying more to make this tech smaller than what they could charge for a $300 straight console using x86 architecture. and the games would look a lot better on that hardware.
I do like my switch though, but lets call it what it is. powerful for a handheld. not powerful as a console.
EDIT: I think i misread your statement. i thought you were talking about developing the hardware not software.
I agree. Honestly, I lost interest in Nintendo concoles as soon as they went for less powerful hardware. I know that there are great games and I played some of them, but I don't want to own a console that is so much less powerful compared to the rest of the pack.
Maybe it's because I grew up with Nintendo consoles having amazing graphics and really appreciated it. Stuff like Wave Race 64 was just incredible at the time.
Also, I believe that Nintendo could do even better games and better realize their visions with more powerful hardware.
Maybe it's because I grew up with Nintendo consoles having amazing graphics and really appreciated it. Stuff like Wave Race 64 was just incredible at the time.
Also, I believe that Nintendo could do even better games and better realize their visions with more powerful hardware.
Nah I was talking about software. That Nintendo likes high marges for hardware and software isn't really a secret anymore.
It bothers when the Gamecube is held up as why Nintendo can't make a console with contemporary graphical power. The Gamecube failed because it was an unmarketable mess of a console, not because it had comparable graphical power. Nintendo just decided to trust Miyamoto to design the whole system, and the result was the purple lunchbox. It was also late to the market, used tiny discs, had an unorthodox controller, and nearly completely abandoned the western focus that made the N64 successful in North America. They sold their golden goose Rare and didn't buy Sega when that company was desperate for a buyer and when buying them could have secured Visual Concepts and an exclusive sports lineup for their system. A competent Nintendo that released a good N64 successor should have sold 50 million units that generation.
Now, that doesn't mean Nintendo could just release a home console now with contemporary power and be successful. I'm narrowly making a nuanced argument that the Gamecube failed because Nintendo enacted a poor game plan, but it was a generation that could have and should have turned out well for them. These days though, after Iwata and Kimishima's tenure their brand equity is gone. The consumers who buy PS4 and Xbox One would never consider buying a Nintendo home console. Many of them aren't aware that Nintendo still makes consoles, they think they vanished after the Wii. Nintendo ekes out an existence now on underserved market segments; kids and dedicated fans of their software. Unless Nintendo completely threw out their senior management team and board of directors and pursued a new direction with a great long-term plan to return to mass market prominence, then a new home console with comtemporary graphical power would likely fail.
Now, that doesn't mean Nintendo could just release a home console now with contemporary power and be successful. I'm narrowly making a nuanced argument that the Gamecube failed because Nintendo enacted a poor game plan, but it was a generation that could have and should have turned out well for them. These days though, after Iwata and Kimishima's tenure their brand equity is gone. The consumers who buy PS4 and Xbox One would never consider buying a Nintendo home console. Many of them aren't aware that Nintendo still makes consoles, they think they vanished after the Wii. Nintendo ekes out an existence now on underserved market segments; kids and dedicated fans of their software. Unless Nintendo completely threw out their senior management team and board of directors and pursued a new direction with a great long-term plan to return to mass market prominence, then a new home console with comtemporary graphical power would likely fail.
This doesnt make any sense. Wind waker looks good, but could be improved with better hardware. So could odyssey. Whats wrong with wanting nintendo to be remotely with the times when it comes to graphical standards and technology? I think the wooded kingdom and metro kingdom dont look that great graphically and could greatly benefit and more fully realize their artistic vision with the more powerful hardware we have now. People acting like cartoony graphics dont require as much power arent treating that art style with respect. They require just as much horse power, or depending on the game even more, as realistic games. Better hardware just makes developers more able to fully realize their vision. And also allows all those third party games that cant run on the system currently to be ported over.
Nintendo is not going the muscle way any time soon, its more expensive and most of it have proved to be a lukewarm flop to em.
The Switch was a very powerful and ambitious console considering its handheld factor and price.
It totally make sense, what you wrote in previous post dont make sense, clear fact is that Nintendo doesnt need powerful hardware,
their games look quite good on Switch even if they dont have best IQ.
Like I wrote, ofcourse that they could look better with stronger hardware but that could be said for any console or platform, even for PS4.
Nothing is wrong with that (exept point that with Switch we talking about handheld hardware),
but its wrong to think that Nintendo need more powerful hardware when it's fact it doesn't need.
And those people are right, more cartoony graphics or art style are less demanding than realistic graphics. Do you think MK8D could run on Switch at 1080p/60fps if we talking about realistic graphic? Offcourse not.
Last edited:
Don't think it's possible for anyone to be 1st and 3rd Party at once, business-wise.
Not counting dedicated mobile software.
Last edited:
I don't miss it in the slightest, and I'm happy they're doing what they are, because so much of what AAA games on the other two consoles are doing bores me to tears. Photorealistic open-world yawn fests.
Nintendo might not have the most powerful hardware but they're making the most creative and non-samey games.
I also think the Switch is the coolest piece of video game hardware to come out in a while (VR would have that spot but...well...yeah).
Nintendo might not have the most powerful hardware but they're making the most creative and non-samey games.
I also think the Switch is the coolest piece of video game hardware to come out in a while (VR would have that spot but...well...yeah).
If image quality is a big issue for you, then the Switch is better un-docked. Image quality will never be the system's strong suit, sadly, but it has other perks.
I'd prefer if all games targeted high-end PCs instead of aiming for lowest common denominator consoles.
Oh well.
Oh well.
No one needs better hardware. Youre right. PS4 could technically still be on PS3 hardware and still exist. But you could greatly benefit from it graphically, fully realize your art style, and make your games run much better. And have more third party games.
But your last point is completley false. If mario kart 8 had realistic graphics and still ran at 1080p 60fps, it would probably look like a slightly better ps3 game. Just like mario kart 8 looks like a slightly better ps3 game graphically. Youre not giving cartoon style graphics enough credit. Just cause they look decent doesnt mean we should say "eh, good enough" and call it a day. They can look so much better with more power. I know it sounds crazy, but the jump from mario kart Wii to Mario Kart 8 can happen again with better hardware, and make mario kart 8 look as dated as Wii.
I have a feeling we're just gonna be repeating the same things over and over, but i got a 4 year degree in 3D design and am currently developing 3d models for a company so yeah.
Like I wrote, ofcourse that they could look better with stronger hardware but that could be said for any console or platform, even for PS4.
But that like saying water is wet, no one arguing with that.
We can say we disagree, hardly that Mario can have realistic graphic and in same time running at locked 1080p/60fps on Switch hardware.
I don't say good enough, I say MK8D looks great, of course it could be look even better with more taxe AA implication, but again thats a point, every game on any platform/hardware could look even better with stronger hardware.
So you clerly missing point, I never said that game cant look better with stronger hardware (lol), again even PS4 games can look even better with stronger hardware, I just made reply to you because you wrote "need" for more powerful hardware, like that's something essentially they need to do.
I just don't understand this obsession for processing power, and it's the same for photorealism. Did anyone here watch some Uncharted 1 PS3 footage lately? Do you really think it's still a great game visually?
What most people tend to forget, is that large scaled games cost a LOT more than medium sized games. Nintendo is used to medium sized games using all the raw power of the hardware they've released, but BotW which is the largest game they've created completely drained them to the point EAD had to use extra people from Monolith Studios to make the game it is. And despite that, and despite the extra care that was put in details, gameplay and polish, BotW lacked content. It lacked content partly because they completely scrapped the Wii U-only specificities, but also because they didn't have enough time to remake a complete game once it was official that BotW would be cross platform.
I wouldn't mind if Nintendo was making a very large game from time to time, but asking them to put out AAA constantly is terribly unreasonable. Few publishers can afford multiple AAAs and its mostly focused on painted by numbers games, and even resetera's beloved spiderman PS4 goes into this category. Ubisoft was able to launch watchdogs because they were already making big profits from the assassin's creed, Activision has been focused on CoD for years now, Blizzard tries to milk the rests project Titan (unsuccessfully according to recent numbers) and EA only made it possible for Bioware to start a new IP with Anthem while they were killing visceral Games in the meantime.
When people ask for AAA games, are they expecting Witcher 3 like games every year? Are they expecting any one of the big three to put out the equivalent of what is the THIRD game of a company in 10 years, a company that is based in Poland, cost much less than its american/japanese equivalent, owns one of the largest competitors of Steam and is also supported by the government as one of the leading industry there?
The thing is that the games won't ramp up in quality in the future, that's quite the opposite unless people start to put some mad cash to play the game of the season. Games will only cost more, asking for more work, more people, more assets, more experts while they'll take even less risks as time goes by.
I'm honestly quite happy with what the switch represents, it's a strong incentive for japanese studios to make AA again, a platform that has enough power to run PS2/gamecube games on the go, and that's exactly what I want (but also what the industry needs) for a breath of fresh air. For what it's worth I prefer more games than fewer but visually better 3D games (because 2D remains timeless).
What most people tend to forget, is that large scaled games cost a LOT more than medium sized games. Nintendo is used to medium sized games using all the raw power of the hardware they've released, but BotW which is the largest game they've created completely drained them to the point EAD had to use extra people from Monolith Studios to make the game it is. And despite that, and despite the extra care that was put in details, gameplay and polish, BotW lacked content. It lacked content partly because they completely scrapped the Wii U-only specificities, but also because they didn't have enough time to remake a complete game once it was official that BotW would be cross platform.
I wouldn't mind if Nintendo was making a very large game from time to time, but asking them to put out AAA constantly is terribly unreasonable. Few publishers can afford multiple AAAs and its mostly focused on painted by numbers games, and even resetera's beloved spiderman PS4 goes into this category. Ubisoft was able to launch watchdogs because they were already making big profits from the assassin's creed, Activision has been focused on CoD for years now, Blizzard tries to milk the rests project Titan (unsuccessfully according to recent numbers) and EA only made it possible for Bioware to start a new IP with Anthem while they were killing visceral Games in the meantime.
When people ask for AAA games, are they expecting Witcher 3 like games every year? Are they expecting any one of the big three to put out the equivalent of what is the THIRD game of a company in 10 years, a company that is based in Poland, cost much less than its american/japanese equivalent, owns one of the largest competitors of Steam and is also supported by the government as one of the leading industry there?
The thing is that the games won't ramp up in quality in the future, that's quite the opposite unless people start to put some mad cash to play the game of the season. Games will only cost more, asking for more work, more people, more assets, more experts while they'll take even less risks as time goes by.
I'm honestly quite happy with what the switch represents, it's a strong incentive for japanese studios to make AA again, a platform that has enough power to run PS2/gamecube games on the go, and that's exactly what I want (but also what the industry needs) for a breath of fresh air. For what it's worth I prefer more games than fewer but visually better 3D games (because 2D remains timeless).
Last edited:
Nintendo will get that Kingdom Hearts 3 level of graphical fidelity eventually. Probably the successor of Switch will have the raw power to display that.
Anyway, I like the art Nintendo is doing in their current hardware. Breath of the Wild had stunning vistas that hit me almost in the same way that Uncharted 4 ultra detailed and realistic graphics
Anyway, I like the art Nintendo is doing in their current hardware. Breath of the Wild had stunning vistas that hit me almost in the same way that Uncharted 4 ultra detailed and realistic graphics
Why not wish for dolphin it specs were higher than gamecube.
1. stronger cpu
2. Used embedded ram in a insane way before reality being nintendo back around, would've been 64MB.
gamecube and wii are both downgraded intentions despite the miraculous results the architecture provided at times.
1. stronger cpu
2. Used embedded ram in a insane way before reality being nintendo back around, would've been 64MB.
gamecube and wii are both downgraded intentions despite the miraculous results the architecture provided at times.
I said "All the people saying nintendo doesnt need more powerful hardware because their games are cartoons are being silly. ". Thats different. All I was saying that cartoons require just as much powerful hardware as realistic graphics and if they want their games to look as good as other consoles around right now they would need better hardware. Which is true. I think youre misinterpreting what im saying.
I honestly don't. Nintendo is just for Nintendo games for me and their art styles aren't begging for top line power IMO. They don't put out enough games for me to buy their hardware if it was launching at $400-500 like Sony/MS, so I'd just end up skipping their console if they went that route. I can stomach 200-300 for something I'll play 2 or 3 games a year on, but not more than that. I get that it would get more AAA third party games, but I'd still want those on Playstation even if Nintendo had power parity as my friends don't own Nintendo stuff (don't like their games) and I like earning trophies and upping my trophy score.
But playing some games handheld just suck. Especially splatoon 2 since the joy con sticks are so tiny it's so uncomfortable to play a fast paced shooting game like that especially when it uses motion controls
How many people in this thread is determine to rewriting reality to feel better?
I think you're taking it the wrong way. The artstyle is adapted to the engine and not the other way. With more processing power BotW would have a different artstyle with less compromises and Mario would surely be very different. Nintendo's strongest virtue is that they make the game before everything else. They've showed multiple times how the map of BotW was made once the core gameplay was set. The same was true for Splatoon.
Stronger hardware doesn't always make games look better. The Wii U version of Wind Waker was terrible to look at, because accentuating shadows and more detailed models only ruined the cell shaded artstyle.
spyro and ratchet fluff games. Got no weight at all and you float everywhereYea, not blown up on a full-screen TV.
Versus the kind of fidelity we're seeing on other consoles.
The Switch is my first Nintendo console, so I can't say about how it was during the GameCube era.
Having said that, I'd love if Nintendo could make an actual home console with power similar to its competitors.
I'd be so in for that one. I don't play in portable mode so that is an unnecessary feature for me.
Having said that, I'd love if Nintendo could make an actual home console with power similar to its competitors.
I'd be so in for that one. I don't play in portable mode so that is an unnecessary feature for me.
Games like "insert ps4 exclusive" can actually look good when they're not running on Sony hardware.
Right? I'd assume you're a PC gamer like me, and would love to play all games on that PC so they don't look and run like console games w/capped resolutions, framerates, poorer IQ etc.
Or are certain compromised experiences OK and others not?
I disagree. Theres a lot Nintendo could do to make breath of the wild look better. Fixing up all the shitty looking rocks and textures, more npcs, better draw distance, better IQ and framerate, higher polycounts, etc. And they could make it look in the same art style. The issue with the Wii U windwaker was that it had a shit art direction and didn't try to enhance what wind waker was going for but instead changed the art style for the worse.
We will get to see a photorealistic Zelda some day. It's just that by then, the other consoles will still be much better than Nintendo. It's not like they stay with the power of the Switch forever, but they are definitely 2 generations behind. Nintendo is very comfortable with that, and it has worked for them two times already (Wii and Switch).
If anybody isn't "giving cartoon graphics enough credit", it would appear to be you in this post. We both agree that non-photorealistic games can be demanding, too. But it's also true that photorealism is one of many art directions. It doesn't need more power than other directions, and it can be faked on Art Academy: Sketchbook. Your design artists choosing photorealism doesn't instantly equal "more power"; that is rather needed for the effects which bring life to the character models and worlds developers create.
Certainly, Mario Kart 8 doesn't look like a "slightly better PS3 game" graphically, and if a PS3 game tried to target 60FPS (A LOT of Sony first-party titles don't, by the way, but that shouldn't be a surprise at this point, tbqh...), then it wouldn't come close to how Mario Kart 8 looked in 2014. Neither PS360 console could do what the Wii U achieved with that title, and I have receipts. What you and others aren't realising is that all those graphics you're chasing are possible because Sony often sacrifices 60FPS for the visual spectacle. This is an undeniable fact, and not content with receipts, I have a bank statement and personal accountant on this.
Little Big Planet Karting targets 30FPS - It is comparable because it's a first party title in the same genre. It was released in 2012, a whole 6 years after the PS3 released, and a year before the PS4's launch, so, we can also say it's plausible that it was a game which pushed that system to its limits. Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed is another comparable title which released in the same month, and targets 30FPS on PS360, but is often less than that, while it holds up better on the Wii U although it wasn't optimised for it AND can have the extra player on the GamePad. That's before we get to anti-gravity and maintaining a sense of speed, among other technical accomplishments. Mario Kart 8's visual presentation is more than good enough as it is, it runs at 60FPS, and it was one of perhaps half a dozen games which pushed the Wii U to its limits. But "pushing systems to their limits" isn't and needn't be a priority for every game and every development house. As for resolution, most people are fine with 576p, 720p, 900p and 1080p. Most couldn't tell the difference between the last three (It's Jack Schitt), and that includes some people on here. 4K shouldn't be touched for at least a decade, as the conditions for it aren't suitable, and if your game falls apart because it isn't 4K, then it was probably rubbish in the first place.
Last edited: