Personally I thought that naming it Wii was a bad idea, since it's bound to put off quite a few English speakers (and by extension, a few developers). It's a bit embarrasing to talk about the Wii in front of my friends who aren't Nintendo fans. I doubt it'll destroy Nintendo, since it doesn't mean anything in most oter languages, but the English speaking market is a very big one, even for a largely company that is more popular in Asia than in the West, and unfortunately it's going to put off some people. They probably should have stuck with the name Revolution.Originally Posted by CadaveR (Ivo)
This could the Wii's big winner here. Newcomers to a particular series can go back and check out the games they missed- for example, I never had a SNES or an N64, so I plan on checking out Super Metroid and Super Mario 64 when I can. The potential to use WiiConnect24 to send demos to people even when they're not using the console is a nice idea, and it could be used as a way to distribute indie games as well.3. Wiiconnect24: fantastic achievement by the big N. It goes beyong what XBOX LIVE have shown so far. A Nintendo Wii 24hs-a-day "alive", in constant coming and going is a fine advanved technology add, in my opinion. It can be a little intrusive or something but the good points far exceed the bad ones in this innovating feature. Also a free-for-fee gaming experience also put Nintendo far beyong anything XBOX LIVE could offer in terms of real satisfaction to a pack-out-and-start-to-play-online experience. Just great on my book.
4. The Arcade section: Making all Nintendo secular gallery of games available for not more than 5 U.$ per game is insanely good. I cannot wait enough for putting my hands on a "wii-connect-donwload-pearl" for such a realistic and respectful price. For me, that's also a great addition to an already winner strategy.
I agree with you there- the graphics in Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 look exactly the same as their previous incarnations. It could be that the console's full potential hasn't been realised yet- Resident Evil 4's graphics can stand up to most 360 games. But the console still should have had graphics at least comparable to the 360 and the PS3.]1. The graphical architecture. Yes, I understand. Nintendo's main focus is in the gameplay. Ok. But there's no arguing (at least there shouldn't be...) that once great, fantastic gameplay meets fantastic, fantaxy-like graphics, the experience is simply remarkable (just like it was for me when I stayed totally in shock with the graphics in OCARINA OF TIME at the time of it's primarly release, many years ago. Their still beautiful, no doubt, but the technological shock is somehow missing these days). In my opinion, from what I've heard from all these developers out there, there's simply no excuses for such a low-budged graphical architecture this time. For the price of around 250 American dollars I could expect nothing less than, at least, a 2GHZ single-core Wii at this year's end. Com' on Nintendo, a barely better XBOX is not enough! I'm not sure of how many people would enjoy graphics which were hot in 2001!... if the Wii could not handle graphics as the ones present in Half-Life 2 in 480p and in it's "full glory" (or pretty close), I don't know what to think. We all know how helpful could be to draw your graphics using just a 480p graphics point as reference (there's so much left for graphics effects when the competition kill themselves trying to extract 780p and 1080p graphical resolutions!... there's so much more power left to work on the graphics when you just need to show 480p resolutions onscreen... we all know that many great effects could be done with a more-than-barely-ok technical specification... really. I'm a bit sad on this subject. Mario Galaxy could look better, Red Steel was even less impressive than a nowadays Gamecube game. It's soooo distant from "that" first trailer made available... (I would be really happy if the final product could achieve such human-like movements and all that quality lightning and everything else shown... really... I'm still confident that you can achieve it). Also I feel that the amount of RAM memory available might not be enougth for an, at least, 5-years-durable-in-the-future videogame console. I'm also concerned with that.
It's hardly surprising- a lot of publishers don't like taking risks, and the Wii is a very big risk. We're probably going to see more "alternative versions" for the Wii as well.2. Third Party support. It more-or-less kind of desivates from a weaker graphical situation from Nintendo. There's no way to produce decent looking franchises for the Wii when they're all going to be shown on 3/7-3.2GHZ-cores-based videogame machines. Really. There's no way. I definitely felt lost when almost all the great third party games were produced for the PS2 and XBOX, and all the other "alternative" versions (as for example, Metal Geat Twin Snakes, etc...) were being produced for the GC. Why not to have Resident Evil 5 for the Wii with somehow comparative (just similar would be very nice) graphics just like it might be featured to the PS3 and XBOX360? Instead of a special version to "explore the system's joystick"? I understand it as a simple message: "We cannot graphically reproduce our graphics in this version on Wii, so it might win an 'exclusive version of it's own' ", or something like that.