Quote:Nintendo has responded to a report that was released earlier in the week, which stated that the Nintendo Wii U wouldn't be as graphically powerful as the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.

Full Story: Nintendo Respond To Wii U Graphical Capability Rumours

---

Twitter: @DarrylGU

and there you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Nintendo believes that gameplay over graphics is more important ^_^ Hat's off to Nintendo, who seem to be the only company that really gets games *quickly strolls away before he gets flamed*

---

Quote:We understand that people like to dissect graphics and processing power, but the experience of playing will always be more important than raw numbers,

Of course the gameplay is the most important thing, but it doesn't have to be a trade off. There are plenty of games out there with fantastic graphics and fantastic gameplay.

That being said, I don't think it's a big deal that the graphics won't be as good as the PS3 or Xbox360. It does seem a bit strange though that a next generation console would have inferior graphics to its current generation competitors.

---

(April 05, 2012 04:49:53 AM)Zero Wrote:  and there you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Nintendo believes that gameplay over graphics is more important ^_^ Hat's off to Nintendo, who seem to be the only company that really gets games *quickly strolls away before he gets flamed*

I think for a game to be the best it can be, it needs good graphics, good gameplay and good story all at least. If any of these "goods" go down to a "meh", that decreases the overall gaming experience. All three of these things need to work well together.

The Wii U may not be as powerful as a 360 but it can still, probably, produce the same kind of graphics as the other consoles and be on par with them.

---

Currently Playing: Guacamelee (PSVita)/ Injustice: Gods Among Us (iOS)
Last Finished: Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (PS3)/ Platinumed PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale (PS3 and PSVita)
Last Bought: God of War: Ascension (PS3)

Currently Watching: The Superman Blu-ray collection

Well, I think they pretty much confirmed the statement to be honest. That said, props to them. I honestly like the mentality of gameplay over graphics.

'However', there's no need to NOT have pleasing graphics. Even if WiiU just pushes to HD, that's a huge step in the right direction. As we move forward in technology, everything becomes more visually appealing. TVs, Phones, Tablets, Computers, even Cars. When you come back to your game console, you shouldn't be hit with pixelated crap that you can't make out what is on the screen.

Tons of indy companies pull off visual masterpieces with their small budgets. There's no reason Nintendo can't equip their console to be able to render it.

It doesn't have to be able to pump out realistic renders, it just needs to look more appealing and actually support HiDef so we aren't taking a step back in technology all the time.

---

(April 05, 2012 07:11:30 AM)Axeken Wrote:  I think for a game to be the best it can be, it needs good graphics, good gameplay and good story all at least. If any of these "goods" go down to a "meh", that decreases the overall gaming experience. All three of these things need to work well together.

And what exactly constitutes as "good" graphics at that point? Were the graphics on the Wii not "good"? I think so, I think the graphics on the Wii were just as "good" as the PS3 or Xbox 360. so what if it didn't have "stunning" HD graphics, that doesn't make them "bad".

The NES had "good" graphics. I think many of them are still good even to this day. Look at Castlevania. That is one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen.
SNES? Great graphics. One of the best examples of the SNES' beauty is FF6. Another is Seiken Densetsu 3.
N64? it wasn't as powerful as the PS1, granted, but the graphics were still great, even with the sizable difference in graphical power.
and let's not forget Gamecube. The graphics on that thing were awesome, even though you could certainly see a difference between it and the PS2, and Xbox. Dreamcast on the other hand I do believe was about the same...
Does the Wii U need HD graphics? I don't think so. Will it help? Maybe, but then again, with peoples' hatred of Nintendo, maybe not

---

(April 05, 2012 02:54:53 PM)Zero Wrote:  Were the graphics on the Wii not "good"? I think so, I think the graphics on the Wii were just as "good" as the PS3 or Xbox 360. so what if it didn't have "stunning" HD graphics, that doesn't make them "bad".

Oh hell no, the graphics on the Wii were bad, period. I don't want to offend your Nintendo love Zero, I really don't - they've done great things for gaming in the past, but not now, not really in any way for me. And this response from Nintendo is as good as a confirmation for me. Unless they have something huge up their sleeves for the Wii U, I would be really worried.

Edit: And deep down, I really want them to do well for "real" gaming again you know? I want them to be innovative and exciting again. But I'd rather they pack in or go bust than give us another drivelly, sub-par console.

---

(April 05, 2012 03:50:11 PM)Sam Wrote:  Oh hell no, the graphics on the Wii were bad, period.

(click the spoiler tag to see the image)
your right, those graphics are absolutely horrible, what the hell was I thinking. Those are the worst graphics since the atari jaguar [/sarcasm]

---

Honestly, a lot of the games on the Wii had terrible graphics in comparison to many games on the PS2 even. The ones that didn't were mostly first party titles.

I want to stress that graphics don't mean most realistic, or most polygons, etc. Art direction is what's important, you get games like GoldenEye, which had awesome gameplay, but shit for graphics; seriously, go back to that game now and tell me your eyes don't bleed.

Look at the original Final Fantasy, can you seriously say those graphics look good? For it's time, probably, but like FFVIII, those graphics haven't aged well, and unless a developer takes it a step further (look at games like Fez, or ClaDun, and see how they pretty up 8 bit visuals), the experience is going to suffer.

Okami wasn't a technical marvel by any stretch, but it had some of the most beautiful visuals of any game to date - and the gameplay to complement it. Look at Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, it's one of the best the PSP has to offer in terms of visuals, story, gameplay (even multiplayer). None of it really suffered because of the other. On the other hand, you look at Dissidia, awesome gameplay, terrible story, terrible graphics. As much as I enjoy the gameplay, my experience is shot down a notch or two because the game looks so bad and lacks a story worth caring about.

I'm all for gameplay over graphics, but I'm with Axeken in that neither should suffer at all in the first place. The big three shouldn't be pushing one or the other, they should be pushing all aspects of the gaming experience. When one part suffers, the whole body does.

---

Look at the edge pixellation (I accept this may be due to the screenshot), look at the jagged polygons! Here:



That's Shadow of the Colossus - a game for the PlayStation 2, LAST GENERATION! And the graphics are at least equal, if not better than the example above. That isn't acceptable, not in my book.

Edit: Another example, from your source Zero: http://www.gamespot.com/shadow-of-the-co...es/444076/

Edit 2: I agree, and I am coming over a bit graphics heavy. But there is not one reason why Nintendo shouldn't give developers access to a great system that can wow us with it's visuals as well as its gameplay.

---