The Wii U Hardware Is Fine, Graphics Are Costly And Overrated

I think the problem isn't the graphical performance NOW. The question is what will happen when Microsoft & Sony bring out their next consoles? In the next few years developers who want to make games for the more powerful consoles will have to skip the Wii U or make a stripped down inferior port. Nintendo may bring out another low-priced console in 5 years time, but that makes the Wii U seem like a poor investment. Of course keeping up with high-end pcs is probably even worse in terms of cash down every few years but for some reason it seems worth it.

People always ask that but in the end, Sony and Microsoft both know that just having better processors and graphics aren't going to sell themselves anymore. The visuals can only be improved so much until you can't even tell if the gen after the previous one improved anything. Remember the times Nintendo tried to get players immersed in the game with the (not done well) Power Glove and Virtual Boy? Those ideas didn't work then but it didn't stop Nintendo from trying. Even when they're not doing gimmicks, Nintendo always makes something in their games that people will remember for years. Everyone always remembers the grand finale in Ocarina of Time and more games need to be like that rather than showing off just how realistic a shrub can look.

Developers and gamers who are obsessed with resolution and frames per second are part of the reason core game design has become secondary. Sure, games like COD and Battlefield look great, but each iteration is almost a plagiarized version of the last. Imagine how innovative and well crafted games would be if studios didn't need to spend 2/3 if their dev budget on optimization.

Battlefield 3 was a big step up from Bad Company 2. Well, in some areas.

Graphics certainly aren't everything, but they do help. You only have to look at a game like Sleeping Dogs to see the detailed immersive world only made possible by pushing graphical capabilities to the limit. I played the PC version & the plethora of street signs & verticality of the citymade an excellent backdrop while the dense world of people walking & talking really breathed life into the city. The Witcher 2 is another game that really upped the ante on visuals, it provided amazing vistas & forests that felt like they were alive. Exploring these detailed areas was rewarding & fun & added to the gritty often serious nature of the story & characters. Sure simple games with nothing more to offer than solid gameplay meachanics have their place, I used to love Commander Keen, Golden Axe & the original Duke Nukems but my tastes have moved on. Coke used to be a real treat when I was young, but now a nice wine with all its complexities is of more interest to me. Some people are still happy with their fizzy cola & always will be, some are still young & have yet to develop the taste & patience for appreciating a good wine over a bad one. I will still enjoy a Coke from time to time & I still enjoy games like Mark of the Ninja but a good AAA RPGis what I really look forward too. I can accept that many will not see photo-realistic graphics or numbers of npcs on a screen as greatly important compared to a simple yet solid game with a few memorable moments. There are many different types of gamers & I don't begrudge a new system coming on to the market, however Nintendo's claims of appealing to more 'harcore' gamers may prove to be misleading in the coming years. ...and sometimes a stealth game can leave you looking at a shrub for a really long time.

The jump to next generation is not going to be a huge as last gen. The leap in visuals of 360 was huge but now I don't think it can get any better. What Sony and Microsoft need to do is not just focus on graphics and CPU speed. I agree with your comment a 100%

Yeah, I think that was the problem with the original Wii, and it will probably happen again to some degree. Remember when companies used to make Wii ports of their PS3/360 games, stripping out everything good about the game in order to get it to run?

It's impossible to speculate on game consoles that aren't even announced yet, but without a fancy GamePad controller, Sony and Microsoft might be able to go pretty far in providing beefier hardware without adding too much to the price over that of the WiiU.

I don't mean to say that the other consoles will have games that subjectively look much better, but I'd imagine it would be pretty hard to take a game designed within certain hardware constraints and port it to a console with more severe hardware constraints.

What Nintendo has to overcome is core and casual gamers who move to the next gen XBOX or ps(4?) because that's where their friends are playing. Those two consoles have already established a huge consumer base of core and casual types (who buy new software), and I think that is overlooked. If all three new consoles have similar entry costs, Nintendo will have a hard time. A major reason for the Wii's monster sales numbers were first time console buyers (think parents, grandparents, aunts ect), and most of those buyers will not be returning for this console cycle, guaranteed. Again, if your a tech company hoping for history to repeat itself, then you better find a good bankruptcy firm.

Yes, I fear the Wii U is gonna be stuck in limbo pretty soon. I can't help but think about the Dreamcast every time this discussion comes about. Who's to say Sony or MS can't release a system with not just a gamepad but an improved one at that AND beefier hardware? Just the fact that they're gonna be released at least 1 year later and with the way technology gets cheaper as time goes by, pretty much guarantees that. They could easily go for the same price point as the Wii U. Again, Nintendo might need to rely on their franchises to stay relevant because third party support might just not be there.
The release of the Wii U itself felt sort of anticlimactic. I didn't perceive that much interest or hype around it. It feels like the Kinect launch had more hype around it than the Wii U. Still I really hope the Wii U proves us wrong. I for one, thus far, am planning on buying one just not right away. If they don't screw with the backwards compatibility and they produce at least 5-8 really good games (New Super Mario Bros U is the first) I'm definitely getting one.

Very good article, it makes the whiners seem a bit stupid now, i think you got your point across really well.

The corporate gaming overlords are CONSPIRING together to control release dates. This is completely unlike the Video game WARS of the 80's and 90's where they literally had companies competing for survival. Sega and Nintendo were in a fight to the death and the gamers were the winners. Now the entire landscape has changed. Games on smartphones and tablets have completely annihilated portable game consoles due to their tie-in with "owning a smartphone" and their use as social media devices.

The Vita is underperforming sales goals.
The 3DS is underperforming sales goals.
The Wii U is going to underperform sales goals.

Where did all that business go?

OVER TO APPLE OF COURSE.

When a kid asks santa for a high priced item this year, I guarrantee they are going to be MORE LIKELY to ask for an iPAD MINI or iPOD TOUCH than to ask for a damn Vita or Wii U. Not to mention either of those devices costs in excess of $330 and cash strapped parents will only be able to buy one of them.

releasing a system EARLY would have worked if this was the time devoid of smartphones and tablets. thing is, I'VE SEEN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the Wii U to even get me marginally interested in desiring one. Not the controller, not the console, not a damn thing.

Furthermore, I HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE COMMERCIAL.

When Sega or Nintendo released anything back in the 90's the commercials were AWESOME and made you want to buy whatever it was they made. I desperatly wanted Wrath of The Black Manta, and didn't even realize it was a shitty game until 20 years later when I watched a playthrough on Youtube.

The gaming industry has forever changed because now - kids see video game consoles as just toys, while they see smartphones and tablets as MUST HAVES. Apple and Google are KILLING the video game industry.

You can't argue for a portable game that costs more than $30 when apps are less than $5 and the average kid is so dumb they don't even have the mental stamina to play console games.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBlBe06Xm0c

Just because you live in a cave and haven't "seen" a Wii U commercial doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Nintendo doesn't have a single killer app without the words "mario", "metroid", "zelda" or "kart" in the title.

The only thing that's going to make or break the next generation systems is raw processing/graphics power. The next generation of games has to show a clear technological advantage over the current generation. Does Wii U do that? NOOOOO. Therefore, kids will avoid it and opt for an iPad Mini instead.

I'm gonna wait for the next XBOX. I trust Microsoft for gaming. Don't trust them for smartphones though. I don't trust Sony for ANYTHING. The PS3 was a pathetic online system in my opinion. It was only good for people obsessed with Solid Snake and the few intellectual properties left over since Singeltrac died. I fought to get a Playstation just so I could play Warhawk. Playstation 2 gave me no reason to buy one. i bought an XBOX and never looked back. Xbox360 was even better. People vote with their dollar and WII IS GOING TO FAIL.

I tend to love good graphics. I also tend to pick apart what I see and how the technology is actually working. Sometimes it would be nice to just enjoy blissful ignorance and just try to ignore imperfections but I cant live that way. I dream of one day building a system powerful enough to push 60fps on a 4k resolution TV.

Usually its us PC gamers who pick apart graphics. We have been doing this since the late 90's when consoles were able to compete with PC games. Whenever I have to play a console game because it isn't on PC I can see all the imperfection in the graphics like aliasing, low resolution textures, bad lighting, crappy specularity maps and other things. Doesn't make the console games BAD though. Hell, games from 20 years ago look like crap and are better than some AAA games today.

Call out to all the other 90s pc lan gamers out there. I literally grew up in lan gaming centers. I don't think ive ever experienced one that lasted more than 4 years though but those are some of the happiest moments of my life.

well 90s- into early 2000s. You know before devs started never implementing lan multiplayer again.

Yeah, I remembered going to LAN parties and play Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament 1999, and Starcraft with a bunch of people.

Our computer at the time couldn't run Unreal Tournament and those types of games. We bought a brand new rig just before the new hardware jump in 2000 and we couldn't afford an upgrade. Sad story short, we didn't upgrade until around 2006...I was out of the PC gaming loop for that long.

You're right, Jonathan, graphics don't matter. The game library does. We'll probably will have to wait and see if devs will warm up to Nintendo or jump ship once the new Xbox and Playstation arrive.

What no one realizes when they argue that these specs are "good enough" is that GPU power, RAM and processing don't just affect graphics. There's a very direct effect on gameplay as well. The scale of a game is hugely affected. It's why back in 2004 Doom 3 only took place in tiny corridors, because computer hardware of the time wouldn't be able to handle anything else at that fidelity, and why the Xbox port had to straight up remove content for the game to run. It's why ARMA 2 has a 225 square kilometre map and is constantly keeping track of everything on that map, and why it doesn't look particularly good but still comes close to overheating my gaming PC.

I personally have no qualms with the specs of the Wii U because of the graphical capabilities. You can make use of ridiculously high system specs just fine without wasting tons of money on making it look like the best thing ever seen.

Some more examples:

Contrast the first Supreme Commander on PC with its XBox counterpart. Note that there was never even a serious attempt to port Arma II to the XBox. I doubt either console stands a snowball's chance in Hell of running something like STALKER. The original design for New Vegas had to be heavily modified (Freeside and the Strip were each one area, numerous NPCs were removed from both, later patches removed content from the game) to accommodate the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

Great article, I agree completely. The next gen is about innovation, not graphics. If you want graphics get a gaming PC.

I will eat my words if Wii U EVER produces graphics (even at the end of its generation) that would be better than PS3 & X360). The notion that it will is utterly preposterous. It's clearly a last-gen system.

Also, this whole "gamepad" fascination is just a gimmick and will die out just like Kinect and Sony motion did. It will not revitalize anything - it will kill the very notion of just gimmicry once and for all (I hope). On the other hand, increased horsepower from Sony and MS will hopefully mean much more realistic games.

There is enough indie innovation out there on Steam, so stop pretending WIi U will do anything - it won't! It's a last-gen gimmick.

Heh so many thumbs down on my last comment. At any rate, give the Wii U about 2 years before everyone decides to jump on the "Nintendo is doomed"/"Stupid gimmicks" bandwagon.

I have to agree. I gave the Wii about 3 years hoping it would get better and never did. I can count on my hands and feet the only games worth buying on the Wii. We have to see what WiiU can offer and how Nintendo will advertise it and sell it. One deciding factor will be third party companies. Nintendo seriously needs to get them on board.

Great article. Thank God someone finally agrees. Nintendo has my respect for trying something new every time instead of just going with whats safe.

I don't want to see games go down the same road as movies, stop praising companies for doing something completely safe and give money towards the companies that are actually trying to do something new. Crap all over the Wii, Kinect, and PSMove, but at least give these companies credit for producing a product that developers can test themselves on.

Developers who are focused on trying to make the most realistic video games possible

Either you are being sarcastic, or I'm lost.

My thoughts exactly. I too found this article odd.

Not only game and software innovation but hardware innovation is a big seller to me. The Wii Us controller is really interresting to me. I just wish you could use 4 of them at once or even take one on the go with you. even with the new big 3ds nintendo always shows it will try new things to innovate(Granted virtual boy was ahead of its time and alot of hardcore gamers didn't like motion controls.) There is also a Wii U controller now that is pretty much the same design and shape as a xbox 360 controller which I believe to be the most logical design for a controller yet.

I'm exclusively a PC gamer - the last console I owned being the GameCube (up to which point I owed and loved all Nintendo consoles), but every time this topic comes up, I feel compelled to defend Nintendo. I love your article Jonathan, because it takes guts to pee against the wind, which seems that it's what it takes to defend Nintendo. Firstly, graphics are truly and wholeheartedly over rated. Yes, it counts and it's really nice to see good games be complemented by good graphics (and audio), but give me a solid game with good graphics instead of mediocre games with DX11 and all flash, and I'll be just fine. Nintendo has always, ALWAYS fulfilled its end of the bargain to give gamers an experience wrapped in depth and satisfaction, instead of the perfect coat of paint (and that's not even to say that Nintendo games don't or can't provide stellar visuals).

"I have a $1500 PC"..."graphics are costly and overrated"???

I do get the article, just thought those both appearing in there were funny.