did anyone notice that there's a flip this generation?

ps1, ps2 were inferior consoles when compared to the n64, gamecube and the xbox. not only were the ps1 and ps2 inferior consoles, they also had the largest gamers who owned the console. but when you look at this generation, not only is the wii inferior, but also has the highest gamers on the console. what is very weird here is that there was a high support of third party developers for the ps1 and ps2 consoles. but there is very little support for the wii console. why is that? what makes this generation so much different then the previous?

ps1 was very weak, but that didn't stop many third party developers from making fps games for it. look at the hardware superiority of the n64 fps games as compared to the ps1. compared quake 1 for the ps1 to n64. even fighting games such as mortal combat 4 were made for an inferior machine like the ps1. so why is there such an ignorance for the wii?

 

The PS2, Gamecube and Xbox were all similar enough to have ports across all platforms (even if the PS2 got the worst ports). The PS2 also had a ridiculous amount of third party support along with Square backing it with it's flagship franchise. The PS2 also had a year ahead versus the Gamecube and Xbox, it had a head start (the PS1 also had a head start). Xbox finally started to catch ground around Halo 2's release. GC, I don't recall the sales much of it but the Nintendo games on that console were excellent, I played the shit out of Animal Crossing.

Developers liked the PS1 because it used discs, you can store a lot more on the discs versus a cartridge, this is why Squaresoft moved from Nintendo to Sony. The N64 had better specs, but the PS1 had more freedom with it's disc format. Also games were ported across the PS1 and N64. They were ported to the PS1 because it probably sold more on that system versus the N64.

This gen and last gen are completely different. The three consoles don't have similar enough specs to have ports across all platforms, because the Wii is graphically inferior compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360. The Wii is cheap, even compared to when the last gen consoles launched, it's simple and accessible controls along with it's accessible games helped make the Wii a success. None of the last gen consoles had ANY of this. The Xbox/PS2/Gamecube, had little accessible games, none of them had a different controller and they were not cheap when they released. Hell, even the PS2 was the only DVD player right out of the box. The Xbox needed an attachment and the Gamecube had a limited edition Panasonic GC, only in Japan. Now, every console has DVD functionality, and Sony is still pushing the next movie format, Bluray, even then the PS3 isn't a huge success compared to the PS2.

Some devs are attracted to hardware that can handle more, or how much content a disc can hold. The guys who made the Oddworld series moved from the PS1 to the Xbox so they can create a more cinematic experience.

Also the best third party games on the Wii, like The Conduit, No More Heroes, Mad World, and Dead Space. They don't sell that great. They're even remaking No More Heroes for the Xbox/PS3 and Ubisoft doesn't want to publish the game to North America (I'm guessing because the sales for the original just wasn't there).

The Xbox 360 and PS3 (and PC I guess) offer a lot more tech-wise, so the developers can make their ideas of a good game into reality. The Wii has limitations to what it can do, this includes its controller scheme. Some games simply need a controller, Dragon Age needs a controller/keyboard+mouse, I don't want to picture Demon's Souls with motion control etc.

Nintendo has always been shitty with good third party support, I'm not surprised at all to see it continue, actually, I don't think anyone should be surprised.

This generation console war is extremely different from last gen, there's little similarity between the two. You might as well compare apples and oranges.

 

the point was that hardware limitation wasn't the problem. quake 1 and quake 2 was a pc game and was managed to be put on the ps1 and the n64. so clearly hardware limitation wasn't an issue. so how is it different today?

there were games for the xbox and ps2 that were made but they were never made for the gamecube? why? you want an example? castlevania curse of darkness. ever wonder why it was made for these two consoles only and not the gamecube when clearly all three consoles were more then able.

 

Hardware limitations is a problem now. It wasn't before because all the consoles had similar specs. That's what I said in my first post. Quake 2 for the PC wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of what the N64 and PS1 could do graphically.

I don't think studios are willing to get a Xbox/PS3 game and totally remake the game from the ground up for the Wii. Unless your game is called Call Of Duty, it's not happening, even then it's not the same game or isn't up to par to the original.

I was never too sure about this myself. The Gamecube was a more capable system than the it's PS2 counterpart and a little behind the Xbox. It possibly had something to do with the sales and the image the Gamecube had at the time. The Xbox sold more consoles than the Gamecube in America. Also the Xbox had a better attach rate over the Gamecube, although not that big of a gap.

 

The NES and SNES would like to have a word with you.

 

They totally would.

That was when Nintendo was on top, meh.

Since the N64 they had shitty third party support.

 

did you ever ask yourself why nintendo had bad third party support during the n64 while they didn't have any problems before?

did you know the nes was the most inferior hardware during the release of the console. they were competing with other consoles such as the turbo 16 and the megadrive. yet the nes was the king. even today, the games on the nes are superior to most of the games out in the market. so again, why is there such a flip in this generation? hardware limitation was never a problem back then but now all of a sudden it's a problem. it doesn't just happen. there is something there.

you say ps1 and n64 had the same similar specs? how is that possible when one is a cd and the other is a cartridge. so not only is one with storage restriction but the other isn't. not only is one superior but the other is inferior. so there is something going on with these third party developers and publishers for not wanting to support the wii and it isn't the hardware limitation.

 

NES : 1985

SNES : 1991

MegaDrive : 1989

TurboGrafx 16 : 1989

All dates are in U.S release dates

so the NES wasn't competing with the TurboGrafx or the MegaDrive, but it competed with the Master System and the Atari consoles

 

i can't comment on days before the nes [as i was born on the nes] but there are consoles still superior to the nes when it was released. msx was before the nes, i believe, and there are msx games for the nes, like metal gear. again, hardware limitation was never the problem back then but some how it is a problem today. why is that?

note, you need to be careful with the consoles before the nes. the reason why is because the big thing with these old consoles wasn't so much on the graphics but the sound.

 

It's rather naïve to assume technical limitations weren't a problem back in the mid 80s. Every system had a different set of capabilities and limitations, and releasing multiplatform back then was difficult. The biggest issue in the PS1 and N64 days was the same issue that we have today: cost. N64 cartridges costed more than CDs. All cartridge-like media costs more to make than optical media. What killed the N64 was the bandwagon for optical media. The developers that stayed aboard the N64 ended up creating more technically impressive games (due to the N64 using an actual 64-bit processor and being overall more powerful than the PS1) but struggled with compression, with the maximum cartridge size being something like... 64 or 128 MB. CDs could hold 700 MB, so you could hold more graphics and sound on them, with less compression. That's why the PS1 had mainly cinematic games and the N64 had more "game" games. IMO both systems were released before 3-D was ready for primetime anyway, but that's another matter for another topic.

The issue that's present today (cost) is not in the media, but the cost of development. Game development has become such a competitive market that developing for a different system (the Wii) is not "good business" because there's too much risk and an uncertain amount of reward. By sticking to familiar control schemes (buttons, dual analog, etc) and focusing on the status quo (MOAR GR4FX), development studios have less to risk developing for the X360 or PS3 because it's a familiar market. Their investment is less likely to flop.

The Wii isn't hard to develop for; any studio that developed for the GameCube can develop for the Wii since it uses the exact same processor architecture. To those of you who are not savvy, this means that the coding techniques they used to squeeze power from the Game Cube can be used on the Wii and gain even more rewards due to its CPU and GPU being more capable.

Gaming as a whole has hit the same bump every media industry has hit; the issue of gaining mainstream attention and becoming over-saturated with subpar offerings. This will pass as the mainstream eventually gets tired of gaming and moves onto the "next big thing", as they can't be expected to be loyal to anything. On top of that, the consoles this generation aren't as close in capability as they were last gen. Each operates on a different architecture, and each has different limitations. However, the X360 and PS3 are more similar, so cross-platform games generally hit only them. The Wii almost never gets a proper game (or port) made for it, as dev companies are content porting their PS2 versions to it and furthering the myth that the Wii is "a repackaged Game Cube".

So how does this explain the superior sales? Unfortunately, Nintendo has captured the non-gamer market, and that has generated mainstream attention. We can blame the influx of casual non-games for the dilution of quality in gaming, and the Wii for being the platform they're made on. It's sad, because the Wii is capable of a lot of cool ideas. We've even seen some. Until this mainstream fad passes, however, we won't see a lot of good stuff; Nintendo's in-house studios and 2nd parties are again going to be carrying the console.

Long story short: technical limitations are present in every console generation. This gen is the first one in a long time to have a large divide in power, however, and the mass appeal of the Wii helps contribute to developer laziness and greed. Until the fad passes and developers start focusing on real games again, gaming is going to suck aside from well-established franchises.

 

Shouldn't someone move this to debates?

 

don't you think it was risky to make fps games on a console, especially when it was for the ps1 and the big leap for the dual analog of xbox, ps2, gamecube. remember that playing fps games on a control pad is vey clunky as opposed to a mouse and keyboard [this was before halo controllers]. did you also not factor in when the gamecube was more then capable on the ps2 and xbox but was still turned away. so that idea of sticking with the same because the wii is risky is mistaken.

if cost becomes too high then it still makes sense to stick with the same? remember that the number of ownership of the console is important. so cost could go straight to the roof but it's still okay to stay in a limited area because you're still working with what you know. it totally makes logical sense. ever ask why isn't the halo controller scheme ever questioned. wouldn't that be considered a risk? why was it not a problem for the halo controller scheme but not for the wii controller?

ps1 and the n64 were inferior to the pc but those two consoles did manage to get some pc games on them, such as quake. so how can a game from a superior machine like the pc be made for the console, which is inferior. it's like having left 4 dead on the wii. so why is there this limitation that everyone keeps labeling the wii today when such a concept wasn't a problem back then?

so something is wrong.

 

The Wii -the most owned and least played console of all time. (I own a Wii - but own less than 20 games for it).

Ultra your comments about consoles preceding the NES shows your lack of knowledge on this issue. Computers like the C64, Spectrum and Amstrads were the "missing link" between early consoles like the Atari 2600 or Coleco and the NES.

You state that ps1 and the n64 were inferior to pc. Wouldn't that be contingant on the specifications of the pc in question?

Ultra, you seem to be under the assumption that Nintendo is an altruistic company devoted to bringing peace, love and understanding to all whilst in your opinion Sony and Microsoft are the Devils Spawn itself.

In response to your last point you can get pc games on the DS - I don't understand the point you are trying to make. All your posts basically consist of "Nintendo, blah, blah, the best, blah Sony, evil, Microsoft evil I tells ya"

Are you familiar with vinyl records? I ask this because you sound like one. Sorry to be so harsh but really, you are the worst type of fanboy and your are starting to hurt my brain with your "logic".

 

with ps3 motion control and microsoft's natal wii will be getting closer to it's end...
there aren't many good games on wii too...

 

If costs go straight to the roof, your company will go down the financial shithole given two possibilities: one, you start raising prices to compromise high costs, which will undoubtedly drive away a lot of your consumers, or two, you maintain the same price, but your company ends up digging into debt given no measure taken to compensate high costs.

I seriously hope you don't get hired by any company at all, for I can foresee you bringing disaster to it. And should you try starting a business with that whacky mentality of yours, I would give it one full year before your company declares bankruptcy.

I suppose that sentence in red should end with a question mark. In that case, I can easily answer that question for you. Which is something you should have figured out if you had done sufficient research on your own.

PC titles that were ported over to consoles usually have been watered-down in one way or another. That is especially true with the ported version of Quake on the N64. Take a look at Quake's FAQ for instance. The N64 version of Quake has less levels compared to the PC version. In fact, some of the original levels have been removed from the game. Another example: Command and Conquer: Red Alert for PS1. Some campaign missions have been removed as well that originally appeared on the PC version.

So, a short answer to your question Ultra is that PC titles that were ported on other older consoles, such as the PS1 and the N64 back then, usually have certain features compromised compared to the original PC version.

Now, do you want me to explain to you what material your furniture is made out of just for the sake of your simplistic curiosity? Or do you want me to go over the basic functions of the human brain, something which you appear to be lacking based on your overall activity here?

Compromising features during the old generation of game consoles was not a huge deal back then; it's whatever got the job done that counts. But as of now, with game consoles capable of HD resolution along with fast processing power, to compromise anything on a ported version would have consumers screaming bloody murder because such features compromised would stick out like a soar thumb. For instance, toned-down low-resolution graphics, dumbed-down AI, and, in some cases, missing levels, will be obvious to game players that are familiar with the original version of the game itself.

Yeah, and it's you.

Looks like you and I are going to get along just fine. Nice to meet you, timbizcut. And just for the record, Ultra never had any logic whatsoever. After all, I had the unfortunate experience of debating that moron on a console topic in which he committed several logical fallacies.

 

Just a little addendum here.
As the most sony-hating person on this forum even I have to admit the PS2 owned that generation :S
The PS2 is STILL being sold actively (in fact more-so then the PS3...) (and it made me burst out laughing when I saw the ad that said the game was "Out now on the following consoles: Wii, Ps2, X360, PSP and PC")

Anyway, everyone almost unanimously agrees that the GC failed, and the original Xbox wasn't that much better...

I too own less then 20, it is however the most played console in the house. (aside from PC but lets face it, EVERYTHING you can do on a console can be done better on a good PC )

Quick current gen war analysis here too:
Wii: What I consider the winner of this gen, many would disagree, Nintendo took a risk with the control scheme but it ultimately payed off for them.

X360: What I WOULD consider the Winner of this gen if it weren't for 2 underlying issues, the RedRing scare (of course the new ones dont seem to have a problem, see this forum topic for a quick laugh) and the Wiimotion+ being awesome

PS3: Not much to say aside from avoid this crap, buy a PS2 and a Wii/used 360 instead, much more fun, much less expensive.

 

Hypr "I love your work" - seriously I always like to read posts from you or Natewlie debating Ultra.

I'd previously read the console topic you referred to in your above post- I didn't weigh in on that debate because you seemed to have the matter well in hand (even if he couldn't except defeat).

But I was reading another topic from him today about 3 major publishers trying to force Nintendo to make a HD version of their console that shoots flaming chickens and whistles the theme to "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" or some such nonsense then I struck this topic and it near melted my brain.

 

Instead of personally attacking someone, we could discuss the matter at hand. Hypr's tone wasn't really appropriate IMO, but whatever.

What I think ultra was getting at concerning "something is wrong" is the importance gamers are putting on system specs nowadays compared to previous generations. Look at the bad rep the Wii has for being "for casuals"; many self-proclaimed hardcore gamers repeatedly say that the Wii isn't a viable system due to its lack of power (or hard drive, or rich online gaming support). Yet, just last generation, the PS2 enjoyed a lot of financial (and critical) success despite having almost no online capabilities to speak of, being the only system of the 3 to lack 4-player capabilities, and the weakest in overall power.

The only real "problem" is that people -- casuals and gamers alike -- are becoming deluded by thinking the power of a system is an absolute indicator of the quality of games it has. As mentioned earlier in the topic, I can also name off plenty of old school games that blow newer games out of the water, simply because more time was spent on making them fun instead of pretty. Some games from that era, like Super Metroid, got lucky and ended up being both!

The truth in the matter is that the platform shouldn't matter, a good game is a good game, period.

That said, I own a Wii and am considering a PS3.

 

Nintendo these days has been branded "kiddy", this is why, and this is true considering what nintendo promotes and the fact that they aim at "the family" rather than the gamers, hardcores and the other general gamer types.

Plus the fact was sony had a console that had multimedia play back (cd) which was new-it was also cheaper to make for.


And if not for nintendo shoving them off for phillips with the snes add on drive sony wouldn't have made it this far in the gaming world.

Agreed-they had it great back then-nintendo revived the gaming indusry with rob...yes rob the robot.

That gimmick did help sell the nes and later got those buys wanting real games that were quality checked-hence those nintendo seals (which now just means it's for official use-no longer "a great game")




And if you think about it, nintendo is relying on these factors with the wii

-Family
-Female gamers (apparently they love the games aimed at them...in australia that is)
-Kids (3rd party anyway)
-Loyal customers


Im in the later bracket-which was the reason why they failed with the gamecube-to fell on one avenue and should have thought about the long term and "branch out" rather than "let's keep the loyal fans happy".



Although the 'cube games were better than a few of the wii games, nintendo got the marketing right.

Wasn't the msx a computer rather than a console?

 

+100% agree with thats statement.

360
consoles sold
32,517,947

PS3
consoles sold
25,099,274

Wii
consoles sold
53,590,325

http://www.nexgenwars.com/

We can cry all we want about game quality, graphics, old generation and etc. In the end, everything is money.