I was talking worldwide numbers. Wikipedia says it was a two million difference in the end. Still chump change compared to the PS2’s utter dominance that generation. For all intents and purposes they were neck-and-neck.
But…
The original Xbox was a money pit for Microsoft. While the Xbox squeaked past the GameCube in the end (and remember, only in hardware, the GC creamed it in software sales), it lost MS $4 billion. And if you remember a little higher up the thread, the GC was a moneymaker for Nintendo. Which means that if they wanted to, Nintendo could have pushed an HD console. But they didn’t, because the GC platform was actually the most-powerful console of its generation, so squeezing a little more out of its design for the Wii was a) hugely cost-effective and b) not something MS could do because the 360 was a complete redesign from the original Xbox.
The GC beat the Xbox in every conceivable contest except for total market share (and even then, you’re talking a single percentage point difference).
If you want to play your friends online, each player has to plug in a 12 or 16 character code (I can’t remember how long it is). That’s for each game, for each friend. It’s a fantastic pain in the ass. And when you ask your 10 year old nephew to write down his code, he’s bound to get one of them wrong…
Why would you compare only the US? It paints an inaccuate picture. Let’s try Japan instead:
Xbox: 2 million (Link)
GameCube: 3.9 million (Link)
Well, would you look at that? The GameCube sold double that of the Xbox…which is rather meaningless when we’re talking about success on worldwide terms.
Man, you guys are silly. No part of providing HD output resolution requires Nintendo to compromise the style of their games. The Dolphin shots are done with the exact same art assets as before, but greatly enhance the experience. The Vaseline-on-your-glasses look isn’t really part of their visual style. Nintendo didn’t make the choice to forgo HD because it’s better for gaming. They did it because it’s better for their stockholders and that’s bad.
And it’s true that if you characters occupy 80% of the screen, but that’s no more viable than having Harvey Ball design all your characters.
Right, they forwent it because it’s not necessary for gaming. And it’s better for the stockholders, because clearly, it was better for most consumers, who purchased a relatively cheap gaming device en masse.
Did you not play Wind Waker? The characters facial expressions were quite evident throughout the game (when Link faced the camera), regardless of the camera’s distance. Also, that’s more like 15% of the screen–but thanks for the hyperbole.
Of course, I do find it comical that you cite facial expressions as a benefit of HD, when most games (particularly shooters) have the camera behind the character’s back, making it near impossible to see their face during gameplay.
If you’ve got a way of doing business that you ensures you don’t make the same mistake one of your competitors made and has a chance to make a tidy profit for you if it pays off, you do it.
Beyond that, not once when I was playing Mario Kart Wii or New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Punch-Out!! or a bunch of other Wii games did I think “Man, this game’s OK, but it would be bitchin’ in HD!”
Gaming and general computing are two very different things, and that’s not the discussion.
I play my Wii, along with my Xbox and PS3, on my 42" HD LCD and I still believe some of the best looking games this generation have been on Wii. You know why? It’s not due to technical proficiency, it comes down to artistry. I have absolutely no problems gaming in SD and I find it odd that you can’t seem to come to terms with people who think such.
I don’t have a problem with anyone who finds the Wii graphics fine. I’m saying that Nintendo is holding back the future of gaming with their actions. It’s like what happened in the late 80s when Nintendo marketed gaming as something for children, which set back the culture 10 years.
The Wii was more influential in the future of gaming than HD gaming was. The future, if one can select only one attribute, was motion controls, not sharper graphics. Not only has the Wii become the top-most selling console by a gigantic magnitude, but now the 360 and PS3 have both released their own motion devices to try and play catch-up.
There is practically nothing you can do with HD graphics you can’t do with SD from a gameplay perspective.
Are you serous? Nintendo held back the industry in the 80s (and somehow regressed it 10 years?)? It revived the entire industry in the US! Without Nintendo, gaming would likely have remained stagnant for several more years.
But it is true that the NES never had its own version of Custer’s Revenge :rolleyes:
Seriously? Do you have really bad eyesight? Because the difference couldn’t be more obvious. Honestly - I have a very hard time taking you seriously if you can’t tell the difference between those two unless you have either an awful computer monitor or really bad vision.
And I say that as a huge Mario Galaxy fanboy. I absolutely LOVE that game - but do really think it would be improved with better graphics, and I will go with a PS3 title over a Nintendo title for that reason. If I know both games are going to be great, I’ll go with graphics and 5.1 sound over the Wii.
I don’t see much of a difference, really. There’s a different background, and the one on the right has a little more contrast–the lights are lighter and the darks are darker–but other than that they look pretty much the same.
You don’t see any major pixelation on the left? Link’s shoulder looks like there should be a little Mario getting ready to jump on a flagpole.
It’s great that non-HD doesn’t take any enjoyment out of it for you, but if you can’t tell the difference, I don’t think you have the best perspective on what HD visuals really do add to the experience for a lot of people.
The Wii is the only game console that’s appealed to me since Colecovision. (Since then I’ve found that PC’s deliver a much better gaming experience.)
I’ve never played an Xbox or PS game that didn’t seem like it would generally be much better if developed for a PC. (Better graphics, better sound, better framerate, better control scheme.) Still holds true today. (nb - I’m not interested in sports titles, but admit that these seem okay on a console.)
When we bought it, HD really wasn’t a concern, since we had a standard def tv. I can admit that I would like HD now that we have a set that’ll support it, but I’m not crying over it. Super Mario Galaxy 2 still looks effin gorgeous in 480p. (Picked up a 3rd party component cable for that, worth the $10.)
The types of games that I like that are available on other consoles I will generally prefer to play on the PC - and I’ll still prefer them on the Wii over the Xbox. When I heard that COD: Black Ops was buggy on the PC version, I almost bought the Wii version. (Turns out the PC version works just fine.) I don’t want to try play FPS with a flippin’ game pad - I’ll even take a hit in the graphics.
But generally, the Wii is great because of games like Super Mario Galaxy and Donkey Kong Country, and Punch Out, etc. These are not the sort of games that make me wish I had a keyboard and mouse or a $300 video card to get the best out of them. They aren’t combat sims or anything that really needs elaborate controls or high-powered rendering… they’re just loads of fun as they are.
If I wanna go “hard core,” I’ll stick with my beefiest PC and not fuck about with limited console of any sort.
I’m sure the next console system I buy will also be from Nintendo. (And I plan to pick up a 3DS)
I can tell the difference because they’re next to each other. Take them out of that context and I would be happily oblivious to the difference. The crispness of the line that makes Link’s shoulder matters less than dog shit to my gaming experience.
On a related note, however, I was watching Get Smart earlier, and laughing my face off, and then suddenly I came to my senses and punched myself right in the face because I realized how worthless the picture was. I mean, I could NOT make out the consistency of Agent 86’s earwax. What is the point of watching such trash? Someone explain it to me.