My reaction to Nintendo saying its not about the specs

[Jack Lovejoy]

 

[grahamf]

Well it's not, really. Ever since the Gamecube the systems have pretty much been powerful enough to handle the games they want to make. Do you really need photorealistic graphics to enjoy the game? Nintendo doesn't think so. Nintendo used to be competitive in power because more power was needed in order to provide smooth gameplay. Now not so much power is needed, and even the Wii U can handle Zelda's new physics engine.

What's the hottest non-Nintendo game out there? Overwatch, which aside from the scrumptious asses does not demand everything look better than reality. That's what reality is for.

 

[Y0shiM0n]

I agree. Sure, some games can look so hyper realistic that at first glance you think it is a live action video! Nintendo doesn't need amazing graphics to be the best out there. Sure, Reggie said the same thing about when the Wii U was going to come out, but that is an exception. There were lots of problems with the Wii U, but that wasn't one of them.

 

[pwarbi]

While I agree that performance isn't everything when it comes to a console, I do think that a lot of people these days know a lot more about specifications of consoles than what they used to years ago. With that being said, if your choosing what console to purchase, your going to look for value for money, and can you justify paying a high price for a console that isn't necessarily the best spec?

Choosing a console with the best specifications is also a way of future proofing your gaming aswell to a certain extent, and you don't want to buy a console that will be out of date within six months of buying it.

 

[Segata]

I have played consoles since Atari 2600 and for a long time I cared about specs and graphics. Specs are interesting but we have finally reached a plateau where things are not looking that much better as the years are goign by. They get better yes but ti's so gradual and slow. The most that changes is resolution. I no longer care and I hate hyper realism as it generally is less imaginative. If I want realism I will look out a window. Witcher 3 is technically better than XCX or Zelda but both those Wii U games will age better thanks to art style and not aiming for realism. The Order character models already looking dated a year later. The thing I care about most if a system than can keep costs down. That mid tier game we got plenty of in the 80s up to mid last gen is almost gone. We also see less creativity and new IPs anymore. Games look good enough. The last time my mind was blown by visuals was Shenmue on DC as it looked better than any PC game. Dead or Alive 2 with cloth physics. Now I take so much for granted in realism I am bored. Nintendo and Vanillaware and Platinum still surprise me.

 

[pwarbi]

In a way I understand what your saying and we've been spoiled in recent years by how far technology as come. Recently though it has started to stagnate a but but that's only natural as we could never keep making those leaps and bounds forever.

For Nintendo to come out though and admit that the NX probably won't be capable of dealing with VR, I don't know what Nintendo will gain from that, as for a new console, you'd have thought that they'd at least have made sure its as up to date as it could be. That doesn't appear to be the case.