Why does Nintendo refuse to invest in top of the line graphics?

Home Forums A haunted junk yard Why does Nintendo refuse to invest in top of the line graphics?

  • This topic has 137 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 54 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #378426
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why does Nintendo refuse to invest in top of the line graphics?

    • #378427
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Underpowered hard ware is easy to price competitively and consumers either dont know or dont care that its a worse platform for games because they just want to play some mario, entertain their kids and do it on a budget.

    • #378428
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Same reason they don’t invest in quality gameplay: retards will buy it by the millions anyways.

    • #378429
      Anonymous
      Guest

      A. Cheap hardware
      B. Experienced, competent art departments

      • #378452
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Tpbp

    • #378430
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because they know people will buy it anyway.

    • #378431
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They tried it with the GameCube and Wii u and both consoles bombed. They went underpowered with the Wii and switch and both times haves paid off by breaking record sales.

      • #378434
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Both the Wii and Switch heavily marketed their stupid gimmicks though. Their success has nothing to do with being underpowered, it’s about the gimmicks.

        • #378437
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I don’t disagree, but from Nintendo’s point of view why invest more into hardware when they can succeed greatly with what they have? Wii was a GameCube and switch is hardly more than a Wii u.

          >and Wii u
          That was a 8th gen console competing against PS4 you retard, it was literally released only one year before. If the Wii U was released around 2006 or 2007 then you might’ve had a point.

          I don’t disagree, but this is Nintendo we’re talking about. They’re not exactly up to date

          • #378441
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Nintendo relies solely on gimmicks and IPs to sell their consoles. That’s literally it.

            • #378444
              Anonymous
              Guest

              That and having better games than the competition.

              • #378448
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Lol no.

                • #378501
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Cope

                  • #378502
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Nintendie cope.

                    • #378517
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Seethe

                      • #378527
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Dilate, nintranny.

            • #378449
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You’re framing it like gimmicks are a negative thing, but the portability of the switch is by no means trivial to a lot of people.
              Do you think that Nintendo would be better off, and would as many people like the switch if they just made the same product as MS and Sony?

              • #378450
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Do you think that Nintendo would be better off, and would as many people like the switch if they just made the same product as MS and Sony?
                So they rely on gimmicks to compete with Microsoft and Sony? K, gotcha!

                • #378451
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  They don’t compete with Microsoft and Sony at all. They dropped out of that race in the 7th generation and never looked back.

                  • #378457
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Lol @ this nintendie cope.

                    • #378459
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      PS3 and 360 were aimed at the "core gamer" crowd. Wii was aimed at senior citizens. Not even remotely the same demographic, unless your grandpa plays Madden.

                      • #378460
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Nintendie cope.

                      • #378462
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        JOHN MADDEN JOHN MADDEN JOHN MADDEN JOHN MADDEN

                • #378485
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  What a reductive way to dodge the question.
                  Tell me, do you have any reason to buy a Sony product over a Microsoft product other than exclusives? It can’t be for pricing or power, considering MS beats it in both avenues.
                  Or is there a certain standard of power that you deem acceptable?

        • #378535
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Ah yes the $400 gimmick toy, the wii, perfect for the kids to play tennis.
          Motion shit was the product. Being cheap was the deal.

      • #378435
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >and Wii u
        That was a 8th gen console competing against PS4 you retard, it was literally released only one year before. If the Wii U was released around 2006 or 2007 then you might’ve had a point.

    • #378432
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Who cares. console gaming is already a scam

    • #378433
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because it literally doesn’t matter. all graphics will age into looking like shit eventually

      • #378488
        Anonymous
        Guest

        t.average AAA enjoyer

    • #378436
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why would they? All it would do is make their games take more time and money to develop and their hardware more expensive while the sales would probably be the same.

    • #378438
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because they have the portable market on lockdown and it would be fucking stupid to give that up for any reason
      putting top of the line hardware into portables is extremely expensive, and nintendo has had a fairly steady track record for making beautiful games on underpowered hardware

      • #378477
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Deck is coming for a slice of the portable pie

        • #378478
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I really don’t think the Steam Deck gonna threaten the Switch. It’s not really on the same playing field. The Switch is basically going for the core crowd, it’s not a turbo-casual family friendly normalfag machine.

          • #378537
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I just know that Deck will eat into software sales, since why would someone wait for a late Switch port, when they can just buy it for their PC and then also play it portable on a Deck at no extra cost.

            • #378539
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Nintendo has exclusives and the majority of normalfags and Nintensois don’t use emulators. So long as the next Pokemon games are Switch exclusives, normies will eat it up.

              • #378544
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I should have specified third-party software stuff. I am aware Nintendo can live on their own software alone, but it sure fucks with other publisher’s desires to try to make content for it.

                • #378545
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The majority of third party devs don’t exactly have the ability to take full advantage of Steam Deck hardware. May as well go for the game with the biggest install base.

                  A pre-established install base is extremely important, it’s one of the reasons why the PS2 was the absolutely dominant console during the 6th gen despite being the weakest console.

            • #378551
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I hope so, the only titles it will impact are shitty third party ports and indies, it would be great to see them fuck off, Nintendo exclusives make up more than half the software sales on Switch.

        • #378490
          Anonymous
          Guest

          the deck isn’t gonna defeat the switch although i hope it at least makes some headway into the portable market, even if that isn’t likely at all

          • #378497
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I dunno, I don’t really think they’ll be making these things regularly like with other consoles. If they actually wanted to fly into the portable market full force, they’d have to compete not just with Nintendo but with cellphones as well, and that’s just not a battle that even Valve can win. The Deck’s a novelty but most consumers don’t need a portable emulation machine. They just need Begarden gnomeeled.

    • #378439
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because they want to sell their consoles at lower prices while still making a profit off of each unit sold.

      • #378454
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Selling your console at a loss is always gonna be a bit of a gamble, since if the console somehow ends up failing, the damage is gonna be that much greater. However, Sony and Microsoft are international tech giants. Microsoft especially does not need the XBox brand to succeed; it would suck if it failed, but they’re absolutely not gonna go anywhere close to bankrupt if their game division went down the shitter.

        Nintendo, on the other hand, is purely a video game company. The mediocre sales of the Gamecube probably hurt Nintendo far more than the mediocre sales of the Xbox hurt Microsoft.

    • #378440
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I dont want top of the line graphics. I want fun.

    • #378442
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why bother? Their games remain gorgeous no matter the generation because they put effort into art direction. Not sure why pokemon is on there, though.

    • #378443
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because nintentoincels and trannies are fine with paying 60$ + tip for indie and wii games

    • #378445
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why does OP refuse to use images other than heavily compressed 250×110 screenshots?

    • #378446
      Anonymous
      Guest

      cause graphics have barely changed in the last couple years so most people wont notice the difference

    • #378447
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s the hardware, and it’s very unfair to group these together. Kirby is extremely impressive from a technical point on the Switch, and Dread is way more consistent in its style than Arceus or Advance Wars.

    • #378453
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Fun gameplay > graphics.
      We can see every single pore on the character ‘s skin? Cool, but is the game enjoyable beyond that?

    • #378455
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because that cancer makes your game’s budget blow out of proportion so even a simple game becomes a risky investment

    • #378456
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because unlike the do-nothing cretins on this website, Nintendo understands graphics aren’t everything.

    • #378458
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why should they bother when their games are selling up to 33 million?

    • #378461
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Thinks HAL is Nintendo
      >Thinks Game Freak is Nintendo

      • #378463
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Kinda are. HAL and Game Freak are so indebted to Nintendo that they’ll never break free from Nintendo’s vicegrip.

        • #378541
          Anonymous
          Guest

          They literally aren’t, retard. Gamefreak made a game for Xbox not that long ago.

      • #378466
        Anonymous
        Guest

        To be fair nintendo owns like a third of pokemon.

        • #378467
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s probably more than a third. Nintendo effectively owns a third of the Pokemon Company, but they also own stocks in both Creatures and Game Freak. It’s extremely likely that Nintendo is the majority shareholder of the Pokemon brand, certainly enough to prevent a potential united takeover by Game Freak and Creatures, not that they’d have the guts to try it.

          • #378514
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Yes Gamefreak is still an indipendent studio that Nintendo can’t controll in any way

    • #378464
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #378465
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You don’t need the latest fancy acronyms to have a good game, plus the budget swells like fucking crazy once you’re chasing photo-realism.

    • #378468
      Anonymous
      Guest

      this board is full of zoomers
      >"How did you approach the redesign of the controller?

      >Miyamoto: We started work on the Wii around the time the GameCube went on sale in 2001. [Internally, the Wii had the codename "Revolution."] We started with the idea that we wanted to come up with a unique game interface. The consensus was that power isn’t everything for a console. Too many powerful consoles can’t coexist. It’s like having only ferocious dinosaurs. They might fight and hasten their own extinction.

      >Ultimately, it came down to whether power should be a key element of the console or not. We didn’t think it was possible to build a powerful machine for less than 50,000 yen ($450). Not only would it use a lot of electricity, it would need a fan, which meant it would be noisy.

      >Did you ever worry about the Wii’s inability to match the realistic graphics and high-speed processing power of rivals’ machines?

      >Miyamoto: We had to compromise on graphics and give up on a powerful chip. Many of our employees initially wanted high-definition graphics. But they agreed with us that graphics wouldn’t matter if the games weren’t fun to play. That said, the Wii is much faster than the GameCube.

      >As new chip technology becomes available, we’ll consider less power-hungry varieties that don’t cost too much. And once high-definition TVs take off, we’ll consider the merits of better graphics and more power."

      they stopped trying to compete in graphics after the 64 and gamecube underperformed

    • #378469
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Looks good anyway

    • #378472
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because who gives a shit about real-time hair growth or watching a horse’s nuts shrink from the cold when you could have actual fun games

    • #378474
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I-is that a 3d Kirby game? Since when?

    • #378480
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because this is what happens anytime a game on the nintendo switch looks better than an indie or mobile title

      • #378483
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What’s the "this" being pointed out?

        • #378489
          Anonymous
          Guest

          abhorrent resolution scaling

          • #378493
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Ah, fair.

    • #378482
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I think they should abondon 3d altogether for these games. Espacially for pokemon.

    • #378484
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The only game that looks bad in your picture is Pokemon because GameFreak is a lazy hack of a company.

    • #378486
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Japanese developer
      There’s your problem

    • #378487
      Anonymous
      Guest

      its just for children now

    • #378491
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It won’t magically make the games better with them.

    • #378492
      Anonymous
      Guest

      better graphics don’t make good gameplay

    • #378494
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because top of the line graphics don’t matter.
      High fidelity graphics have neve made a bad game good, they don’t even make a good game better.
      Art style matters more than your ability to depict the pores on a character’s skin.

      • #378500
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This 100%
        Games like Yoshi’s Island and Wind Waker still look amazing after all these years

    • #378495
      Anonymous
      Guest

      its a never ending pursuit, so they aim for timeless art direction

    • #378496
      Anonymous
      Guest

      graphics don’t make a game more fun. if that were the case undertale wouldn’t have sold hot cakes like it did.

      • #378498
        Anonymous
        Guest

        yea but you’re not allowed to talk about that game or Ganker will fly into a blind autistic rage

        • #378522
          Anonymous
          Guest

          a small collective of Ganker users from that time will always remind everyone that Ganker unironically loved that fucking game for a solid week before the rest of the world caught wind of it, and consistently posted goat mom porn after the demo was released all the way up until it finally launched.

          • #378546
            Anonymous
            Guest
            • #378549
              Anonymous
              Guest

              that’s literally a screenshot of toby fox calling this shit before it happened. fuck off

              • #378550
                Anonymous
                Guest

                don’t care, still a twitter screenshot

                • #378552
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  that’s great and all but you can use context clues to figure out when to and when not to be a total fucking retard you know

                  • #378553
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >wah why cant i post about stuff i saw on twitter without reproach???
                    go back there

                    • #378554
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >make a point, using a screenshot from the time period as evidence
                      >literally do not take anything into consideration whatsoever, see thing, seethe, and disregard completely

                      that’s okay i guess, but you should go back to /poo/ or /qa/, whichever you came from

                      • #378561
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >see thing, and disregard completely
                        Yes.

      • #378499
        Anonymous
        Guest

        undertale doesn’t cost $60

        • #378503
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Do you think games should be priced based on how pretty they look?

          • #378505
            Anonymous
            Guest

            no but I think they should be priced based on a combination of production values as well as amount of content and games like metroid dread fail to meet a justifiable $60 price tag. It’s even more egregious in the case of nintendo because their games don’t go on sale often and if they do it’s like $40 at the lowest, as a matter of fact a lot of nintendo games go up in price because greedy as fuck nintendo ends to only prints out limited physical copies of anything outside their biggest sellers

            • #378507
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Dread probably cost more to make than Undertale though. Undertale didn’t have to deal with contractors, business associates and shit. It’s bullshit, sure, but goods are usually priced at how much they cost to produce rather than their actual quality. If a 2-hour game somehow cost a 1 million USD to make, that ain’t gonna be sold for 10 USD.

              • #378509
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Dread probably cost more to make than Undertale though
                of course but not enough to justify $60, this is coming from someone who played it twice already and 100% it

                • #378512
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  You wanna tell me how much this game cost to make then?

                  • #378515
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I don’t know how much it cost to make but I know how much it’s worth, it should have been no more than $40. I’d wager a 2D game with limited production values and low content doesn’t take a lot of money to make comparatively. To contrast, the prime games had double the content with higher production values which were priced the same (accounting for inflation) as dread.

                    • #378518
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The original Metroid cost more than this, adjusted for inflation. Technically, video games are being sold for a lot less now than they were back in the 80s, despite generally selling less copies overall. The only saving grace is that Nintendo isn’t selling games for $70 like Sony are.

                      • #378521
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        cartridges cost more back then than modern tpes of media. Standards were also obviously different during the infancy stage of video games

                    • #378524
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Free market means that the initial price is dictated by the distributor. If the public feels the price doesn’t fit the quality, then in the case of non-essential commodities like video games, they’ll simply not buy it. There have been a select few times when Nintendo was forced to reduce the prices of their products and it was for this reason. If people feel that Dread isn’t worth $50, then they’d show it as they have in the past.

                      Blame the normalfags and soibois.

                • #378543
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >this is coming from someone who played it twice already and 100%
                  And this is this part where you show your downloaded save

                  • #378557
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    hold on I don’t have a shitter account I gotta take a manual image

                  • #378560
                    Anonymous
                    Guest
            • #378511
              Anonymous
              Guest

              > on a combination of production values
              So Cyber punk would be what, $399 per copy?
              >as well as amount of content and games like metroid dread fail to meet a justifiable $60 price tag.
              People have been bitching about bloat in games for years. I’d rather have a fun game that I can replay multiple times, than a game that includes nonsensical padding to meet some arbitrary amount of hours
              >It’s even more egregious in the case of nintendo because their games don’t go on sale often and if they do it’s like $40 at the lowest, as a matter of fact a lot of nintendo games go up in price because greedy as fuck nintendo ends to only prints out limited physical copies of anything outside their biggest sellers
              Games don’t drop in value because they have replay value my friend. Nintendo doesn’t up the price of their games, that’s called supply and demand with old as fuck games.

              • #378519
                Anonymous
                Guest

                CP would be $60…is what I would say if the game was actually properly complete and not left to die with a shit ton of people leaving CDPR
                >People have been bitching about bloat in games for years. I’d rather have a fun game that I can replay multiple times, than a game that includes nonsensical padding to meet some arbitrary amount of hours
                you can have a lot of content without it being bloat
                >Games don’t drop in value because they have replay value my friend
                bullshit there are lots of replayable games that go down in price
                >Nintendo doesn’t up the price of their games, that’s called supply and demand with old as fuck games.
                yes because they print limited copies to begin with

                • #378523
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >CP would be $60…is what I would say if the game was actually properly complete and not left to die with a shit ton of people leaving CDPR
                  It cost millions to produce and still wound up shit. Money doesn’t just make something good anon, this is common sense
                  >you can have a lot of content without it being bloat
                  you can also replay a short game multiple times, thus giving you far more hours. Games aren’t movies, you don’t have to stop playing it after one play through, in fact lots of games are focused on that very thing.
                  >bullshit there are lots of replayable games that go down in price
                  But how is the demand for them?
                  >yes because they print limited copies to begin with
                  they print limited copies of pokemon and melee?

            • #378534
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >games like metroid dread fail to meet a justifiable $60 price tag

              >Dread probably cost more to make than Undertale though
              of course but not enough to justify $60, this is coming from someone who played it twice already and 100% it

              >not enough to justify $60
              But why? I don’t get it.
              If 2D games are more fun than 3D games. Then why can’t they cost as much as 3D games?
              If you think games are too expensive wholesale. Fair. Argue that games should be cheaper. But why should a 2D game be cheaper than a 3D game? That I don’t get.

              How does Dread not justify $60 when it’s one of the best games released in years?
              There are tons and tons of worse games being sold for $60. Kind of fucked up if something as impressive as Dread would have to be cheaper.

        • #378532
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I mean it’s a 5 hour rpg maker game

          • #378556
            Anonymous
            Guest

            dread’s 5 hours too

    • #378504
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Graphics will always fade over time, no matter how cutting edge they might start out.

      But good gameplay lasts forever.
      >But Nintendo games don’t have good gameplay
      Yeah man, they’ve been around for years and sold millions all as an elaborate inside joke. Just say you don’t like Nintendo and leave it be.

    • #378508
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Movies have the best graphics so just skip the game play and watch feature length cutscenes

    • #378510
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Metroid Dread is the best looking 2.5d game, which makes it top of the line.
      Kirby is disappointing 60fps should have been the priority.
      Pokemon Arceus is made by Gamefreak.
      Advance Wars Rebootcamp is made by Wayforwards.
      The last 2 are just the results of incompetent developers.

    • #378513
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Pokemon is not a Nintendo game

      • #378516
        Anonymous
        Guest

        mario isnt either

        • #378520
          Anonymous
          Guest

          MArio is developed by one of the biggest internal Nintendo studio, Pokemon is developed by an external indie studio.
          Mario is a Nintendo game, Pokemon is not.

    • #378525
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nintendo knows the majority of its market are little kids. So they price hardware so it’s affordable for them.

      • #378526
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I see more adult content on switch

    • #378528
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Graphics dont matter no matter how much snoyggers and steaming turdies seethe.

    • #378529
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The same reason they refuse to invest in top of the line gameplay: tendies buy it anyway.

    • #378531
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Putting Arceus and the Re-Boot Camp next to Kirby and Dread doesn’t stop Kirby and Dread from looking great.
      Dread in particular. The awful image quality of your image won’t change that either.

    • #378533
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Considering Nintendo’s own first party games tend to be very cartoony and stylized, they probably saw no reason to design hardware anymore where "top of the line" graphics is feasible. They also know full well that most people who want third-parties would just buy an xbox or playstation regardless.

    • #378538
      Anonymous
      Guest

      "top of the line" graphics are worthless and only serve to make the game look dated.

    • #378540
      Anonymous
      Guest

      People will buy it anyway so why bother having the shiniest graphics?

    • #378542
      Anonymous
      Guest

      limitation breeds creativity
      necessity is the mother of invention
      grafixfags are subhuman

    • #378547
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because they invest in actually good and replayable games

    • #378548
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why does Nintendo refuse to invest in top of the line graphics?
      >Sony
      >a large technological conglomerate
      >Microsoft
      >one of the biggest software companies in the world
      Geez I wonder why a Japanese company that only makes video games and hardware to play said video games would be reluctant to go on technological arms race with two companies that have the money and connections to survive such a ordeal?

    • #378555
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You don’t need to save low quality screenshots OP, just the games in their sub-720p appearance is enough.

    • #378558
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Only faggots care about muh ultra realistic graphics. If you want that shit go outside.

      • #378559
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Is 1080p + anti-aliasing in docked mode too fucking much to ask?

    • #378562
      Anonymous
      Guest

      they do it in purpose because they realized back in the day that emulation actually created more nintendo fan

      meanwhile the PS2 still has games that can’t be fully emulated

      • #378563
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What the fuck does that have to do with what OP asked? Never mind that Nintendo has always been anti-emulation.

Viewing 54 reply threads
  • The forum ‘A haunted junk yard’ is closed to new topics and replies.