The Wii U's graphics don't need to be as powerful as the PlayStation 4, or the new Xbox system, because game-play is more important than raw graphical power. If the only way you can develop a game is to make one that's visually appealing, you're doing it wrong.
The Wii U may be underpowered, in terms of graphics, falling very close to the PS3 and Xbox 360, rather than being more advanced than them, especially considering it came out years later, when hardware has evolved far beyond what it was. The Xbox 360 has a 3.2 GHz processor and 512 MB of RAM (Random Access Memory), and the PS3's hardware specifications is very similar. My computer, purchased last year, is mediocre at 2.1 GHz with 6GB of RAM.
So why do the hardware specs even matter? Well we all know why: because without a ton of RAM, any game that's running will be very limited in exactly how much data it can hold, maximum, at any given time. GHz is a whole other issue, related to clock speed, which I'm not that concerned about.
So if the Wii U is similar in quality to the PS3 and Xbox 360, on the verge of their next consoles, what does that say about Nintendo? It says they're behind. It says they don't care about graphics as much as Sony and Microsoft. What they want it to say is, they care more about game-play than graphics, more about fun and play than about how pretty and realistic it can possibly look.
Why can't be have both? A game that's pretty, but it's also ridiculously fun. I know one thing for sure. From the Wii to the Wii U, this is a huge step, graphics-wise. The Wii wasn't even capable of HD graphics; a sad, pathetic system, in terms of hardware. That may be harsh but it's true. If you compare the Wii to the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical prowess, the Wii may as well just be smashed with a hammer, because it's worthless. But Wii games are still fun. I've played a few that are really great, anyway.
Game-play can be fun, even if graphics are mediocre, this has always been true, and is more true when you look back at old games from the 90's, or any other decade of the past. Those games were made on 8-bit systems, and yet they are wonderful games, because the point of a game isn't to create a visual spectacle, or at least, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. If we wanted that, we could make a pseudo-game that's just beautiful scenery and you wander around in the game. It's just soothing music and scenic vistas. That may sound like fun to someone, I don't know, but to me, it's offensive. That's not why I play games. That could be a separate business altogether, but I want games that are fun.
If you had to pick one over the other, game-play or graphics, which would you choose?
-Mark Johnsen
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.