Topic: Wii Graphics Dispute

I very much doubt that's true. Nintendo is HUGE. I don't care how badly the GCN did, (and it wasn't horrible with sales) it's Nintendo we're talking about. I think it's more likely it was just too difficult to work on both graphics and motion control at the same time and get them out in time, so I think they just chose to work on motion control and do it well, rather than work for mediocrity on both aspects. Personally, I think, if you want realism, go outside. Good graphics would be nice, but too often companies sacrifice graphics for gameplay. That's true of A LOT of XBox360/PS3 Games. Wii may have its share of shovelware, but to me, XBox probably has more, because almost EVERY game is saying "look at me! I have the best graphics and little else!" Every popular game on the 360 seems to be an ultra-realistic violent shooter-type clone of one another. No thank you. Give me WiiSports.

@jangonov - As you said, it costs money. From what I've seen, only the PS2 exclusives seem to get any real push on lighting/shading. The rest is barely a step above flat or gouraud shading.

The worst offender is probably the Guitar Hero games from Activision. Not only do the characters have polygons jutting out from everywhere, but World Tour uses an audience of cloned meshes. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a snob about such things. But when every clone starts with the same animation seed, it gets a bit ridiculous. Nothing like 50 clones in a blue shirt all moving in unison to say, "Yeah, we didn't exactly try hard."

[quote=GabeGreens]

Per Miyamoto, it was two factors:

1. HD graphics would drive up the price of the console. (Witness PS3 and 360)
2. The number 1 complaint from developers and publishers was the skyrocketing cost of making games. Nintendo figured that by holding graphical advancements back a bit, then could slow the rising costs for content creation. The motion control focus was a way of getting the most consumer value out of a game without driving toward those graphics.