Former Metroid Prime Engineer Admits He Was "Disappointed" With The Wii's Specs

I understand that Nintendo has never really been the type to boast graphics or load times, they aren't the top priority. But looking into the competition, it's sad seeing how behind Ninty was for all these years. When I played some multi-platform games on switch, I thought they were okay. But when I recently got a PS4, it is insane just how much better it is. A lot of modern games can't run properly on it, many important third parties skip switch because of it. I found A Hat In Time completely unplayable on switch in comparison to other platforms. I'm not asking for a revolutionary console with specs better than everyone else, just the bare minimum of being able to run games without many devs feeling the need to put extra painful work into optimizing it for switch

@mariopartyfan68 Dude, take a deep breath and count to ten.

Remember, Nintendo is “a bit behind” because it makes them a lot of money, it’s their profit model. How designers and developers feel… that’s a separate issue, and they’ve every right to feel turned off by the hardware.

Recore and Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate definitely pushed the boundaries of technology where Metroid Prime 3 didn't...oh wait...

Well, I don't think Nintendo has to compete hardware wise. Xbox and PS are so similar in hardware to point where if you stripped the logo, they are both just midgrade budget pc's with slight differences.

That said, Nintendo could stand to keep thier hardware update atleast. The switch needs a refresh as more and more games are having to make huge sacrifices just to keep a steady framerate.

It's a fair reason to move on since his job is focused more on the technical side of this. This wasn't back with modern "innovations" which is just polishing pixels to impress the 5 other people willing to shell out for 90K resolution. Stronger hardware meant that there were more possibilities at the time.

In retrospect, I kind of like Nintendo's approach better. While their approach limits what 3rd parties can bring to the console (when they really want to give it a fair shot) it feels like we're reaching a zenith point when it comes to what more powerful hardware can bring. Beyond the graphics, there are a lot of cases where it feels like what's being done doesn't really need a major boost in technology to occur.

I get it. Perhaps more so than any other generation, the Wii was so behind the PS3 and 360 in terms of hardware power... getting to play in an HD spectrum was very interesting to young, budding developers, and Nintendo was still in the Standard Definition playground.

I don't think it turned out too badly for Nintendo, though, considering all the Wiis they sold. For as young as HD was at the time, it was probably the right call for them in the end.

But, again, I get it.

I completely understand his sentiment - however that said, many great innovations such as within games on the SNES / Megadrive just for example (or in other walks of life other than gaming), not having exactly what you'd like means that engineers have to 'struggle', 'work-around' and 'invent' new ways of doing things that had previously seemed impossible. As an engineer I'm surprised that's not at least a slight motivation, to be the one who overcomes all odds, but at the same time, of course on the face of it, better hardware would always be nice. Times have changed I guess.

@mariopartyfan68 jesus dude

@mariopartyfan68
God damn bro, it's not that deep, you're acting like this man just committed the worse crime of the century; he just didn't agree with Nintendo's point of view. You have a different opinion than him? Cool, express that all you want, but this is too far man, I'd love to see you on Twitter.

Also, Sony is only "allegedly" responsible for sexual harassment in the company, it's not been confirmed or denied yet if the person suing is infact telling the truth, they could be taking advantage of Activision Blizzard's lawsuits.

“Matthews went on to found Armature Studios - working on games like Recore and Batman Arkham Origins: Black Gate.”

Oof, I wouldn’t really call that a step up.

I don’t understand why it has to be “either or” with Nintendo. Powerful hardware and innovative controls aren’t mutually exclusive. And it’s not like the motion tech was cutting edge when it was in the Wii anyhow. Nintendo needs to give us both again. No one complained of the SNES being too powerful and it won the generation while also being home to hardware innovations and multiple GOAT-worthy titles

As much as we want a powerful nintendo console, It's not going to happen. For Nintendo, there is no reason to compete with xbox and PS. First, the company may have to get back hardcore gamers' trust again. That's a big issue because they are already comfortable with Sony or Microsoft systems, so they don't have the need to look back to nintendo, no even nintendo games are so appealing for this audience. So, The Big N did what's right, to keep going in a different direction, appealing to a different audience.

@mariopartyfan68

Hahahhaahahhahahhaa wauwwwwww....
Grab a tissue bro, its not the end of the world.
Take a deep breath and just relax.

@QuienDij0Fiesta
I agree its not going to happen. Its Nintendo they do things their own way. To match the next gen consoles in terms of raw power with a hybrid handheld console will never happen. The price would be to high. Just look at WinGPD handheld, ia doesnt even work that well, but the price are like 1200€

Always a disappointment when I see a Metroid Prime article and it isn't more Prime 4 info

@mariopartyfan68

Everyone was disappointed with the Wiis specs. I love my Wii and still play it but it was very underpowered and the multiplatform games were between Wii and PSP! Silent Hill Shattered Memories was a great game but it was a PSP game with slightly better textures. Wii got a totally different version of a game because it was clear that it simply couldn't keep up, like with Ghostbusters, that was such a shame. I liked Dead Rising, chop til you drop, but if you had the option to play Dead Rising, why bother? The other problem was, only Nintendo games looked good. I think devs struggled to make things work when they had moved their workflow onto far more powerful platforms, like they needed to turn all their settings for textures and models down low, just to get things to work. The Switch and PS5 situation is very similar, Switch can just about play some unity games without chugging too much and unity isn't really that demanding an engine. Anyway, I like my switch, and I'm used to having two consoles now. Perhaps I should have done that during the Wii era too, instead of playing those terrible versions of multiplatform games.

I'm not mad at someone for leaving a company because they didn't like the direction they'd be going in compared to the competition.

But it is really funny that people could've been a part of working on Metroid Prime 3 and Donkey Kong Country Returns but instead worked on Recore and (arguably by some distance?) the worst Batman Arkham game. But it gets sadder when you remember companies like Silicon Knights and Factor 5 bet on next gen graphics and then made underwhelming to bad games and went out of business. Spending tons of more money to make games with technically better graphics only to close down is one of the top reasons why I approve of Nintendo's underpowered console logic.

@kkslider5552000

Looking back, clearly SK and F5 made a mistake jumping ship. I don’t think their reasoning was flawed, but I do think they took what Nintendo brought to the table in the relationship for granted. Nintendo’s understanding of what makes a game fun is extremely unique and undoubtedly they would not have gotten so far with a stale idea under Nintendo’s guidance.

As for MP3 or Recore, obviously one is a better game, but working for yourself is a true reward in itself. Armature is Matthews baby. And as long as they’re getting work, they’re hanging on. I can imagine there are a bunch of ideas in the world that just need some funding to get off the ground. Transitioning roles can be challenging and rewarding all at once

@mariopartyfan68 You need help lmao

Insert XBox and PS5 jokes here.😅 But then again, we consumers would be hypocrites to complain about largely similar architectures since they help pave the way for backward compatibility. Am I not the one hoping for a similar case on Switch's successor?

@PBandSmelly what spoiled gamers envision as a "bare minimum" usually amounts to a lot of spec bloat facilitating a lot of resolution/VFX bloat to match - not that many games on allegedly "superior" hardware have historically used its statistical strengths as creatively as it might have sounded on paper. And Nintendo USED to be about graphics and performance, although GameCube, one of its generation's most powerful consoles, deliberately went for a smaller disc capacity to discourage third parties from filling the space up with more cutscenes than gameplay. They only bailed out of the rat race after getting outsold by a competitor who offered the public a tempting feature completely unrelated to game performance. And I've ironically had a PS4 for longer than a Switch, my first owned home console since Sega Mega Drive to boot - but never been particularly wowed by its hardware even in the minor but tangible share of time I played it beyond the 544p resolution. Heck, while twice the capacity, my PS4's storage is still an HDD versus Switch's flash memory - and it still somehow takes considerably longer to calculate stuff in the data management menu than Switch does. Between this and the stylish but occasionally more sluggish home menu, it's already something to take note of - before we even get started on all the "performance smoothness" that trying to play the console's "superior" games unchained to a living room can have you sacrifice to the gods of streaming and to the quirky mastermind behind Vita's default RP control schemes. ¯(ツ)/¯

And what means "reaching a bare minimum" nowadays when Nintendo has opened up and moved to the hybrid console market? A hybrid like Switch will never have the raw specs on par with its generation peers with (or even without) a competitive price, just like most laptops don't do it in regards to their contemporary home PCs. On the other hand, PS5 and XBSX will never offer you as much time with the games proper as a hybrid console can. Can't quite have the cake and eat it here. And while the hypothetical Gen 10 "Switch U 64 Advance" may likely match or surpass the specs of a PS4, it will definitely not be a portable PS5 in this regard, let alone comparable to the PS6 that will catch up later. Those not alright with it are probably better off opting out of Nintendo just like a lot of us fully employed gamers finds themselves opting out of many a Sony/Microsoft offering.

@mariopartyfan68 Dude take some time from the internet. Imagine being that angry over a dude’s disagreement with Nintendo.

@Xiovanni Well that's your setup. My pc costs twice as much and can run the entire xbox and ps5 library at 4k with no sacrifices to quality.

@mariopartyfan68 You're definitely not OK my friend...
I've seen a couple of your tirades now and your obsession with "Nintendo good, Sony bad" is definitely getting out of hand...

While i'm not saying you're wrong, you should definitely get some fresh air and switch down a gear or two.

I don't blame him. The Wii was a nice little gimmick, but long term I think it did more harm than good for Nintendo. They did draw in a new market for Nintendo that gave it tremendous sales, but that market promptly abandoned them for mobile so it wasn't sustainable and their long time fans were a little more upset by the direction the Wii and the Wii U went. We're just now recovering from all of that with the Switch.

@FTL i think it takes the creative process out if programmers just work with an updated engine for next gen because they don’t need to make any alternations and just work with what’s given to them. I remember the times when every studio had their own engine- golden times-each game felt more unique-now anyone can make a game. I think the Wii was just still SD because I more consumers at that time still had SDTV, so Nintendo worked along the major consumer base! Switch now is great, and I care less and less caring for power, but when some studios say no to converting some big games for Switch it’s super annoying- No Arkham games on Switch- no MGS, no Mass Effect, no GTAV, Vanquish…. In general no great polished TPS ( except for RE4) I want a Switch that handles smooth 60fps with great artwork. I think that’s not so much to ask Nintendo! I want a Nintendo console, that handles smooth gameplay ( even Zelda stutters in many areas and that’s lame for first party software) great artstyle, better analogue sticks, and enough power to handle the same complex AI as competition! I don’t care for graphics, but sometime Nintendo could push a little harder to meet the most important gaming specs.

Recore is like a 3rd person metroid game. Bought it right a way on series s.

I wonder if he regrets his decision. Armature hasn’t really done much exciting.

It was probably for the best, better hardware/hd output would have meant bigger workload for making games, we probably wouldn't have as many games released.

Using the same knowledge from the GC meant easier obstacles to overcome.
A good example of this is Sonic 06, if it had been designed for Wii the tighter limitations would have allowed them to finish the game a lot sooner.

@electrolite77 Great engineers are problem solvers who want to invent new technology. Dealing with old hardware can be just as much of an opportunity to do that.

Plus, Armature’s a rather middling developer, not exactly breaking any ground.

@Xiovanni Well then upgrade your pc? The highest end pc's run circles around Xbox and PS5. It's just facts. Consoles are sold at lost for a reason. Sony and Microsoft are not going to give gamers top of the line specs for that low of a price.

@MrHonest How about I do what I want, and you scroll on. Sony is being sued for horrible racism and sexism.

@NinChocolate,

Nintendo are a bit behind as they just can't compete in the core space, the core market is pretty much 180 million consoles every generation, and already have two very established players working within it.

So the best Nintendo could hope for is a 60 million share of it which would cost the a fortune, considering the loss on the more powerful hardware, and the facts the developers are already pretty much signed up with the current manufacturers, and that's before you factor in one of those players buying a major studio like Microsoft did.

Even in a pretty modest generation with the Wii U and 3DS they still managed to shift around 90 million units of hardware, and when they get it right like the Wii and DS profits are insane, the Switch is looking well on track this generation for another awesome home run.

@NatiaAdamo If you don't like my comment, scroll on.

@The-Chosen-one Uh what?

@TheBigK I just said my peace.

@TheFox Take your own advice. I am just leaving a comment.

@mariopartyfan68 Buddy, you are so enraged that you completely ignored that i even agreed with you...
No one is "sticking up with Sony" here, you're just completely blind in your obsession and rage and apparently see everything as an attack that doesn't look like complete agreement with you...

Seriously, take some time off, being this obsessed isn't healthy in the long run.
And people tend to not look past things like this because believe it or not, some people actually care about community members...

It was good for its time

Anyone proof read these articles?, first sentence has the word most missing!

I like Sony and PlayStation.

Ok, seriously: I agree, the Wii was underpowered and I was jealous looking at PS3 and 360 at that time. But again: Nintendo hardware is primarily meant for exclusives and besides the low specs, I had a lot of fun with them. The same goes for the Switch. I get my multiplats on other consoles/PC. Even though a Switch maintaining 720p/30fps all the time would have been sufficient for me to also use it for thirds.

@OldPierre77 Meanwhile over at Sony and Microsoft. Bland open world games designed to zombify audiences with boring repetitive bland gameplay that's nothing but copy and paste across the board. Live service and micro transactions. Topped with games costing 10 dollars more this time around. Along with ridiculous preorder "upgraded" versions designed to suck the consumers wallet dry.

@PBandSmelly I just beat it on switch . Unplayable ? Like freezes at a certain part ? lol

@Znake : “even Zelda stutters in many areas and that’s lame for first party software” — this is a fact that has been puzzling me from the start. BOTW stuttering on WiiU was a disappointment, games released near the end of a console cycle should be flawless, but the same game on new hardware should have been optimized to the absolute max!

In retrospect the gamecube, wii and wii U were all tethered to the same underpowered infrastructure. Nintendo really did get stuck in a box. Hope they pull their finger out with the next console... we'll see.

In a way, by keeping the specs around the GameCube Nintendo had a chance for the handheld device to catch up with the home device in order to combine the two of them.

In the long run I think it will work out

@ecco6t9 You are making a good point, never thought of it like this!

@NinChocolate you can argue that Nintendo makes money despite their weak hardware, but arguing that their success is due to their weak hardware isn't really credible.

Don't get me wrong. Loved the Wii, and glad it sold like wildfire. But these devs are right: it was grossly underpowered. The irony is, of course, up until that point, Nintendo was at the forefront of graphics and power.

The NES, SNES, N64, and GCN all were just as powerful, if not more so, than their competition at the time, despite some weird design choices (N64 still using cartridges and GCN using minidiscs while Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, and the Xbox all used optical discs).

The truly sad thing, though, is how the Wii U got the short end of the stick. It was slightly more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3, yet third-party devs passed over it when bringing AAA games to those consoles. Even if they didn't like the Wii U GamePad, they could have still used the Pro Controller as an option.

While the Switch is nearing the Wii's levels of success, and may even surpass it, in no small part due to the third-party devs supporting it this time around, all good things must come to an end. Those devs will not stick around much longer, as newer hardware comes out. As it is, in terms of power, the Switch is roughly comparable to the Wii U, Xbox 360, and PS3, which all rely on 15-year old technology.

If Nintendo wants to keep third-party devs on board in the future, they need their next system to be at least somewhat comparable in power to the competition, (at the very least. the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S), even if Sony comes out with the PS6 and Microsoft comes out with whatever they name the new Xbox.

Understandable from his point of view
I fall into a same catagory needing new things to mentally challenge me in the work place to keep me interested.
I cant imagine having to be stuck to a routeen (which is what the wii might feel like comming off the GC)

Nintendo's business model is the best there is in the console world. They create an underpowered console to sell THEIR games. 3rd party is just an afterthought, a by-product. Makes somewhat sense imo. I doubt gamers buy a nintendo console for their amazing 3rd party content but to experience mario and zelda and stuff.

I gotta admit I felt the same way too. The wii-mote was cool at first but I was disappointed in the obvious GameCube graphics on the 2ii. Like Nintendo, COME ON. A bit more power can't hurt you. Fortunately I also had a 360 at the time but man I was a but disappointed with my Wii. Made the best of it though.

@PBandSmelly I’m glad you used that example because it just proves that the experience differs on a case by case basis. Alien Isolation for example has parity with the PS4 version, so do the Bioshock games, off the top of my head. Some Switch ports improve on the PS4/Xbox One versions in some cases. Another good example is Dying Light. But the example you gave, A Hat In Time, that’s the product you get when the Switch version/port is made without passion from the top. Especially after the negativity the creator/dev expressed towards the possibility of a Switch version in the early years of the console. Lack of passion and financial incentive leads to bad ports. It’s not purely a “power” thing.

@WhiteUmbrella their success is due to their hardware. Their hardware is not high-end, but if you’re saying any product that isn’t high-end makes money despite the fact, that’s not an understanding of how a given market works.

Surely as an artist creativity is more important than raw power? You don't see painters not creating a masterpiece because they don't have the best brushes.

@RadioHedgeFund the artists I know making masterpieces are pretty much using the best brushes, canvases, paints or digital art software. But then I’m not sure you can compare your local crafts store to Nintendo’s hardware, lol

For some it could be a blessing or a relief. Despite Wii having almost the same raw power as GameCube means it shouldn't be difficult to understand all the ins and outs of the hardware, the only complicated part is forcing motion controls into the mix and how to do it right. Some devs just did not bother with the Wii cause of the difficulty of how they should implement such gimmick to games that either did not need them or had to be build around them. Others blame the lack of powers but then again these same devs also ports stuff to the PS2, DS, 3DS, and PSP, platforms that are much simpler and weaker than GameCube and Wii. Some also use the "It does not sell well on Nintendo platform" excuse.

Not surprised that a tech engineer wanted to move to something better hardware-wise. There was a really big shift in techniques with 360/PS3 that was not possible before, which is very exciting for a person working close to the metal. Wii being underpowered and similar to the GC meant they would just do refinements on what they had already instead of moving to new tech.

I enjoyed the Wii as a console overall, but it was also the console that made Nintendo my secondary choice to game on, PC becoming my main. I think Nintendo knows it is that way for most people since then so they don't need to complete on tech, since the majority of owners can get that on their main machines.

Nintendo focuses on offering a different experience instead while keeping good profit margins on hardware and lower game development costs. As long as they keep that different experience compelling (like they did with the Wii and Switch) people will always pick Nintendo for their secondary gaming option.

I don't think some of you actually realize this, but Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate is a 3DS/Vita spin-off to Batman Arkham Origins, which was a PS3/360/PC/Wii U game.

So Mr. Matthews went from working with Wii hardware with Metroid Prime 3 to 3DS hardware with Arkham Origins Blackgate, which is considerably weaker than the Wii. So much for not wanting to stay a bit behind...

I suppose I'd rather have a simple bow and arrow hit the bull's eye instead of an engineer's tech flex missing the point.

@NinChocolate You could compare hardware to the size of a canvas. A bigger canvas lead to a bigger artwork, it doesn't mean it'll be better, just more potential for details. But regardless of the size of the canvas, if an artist is as talented as I am, he will never be able to draw anything.

@Rhaoulos for sure, canvas options are critical for fine arts. Even digital software needs to scale up to high resolutions to be of use for many

Nintendo isn't about strong hardware. They are about strong software.

They make gimped hardware with gimmicks attached to them but they also make some of the best games in every single console generation and they lock those ridiculously good games behind their substandard hardware.

It's a hit and miss business model. It all boils down to what gimmicks they use to sell the hardware and if it'll catch.

The Wii was successful but a fad, got boring real fast.
The Wii U's gimmick didn't work at all.
The Switch hit it out of the park.

It all depends on the gimmick.

if Nintendo want to suceed on the Switch sucessor, she need to make console that is both powerful enough most next gen games and also be inovative.

@mariopartyfan68 Hahaha. Oh man. You really need to take some time off since you apparently can’t handle that someone disagree.

@Bratwurst35 Have you seen Nintendo lately? Before you criticise Sony and Microsoft I’d suggest you take an look at Nintendo and how they milk their fans dry.

@MegaMel86 "I don’t understand why it has to be “either or” with Nintendo. Powerful hardware and innovative controls aren’t mutually exclusive."

For Nintendo, it's a matter of money. Since the Iwata era, Nintendo wanted to profit from their consoles from the very 1st day of launch. This is a contrast of Sony and MS strategy to put the strongest hardware they can, even if that means losing money on every console sold for over a year.

Having an innovative console that also has the hardware grunt is very costly, and Ninty said multiple times that they wanted cheap parts for their systems. It hasn't always worked, though. The Wii U and the og 3DS are their best examples on how cheaping out on hardware didn't work out for them, despite the console being quite innovative, if not gimmicky.

@NinChocolate I didn't use the term "high end", I said the Wii was weak hardware, and it was, comparatively. Bear in mind that the Wii was and still is to this day, my favourite console of all time.
After previously having no interest in the Wii, I purchased one after a wonderful day spent with my mum and siblings. We had so much fun playing Wii Sports together, so many good memories I still treasure, and I'm sure this software was many buyers first introduction to the hardware. A stroke of genius from Nintendo.
The strong hardware sales unfortunately were not accompanied by a strong software attachment rate, however.

Somehow, over time, the idea of Nintendo releasing hardware of comparable strength with their competitors has been construed as "competing". Fundamentally, they are always competing in some sense, if not in actual power of the hardware. I don't see how strong hardware equates to competition that is any more direct than what Nintendo are doing already. While the notion of a Switch console being on an equal power footing with Sony and Microsoft is moot, I find the suggestion that the Wii may have failed if it had been equal in power to the PS3 and 360 ludicrous. That is like suggesting that their current fanbase would have chosen PlayStation or Xbox over Switch if all Nintendo games ran at 4k 60. That makes no sense. Mario Odyssey or Breath of the Wild would hardly have been diminished by higher resolution and improved frame rates.

Talk about “much ado about nothing”. Too much time to waste….

despite Wii be very underpowered, some of his games like Metroid Prime 3 and Super Mario Galaxy are very impressive, but i miss Nintendo making powerful consoles.

@Zuljaras PS3 was a nightmare because of the duel cell processor, the damn thing was a beast but it was way ahead of it's time. It was still considered a powerful processor even up until 2015, 2 years into the PS4s lifetime.

It was basically what Sega did with the Sega Saturn, made a bespoke device that was years ahead of it's time and the technology wasn't there to compliment it. PS3 wasn't nearly as bad as the Saturn though.

I totally get that sentiment. I loved my GameCube but I had no desire to get a GameCube 2.0 after I already had the joy of playing a PS3 on my HD TV.

Nobody is saying Nintendo has to provide similar performance to PS and MS but they could at least provide decent specs. Struggling to maintain a HD resolution on some games in 2021 really isn't a pretty look.

I don't give a hoot about specs and super realistic graphics. I'm not knowledgeable on the technical and practical points, so I can't remark what it's like to work on the basic structures and inner workings. So long as the hardware lasts a long time and the games are fun, I'm happy. Besides, they usually come out comfortably on top, so they're doing something right.

I have to be honest, I was not fond of the Wii. I passed on buying a Wii during release, because I did not like the Wiimote. Finding out Metroid Prime 3 exclusively used the Wiimote as it's controller.. was a a bit rough. I tried it at a demo kiosk. I wasn't.. sure about it, being so used to a regular controller.

Later I did find a used Wii, cleaned it up, found a few games. Found MPT.. it was a different experience. I tried to utilize the Wiimote best I could, but I just couldn't keep going it bugged me.

Also extra note: I did play Other M. Yikes.. i did not enjoy it at all.

Limitations.. honestly the Wii is a weird system. Just an upgraded GameCube, I totally agree with. If they allowed regular controllers as an alternative with MPT, and Other M, i might have enjoyed it more.

The Wii just wasn't for me
If MP and it's sequels do get re-released, I hope that they can utilize the pro controller, plus Joycons better than what the Wiimote was capable of back then.

@locky-mavo I would call it a step up. The guy founded his OWN company and has those console games under his belt. Who is to say one day a masterpiece won’t pop up?

Is this new information? I thought it was agreed that keeping the Wii underpowered was a major screwup, on par with the cartridge-based N64. Miyamoto himself, as well as a Wii engineer both later acknowledged that staying SD in an HD generation wasn't a good idea in retrospect and that they would have gone HD if they knew HDTVs were going fly off the shelves so soon.

For reference, the Wii retailed at $250. The Wii U just 6 years later cost just $180 to manufacture. Even when accounting for lower costs over time, they could still have turned a profit releasing an HD console in 2006.

@Giancarlothomaz In the gaming market, there was never a platform that was successful despite having the most powerful hardware and attempting innovation. NeoGeo tried that and failed, Dreamcast tried that and failed, Xbox tried that and failed, PSP tried that and failed, and PS3 tried that and failed.

They took the direction they did because directly competing in specs wasn't actually working.

I'd understand if the GC was a close 2nd to the PS2 but it was 3rd place and by a wider margin than the N64 was to the PS1. Hell the gap between GC and PS2 was wider than the WiiU and PS4.

The focus on controls and new gameplay types was the right call for the 7th generation.

@Specter_of-the_OLED I'm not sure if I would include PS3 in that category. It had an abysmally slow start, true...but by the end of its lifespan, it ended up selling 87 million units - only about 14 million less than the Wii. I'd say that was pretty dang good, all things considering.

I certainly wouldn't put it in the category of "Most Powerful Systems of That Flopped In Its Generation". I mean, I would have more or less agreed with your assessment had the list given was made up of most powerful consoles that didn't take first place.

As for the rest of what you wrote...

• I know the caveat was hardware that attempted to be the most powerful while also innovating, but I wouldn't consider most of those consoles to be hugely innovative. Just my opinion, tho.
• Dreamcast doesn't belong on that list, as it was, by far, the weakest console of its generation.
• Where is Vita? It is the poster child of immensely powerful consoles that flopped.
• GameCube and N64 were arguably the most powerful consoles of their generation and both were eclipsed by their competition (especially the former).

@electrolite77

In todays climate for sure. I was speaking back when the Wii was around. The GameCube didn’t fail due to lack of power or innovation. The GameCube failed due to Nintendo’s protectionist policies (tiny disc format they could control) and an awful image problem.

As a portable in todays market, they can’t compete Spec for spec with the XSX and PS5, but valve is showing there is plenty of room for performance improvement and a reasonable price, regardless of how the steam deck actually sells

@Vexx234 You have a pretty odd view of the new consoles. Midgrade budget PC's? These aren't the PS4/Xbox One we're talking about.

The Series X in particular is more powerful than a 2080 super, which fairly recently, was around 50% more expensive than a Series X or PS5. Not to mention that it contains a CPU similar to the Ryzen 3700x, so a 300 dollar CPU. So with a case, motherboard, controller etc you're looking at over a grand just to match it, let alone exceed it.

The Series X is good value even a year later, and has functionality the PC can't match, like quick resume. I have a gaming PC too, and enjoy the Series X far more.

@Savage_Joe

I don’t think cheaping out on hardware was the issue with the 3DS. It was a combination of a high price (only $50 less than the home console) and lack of compelling software. In all honesty, the 3DS is probably a better system than the DS, but could never reach those sales highs due to a changing market. Dedicated portables began to be replaced by smartphones, especially amongst the most casual fans

@Specter_of-the_OLED you have a severely warped view of the success of the PS3 and PSP

The PS3 is in the top 10 best selling consoles ever, next to the Switch and actually outselling the 360. The PSP is just outside the top 10, above the 3DS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles

“...and so creatively as an engineer, that was a creative problem for me.”

What a quote. The word ‘creative’ shouldn’t go anywhere near this guy.

And honestly, shouldn’t creativity be used to solve problems, not run from them?
Is it any wonder that so many of the franchises, ideas, concepts, and mechanics that have stood the test of time are from decades ago, when the limits of what was possible drove the engines of creativity in tech and design?

@Dr_Lugae

I’d say the GC-PS2 comparison really is a once in a lifetime situation. Nintendo spotted Sony a full years head start with the PS2. Combine that with the overall marketplaces shift from VHS to DVD and the fact the PS2 was the cheapest DVD player you could buy at the time buried the GameCube before launch day

@mariopartyfan68 I'm not the one who had a mental breakdown over an opposing view buddy. Take your own advice and get out of that basement you live in.

The Wii was literally just an overclocked Gamecube with motion controls.

@Raffles Well can XSX beat a 3080?

Hes not wrong Nintendo use weak hardware instead of stronger hardware to make things easier for developers

@GoshJosh Of course not, but the point is it compares very favourably to a recentish gaming PC, ie something built just a few months before the release of the new consoles, for over twice the price of a XSX. Point being it certainly is not a "mid range budget PC".

A Series X doesn't get completely embarrassed even by a 3090, and that is 3 times the price, for the GPU alone.

@Andy_Witmyer "GameCube and N64 were arguably the most powerful consoles of their generation and both were eclipsed by their competition (especially the former)."
Xbox was the strongest console of the 6th gen with 20gflops. It was stronger than most PCs of that era, and it even was capable of outputting hd graphics if it was not restricted to composite. It was rumored that the first Splinter Cell game was going to be a super realistic game that only the og xbox could run at that time.

@westman98 totally, im glad he leaved Nintendo his dumb philosophy doesnt suit Nintendo. And he probably regrets it now even if he doesnt admit it

@Savage_Joe Correct. Ps2 may have the been the weakest but the DVD playback feature gave it the biggest advantage.

Y’all can criticize the Wii all ya want, at the end of the day a supercharged GameCube beat the PS3 and the Xbox360. Nintendo has plenty of cash flow and will always do whatever they want. Haters gonna hate.

Given his new company's track record, I'm not convinced he was all that vital to the success of Metroid Prime in the first place.

I'll raise my hand as the sole fan of Recore here. Thanks for Recore. I loved it.

I remember the Wii U's priority was that it don't make noise as to bother mum.

@swedetrap was one of the first games I got when. I bought a Series. Pretty much a 3rd person Metroid. Great game.

@DaTrashMan that's great and all but means I will only play Nintendo exclusives on any given Nintendo system.

I understand. It sucks, but Nintendo and more to a point Iwata, had a plan. We are seeing the ultimate culmination of the Blue Ocean strategy with Switch. As graphics have gotten to a leveled point the past 2 generations the Switch has been able to take advantage of this with its "impossible ports.' It is a system for the masses at a reasonable price point and with features many people want. It's my most played console and I have a PS5. I waited for DOOM ETERNAL on Switch and I was impressed. The next Nintendo console will hopefully be a Switch successor that can scale to 4K via software upscaling. The Wii was a necessary stepping stone.

I'm not surprised. The devs must have heard what the xbox 360 was gonna do in 2005 and assumed the Revolution would be the same.

The Wii was a great console but if it was around the 360s power level, we could have had games like Borderlands and Red Dead Redemption 1 on there and maybe the same team would have all stayed at Retro Studios

This is quite interesting insight. It's not surprising to me that a programmer working on games would want to use the latest and greatest tech. While Nintendo is highly innovative in certain aspects like their control interfaces and device form factor, they are still far behind on the processing power their devices can operate at. As amazing as Switch is, it's still underpowered and missing most of the modern titles coming out.

Me i never played Prime 2 and 3 due to the Wii...I hated the console and the controller

@EVIL-C Switch is doing too well at this point and has more than enough of 3rd party

@NWC Some friendly advice; don't become blind to the weaknesses of the platform. That logic can be applied to the Wii, a console you said you hated yet sold phenomenally well, too. 3rd party support is objectively much better on Switch, but it's still missing out on a lot.

People who say graphics, performance and power don't matter really need to take a long look at the past year and bit of games on Switch. Playing SMT V right now and while its a GOTY worthy game it is clear the Switch is reaching its limits, performance wise it isn't great, visually it gets by only because of the anime style art design and use of colour and its "open world" is pretty barren, i can imagine if it was on current gen only it would be a much better game even if already its fantastic. Then of course you have Hyrule Warriors AoU and Monster Hunter Stories 2 what are two games what run pretty bad on Switch and are limited by the Switch specs.

This year on PS5 we have seen Returnal and on Series X/S MS Flight Sim two games only possible on the machines (and PC) they're on. They both do things last gen consoles couldn't do and show what current gen can do when not lowing itself to last gen consoles. I'm not saying the Switch 2 should aim for those levels but as time goes on you can see Nintendo consoles like Wii, Wii U, 3DS and Switch get more limited in what they can do due to Nintendo not focusing on certain things.

@EVIL-C i disagree ..I stand by my mind thoughts on the subject..Wii did sell well be it does not mean it was a great console the Switch is the fastest selling console in history for a reason...That is why i know what im talking about.. Been gaming since the 70's and so again 3rd party is just fine on the switch and far more powerful than that weak wii

@WallyWest Right now im waiting to get my hands on the Xbox Series X and play that and have my Switch as the secondary console...Playstation is just dead to me at this point

@NWC I think all 3 have big strengths at the moment and its why i bite the bullet and got both a PS5 and a Series S this year. Series S is mainly for Gamepass but it has been nice being able to play old Xbox and 360 games i haven't played in many years.

@AstroTheGamosian I wouldn't say it got the short end of the stick. It literally released at the tail end of the generation. The WiiU was technically a 8th generation console, and so was competing with the Xbox One and PS4, so again... Nintendo released a massively weaker console.

Most developers at that time was focused on developing content for Xbox One and PS4, and was only releasing content on PS3/Xbox 360 to take advantage of the massive player base.

The WiiU had neither specs or player base on it side, and also didn't have unreal engine support... A engine that was on a massive raise at the time.

Switch got the excuse that its a mobile device. The only excuse Wii had for the last-gen specs was to keep cost down. Wii-Mote was really great. But hardware wise yes it was just a beefed up Gamecube.

@NinChocolate I'd say that it's created a problem for them when talent starts leaving because of it.

Nintendo to release titles on Gamepass. Imagine Mario, Zelda et all 4K60 on Xbox with extended draw distances etc.

Then keep the budget hardware with high end prices to keep the hardcore fanboys happy. Deal all round and increase the audience.

This is why I was a “Wii60” player back then. I eventually got a PS3, but between Xbox 360 and Wii I was plenty happy. That trend has stayed true to this day with my Wii U, Xbox One, and now Switch and Series X.

Wii had more problems than that. The biggest being not allowing your digital purchases to be tied to an account but to the console instead.

@Don or that the wiiware games could not be more than 44MB, leading to these episodic games or games like Super Meat Boy not releasing at all

@electrolite77 Nintendo said it was a mistake. Those are their words, not mine.

And launching a new generation in 2010 would be too soon and make nintendo customers feel left in the dust.

@Hungryluma yet, that's what they did with the switch, releasing it 4 years later, leaving wii u users in the dust

Well, bad work that they did technically in Prime 3, the worst looking of the Prime games.

I absolutely loved Super Mario Galaxy, Mad World, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart, Xenoblade Chornicals, and Murimasa the Demon Blade on my Wii. I'm sure there are a few other games I'm forgetting at the moment. I never had the urge for another system. I'm sure if I was younger I would have wanted to have them all, but I have limited playing time. And something about how FUN Nintendo games are, that I do not really care if the graphics aren't the best. It's all about having a good time in short 30 minute bursts. That's why now I only have the switch. Sure it would be nice to see the better graphics on my TV, but just like I think DVD quality is fine on my HDTV, and do not need Blu-Ray; I think Switch graphics are good enough and I do not need the best possible graphics to enjoy myself.

Now ask me the same question back in the Sega Dreamcast days and graphics were EVERYTHING. Also, speaking of Dreamcast, Capcom needs to re-release Canon Spike.

That's fair. It sold well and had some great games, but gamers wanted HD visuals and the Wii couldn't do that. Around the same time Uncharted 2 blew everyone away, Nintendo put Wii Sports Resort on shelves. Not a terrible game at all, but it's a clear example of how their approach was more towards casual gamers who weren't bothered about state-of-the-art tech.

Fact of the matter is, the Wii was pretty much just an extension on the GameCube's life. A late model refresh now boasting motion controls, is really all the Wii is. Sony and Microsoft however had moved on in the traditional way of a full generation upgrade. So in a sense, Nintendo's proper competitor for the PS3 and 360, was the Wii U, but the Wii U was much too late to that party to have made any impact. I do wonder how things would have fared for the device that is the Wii U, if it had released when the Wii had instead. Obviously the Wii was a success regardless, but it kinda faded out instead of closing strong, had it's power been more in line with the PS3 and 360, it could have done even better than it did.

@electrolite77 A higher cost would likely be $50-$100 more than what the Wii retailed for at launch. Meaning it still would have been cheaper than the premium Xbox 360 edition and marginally more expensive than the Arcade model which in some stores retailed at about the same price as the SD Wii.

Miyamoto defended the decision to remain SD in 2006 because that is his job. Now that the Wii era is over, he has free reign to say how he really felt.

"That’s why the first mistake was not having a souped-up, BC, upscaling Wii HD ready in 2010"

That's not how "HD" worked in the 7th gen. The jump to HD wasn't just a resolution bump. "HD" is short-hand for all of the collective advancements made by the 360/PS3 like widescreen, shaders, particle effects, advanced lighting, physics systems, etc. Nintendo's only 2 options were to release an HD system in 2006 or wait until the generation was over and then release more powerful hardware. The latter of which they chose.

High definition games are not a simple upres job. Taking Gamecube games and upscaling them is not the same as building a game from the ground up with HD shaders, bigger environments and complex physics systems. This why when the Wii U came out, Nintendo commented that making HD games was difficult.

It didn't take them 6 years to make the Wii U. They started making it in 2008 after discovering that core gamers were abandoning their platform for the competition. Like the DS, they were hoping to attract the casual audience and retain their core audience as well.

@WallyWest i was going to get the S but id rather have the X

@westman98 Lol exactly what I was going to say. This guy left to work on “cool things” and he ended up doing nothing.

@JaneBear Xbox is such a great company. Same boat here

@WallyWest I have the gamepass subscription that includes pc games and between that, my series x, and my switch, I’m pretty much set for games

Well they did a fantastic job with prime 3 imo. It's one of best looking and best controlling game on Wii. When trilogy came out it def showed the difference between echoes and prime 3 but it really wasn't a next gen difference. The 3 console prime games are some of my ALL time favorite games. Even the DS prime hunters was great. They proved raw power doesn't mean you can't make something great. The art design alone made ALL if them look incredible despite the hardware.

@Raffles
Not sure where you got that from, but calling a Series X more powerful than a 2080 Super is so hysterically wrong that it's cringe inducing. The PS5 is performing on par with a GTX 1060/1650 and the Series X isn't far beyond that. A regular 2080 smokes a XSX in every regard imaginable.

@PBandSmelly
this is pretty much how i feel.
personally the portable aspect is very important to me so i definitely hope that the next system keeps the idea, it doesnt even need to be steam deck levels of power, just enough to close the gap to where more third party games can keep a stable 30fps in handheld.

Like you said in regards to enjoying games more when they launched on ps4, performance can very much affect how a game plays and theres been quite a few times where ive seen criticism towards games dropping below 30fps interpreted as though the person criticizing suddenly asked for high end hardware when its often not the case, in fact during the whole "switch pro rumors" situation you likely would see the phrase "4k 60fps" used more by people who DIDNT want new hardware than by those hoping it was true.

@Meteoroid
I'm well aware of the fact that numbers and theories put XSX and PS5 well ahead. However, they have now been out for over a year now and all this talk aside, we've been able to see the actual real deal in practice. And surprise surprise, their performance has not been anywhere near 2080 level, or 2060 for that matter. Much closer to a 1650 and in some games a 1060.

I don't know if it's their CPU's bottlenecking them or whatever, all I know is that all this 'PS5/XSX is a 2080' talk has turned out to be very far from the truth. Especially when considering ray tracing, something the 2080 is quite adequate at, while consoles have only been able to pump out very basic and low res RT, with the feature pretty much being terminated from now on due to their lack of power and devs' preference to use the available power for other things. In this regard, even a stock 2060 smokes them both.

@Vexx234 @PBandSmelly @Ninchocolate

There's something else to remember about the wii, which dates back to the gamecube.

The gamecube was only a little less powerful than the Xbox, and more powerful than the PS2 in terms of hardware. But the gamecube did poorly, sales-wise, compared to both of those.

To compete technically for another generation and fail would've left a painful monetary loss, so nintendo backed off on competing graphically. They felt that they needed to do something different. It worked so well that they decided to make that the strategy.

We've been dealing with that ever since, and let's face it, the switch sells.

Unfortunately, there definitely is a gaming cost.

@Sculptor Your acute and vocal ignorance is cringe inducing. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Even the PS4 pro is the equivalent of of a 1060, around 4 TFLOPS.

The Series X is a whopping 3 times faster, 12 TFLOPS, which indeed puts it ahead of the 2080 Super.

You suggesting it's the equivalent of a 1650 is too absurd for words.

The Series X runs Forza Horizon 4 and 5 at a rock solid 4k60.

Digital Foundry's tests support the specs exactly, showing that to beat a Series X, you need a 2080ti.

@Meteoroid Correct, he has no idea what he's talking about.

To compound that, he even mentions they are CPU bound, when in fact the power of the CPU's in these next gen consoles is one of the shockingly good things about them. Certainly far better than I expected.

They are rocking a Ryzen 7 3700x, which is an unbelievably good CPU for a console, and costs around $300.

For anyone interested, the info is right here. As someone who has been mainly a Switch and PC gamer for a few years, I am astonished by how good the Series X is.

The information is right here.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/xbox-series-x-gpu.c3482

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-2080-super.c3439

As you can see, it really is slightly better than a 2080 Super by every metric, apart from ray tracing, which seems to be a somewhat waning buzzword now.

And here is an analysis of a recent high end game, showing it living up to its specs. You can see even the 9 TFLOP 2070 Super can't hit 60 at all, running at 4k XSX settings. And even the mighty 2080ti is only hovering around 66fps. Which again, supports the specs exactly, as on paper the 2080ti is 10% faster than the Series X.

https://youtu.be/y51csslcGgk?t=846

It really is a beast of a console. As someone whose favourite recent console is the Switch by far, I do wholeheartedly recommend a Series X for anyone who wants something a bit different, a home console with a lot of power. I enjoy it more than my gaming PC too.

@Raffles
Christ, had no idea you'd be so butthurt. And I'm sorry but the fact that you immediately went to citing teraflops shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are just repeating the popular clickbait articles. Citing TFlops is almost as cringe and meaningless as the 64 bit talk was back in the day lol. Or do you really believe a Series S is significantly weaker than a One X because it has 30% less teraflops?

Forza games are not demanding titles at all. Even a 1060 runs Forza 5 on ultra settings (slightly prettier than Series X) at 4K with a locked 30 fps, and a 1650 manages this at 60. And then you're just neglecting the fact that RTX GPU's have Tensor cores, allowing them to use something else consoles will never be able to utilize: DLSS, instantly boosting them with 30% more performance, further outperforming the consoles without even breaking a sweat. This puts even a stock 2060 well ahead of both consoles.

In actually demanding titles, a PS5 hardly ever even reaches 4K and while the XSX manages this a lot more often, it usually comes at the cost of framerate dips that the PS5 doesn't see on its lower resolution (thought you could just use performance mode on XSX and have the same thing), as well as cut back graphics/draw distance and the absence of RT. This is just not the case in any game with a 2080.
Games like Returnal or Biomutant for example see the PS5 dropping all the way back to 1080p and checkerboarding to fake 4K to maintain 60fps, even without ray tracing. That is much worse performance than a 1650 has in Biomutant. The Series X reaches 4K in Biomutant but often dips to 45fps and has a limited color space, resulting in a more bland look overall despite its higher resolution. Same goes for other demanding titles like AC Valhalla. And you can rest assured that a 2080 will be able to run Returnal at native 4K including ray tracing when it arrives on PC soon, pumping four times the amount of pixels the PS5 does without breaking a sweat. And you are trying to tell me the PS5 equals that GPU? Come on, man.

All the PR talk that made you believe in such fantasies aside, in reality the consoles just don't come close. Yeah unless you're playing Tetris. Lol DF... If they did come close, devs wouldn't be giving up on ray tracing barely one year into their lifespan.
Their actual performance in resolution/framerate/fidelity in most titles this past year has equaled a GTX 1650, simple as that. Those are the only stone cold facts.

Oh and by the way, the consoles do not have the equivalent of a 3700X at all. They just use the same last gen Zen 2 architecture that was found in that CPU, but their clocks are downclocked, which obviously also means that they don't boost at all, let alone above 4 GHz, which is what a 'real' 3700X does all the time. All of that is simply not possible without overheating them on their limited 1 fan cooling. Man, tell me you just repeat mainstream news outlets without telling me you're just repeating mainstream news outlets. Teraflops LOL.

Edit: oh whoops, there you went mentioning that you're just reciting mainstream articles. xD My apologies. And yeah, for a 500 bucks price point the consoles are both beats, absolutely. But it's cringe inducing to say they near a 2080.

@Raffles
Yeah man I sure am blowing hot air, I mean I only work with computer hardware 24/7. xD Sorry man but I can only laugh at that coming from a dude who just read some articles. But okay then, I will take some time for you.

You're right about the XSX outperforming the 1650. I was comparing it to the PS5 and not the Xbox and I should have been clearer about that. But the Series X still isn't far beyond.

You're casually mentioning that your (broken) link is about the 'Extreme' preset. Please note that this isn't a fair comparison, because those settings are PC exclusive in the first place. The Series X doesn't get near that fidelity and is using a mix between 'Medium' and 'High' PC settings - but only when playing it in Quality mode, which sees the framerate dropping all the way down to an unplayable 30fps. It only reaches 60fps in Performance mode, which has the equivalent of low-medium PC settings. Lol...

Beyond 'High', which is the absolute best the XSX can deliver, we have 'Ultra', 'Extreme' and 'Maximum' graphics presets. Now I can't find a decent video of a 1650 doing any of these, but here we have the marginally better 1660 Ti running them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlulKZ6DkXc&ab_channel=zWORMzGaming

Note how on 4K Ultra, a preset that already shows better graphics than the XSX can offer, it runs at 35 - 45 fps in native 4K. Which means that it outperforms the X at the same resolution, with a higher framerate at higher graphical fidelity. Using the exact same preset as the X in Quality mode, 4K with 'High', it reaches 50 - 60 fps, meaning you can tone down 1 or 2 settings a little bit to lock it at 60. You will then have the same graphics as XSX on Quality mode, at the same 4K res, but with literally twice the framerate. And that is with a friggin' 1660. Please note that the 1660 Ti has 5.4 TF. So there goes your 12 TF marketing horse crap. A card with less than half of that beats it anyway... You should stop interpreting those dumb numbers and articles as the truth.

This is not just exclusive to FH5 though. This card consistently outperforms the X across games. And since the 1660 Ti already outperforms the Series X, I am guessing that the console is probably more comparable to a 1650 Super, a stock 1660 or at least somewhere between that and this 1660 Ti.

So let's move on to the RTX line. Here is a stock 2060, the lowest and weakest card in the entire RTX line, running the game at native 4K. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7a2WCZEJQQ&ab_channel=RTX2060
It easily reaches 60 fps on the same settings as XSX Quality 30 fps mode. You can even move on to 'Ultra' and 'Extreme' and still have the same 30 fps as the Xbox on Quality/Medium-High.

So give us a break with that 'Series X = RTX 2080' horse crap, because it can't even come close to the lowest RTX card on the market. Then realize how even the 2000 line is already last gen, since we're well into the life of the 3000 series, and you come to realize how outdated the Series X and PS5 actually already are. "You need a 2080 Ti to match a Series X in FH5" LOL. You need a 1660. A 2080 Ti absolutely demolishes the XSX.

I'll leave you with your fantasies though, you seem to enjoy them a lot and I see no point in ruining that any further. A Series X is more powerful than a 2080 my friend, it sure is. xD Just stop calling me the ignorant one.

@electrolite77 Tell that to the wildly successful Kinect. $350 really isn't that much more than $250 and it's still cheaper than the competition. Even if 20M less casual buyers purchased and HD Wii, 20M more hardcore gamers would have bought one anyway. Which is fine by Nintendo seeing as they were clearly upset when hardcore gamers abandoned the Wii. The DS drew in both audiences with ease.

2010 is still too awkward of a date to release a whole new console with games that existing Wii owners wouldn't be able to play. The GBC isn't an accurate comparison to the kind of upgrades needed since that was just adding colour to existing BnW gameboy games. N64 would be more apt.

That's why power matters in ways one doesn't imagine: less hardware capabilities means more creative limitations.