The Wii is obviously underpowered. Its strenght is the " innovative" Wii-mote.
Of course, the Wii-mote itself can' t make a game more advanced or closer to art, it can only affect the gameplay. So obviously, the gameplay is the only thing that will be enhanced on the Wii compared to the GCN.
The best product for us gamers would' ve been a super powerful console AND Wii-mote. However, Nintendo wants to have as big as a consumer base as possible so they chose to make a less powerful console to make it more affordable.
That' s the reason the Wii is underpowered. It' s about money. It also costs less to produce and by now we all know Nintendo makes money right from the start.
Now, the question is, did Nintendo make the right move by making the Wii so weak?
Will the Wii-mote make up for the loss in advanced gameplay?
Or would it have been better to release a powerful console + Wii-mote at a very, very high price?
I personally would' ve prefered a powerful Wii as I' m a gamer. It' s pretty clear that the Wii is not made for the hardcore gamer because then we would' ve gotten innovation
as well as great graphics and physics etc.
But from a business point of view it might be better for Nintendo' s economy to go with the weak Wii, if they manage to sell more units thanks to the low price.
Only the future will tell if they made the right decision or not.
But I have to say I don' t agree when he says a more powerful console takes games closer to art. That' s up to the developers actually.
How smart the A.I. is or the physics have very little to do with the artistic values in a game, or the ideas behind its design.
< Message edited by ginjirou -- 8 Mar 07 10:56:53 >