Yoshio Sakamoto on Nintendo's Next Console

So is he just assuming it's going to be brilliant or is he confirming he has seen it and is impressed?

At this point in time, who knows what Nintendo will do next. It's almost a given that they will not go back to standard controls. Maybe some crazy new controller that senses brain waves? Controller that uses all 5 senses? Actually teleporting you into World 1-1 of Mario?

It will obviously be updated graphically (probably to match PS3 at least) and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE BETTER ONLINE PLAY.

Sounds to me like he's assuming it.

It's a bit unclear. I'd assume he knows something about it though, although I can't be sure.

Mouth open you say? An adult version of the Wii, perhaps?

Going by the Wii, the next Nintendo console has to be an N64 with some unique control scheme, with the online features of a Dreamcast.

I'm predicting holograms.

While I know we all like to poke fun at Nintendo for always being behind in the console generations, I think they have learned their lesson. I truly believe that they deeply regret not going HD with their console. While the Wii is obviously incredibly successful, imagine the sheer dominance if it had the power capabilities of the other consoles from the beginning... sheer dominance.

With the Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo is proving that once again, it is innovating the industry, but is always giving the game developers what they desire in a system, or so I've read.

The Wii did what Nintendo said it would, start a revolution. And I believe them when they say their next console will be draw-dropping.

Yes the 3DS is almost ridiculously powerful coming from "modern Nintendo", so maybe they will want to make a powerhouse next time afterall.

I'm not sure they feel like they "made a mistake", but they might have realised that their loyal fans miss something.

Power comes automatically. Its other things I'm interested in far more.
Also, I hope they dont go too powerfull. Id rather have ultra-quick booting and loading. Remember, for the most part heavier graphics = slower to get into games.
A more powerful console should be a must, but I don't want them sacrificing loading speed, as its the one thing all Nintendo consoles have been great at.

As for the rest, I think just a wiimote/nunchuck with a analogue stick on both sides, gyroscopes in both, and better feedback effects would do me just fine.



Its always a trade-of though; you cant have both.

If the Wii was that powerfull from the start, it would also have been much bigger and more expensive.
That might have hurt its sales more then helped.

Not to say we can't do better -now-, but at that time both the PS3 and Xbox360 were sold at a massive loss even with their much bigger price tags.

I also doubt they 'regret' anything. What regrets could they have with all this success going on? Iwata and co probably spend every waking hour surrounded by hookers and consuming top-quality cocaine. It's true they have lost some fans, but they don't show any kind of 'regret' over that. They probably think something like "Well, for every oldschool gamer we lost, we gained ten-billion single mothers".

Personally, I felt Nintendo was going the wrong way a long time ago, after I got a GC at launch. Fucking loved the Nintendos up to that point. Always had the most shit-hot graphics, always had all the biggest games except Sonic. Then after I had my GC for a couple years and there was still only a handful of games that I liked on it, I sort of noticed that either my tastes had changed, or Nintendo had changed.

Fast-forward to Wii, I still see no reason to own one. They look pretty dire on HD TV, I hate most of the games I've played, and many I've seen just look like utter shit. Then there's how (imo) the Wii is little more than a repackaged GC with different controls, and an inflated price. Why would I pay £170-180 (whatever the price is now) for the Wii in 2010, when I got my GC at launch for £130 in 2002?

It doesn't have the value, doesn't have an online service that is up to par, and for me, doesn't have the games I want. Thus, Nintendo completely lost me with the Wii. They don't care, and nor should they. They are successful in their newly-created field, and I've moved on to other stuff.

It's probably for the best, since some of the Nintendo series' I used to like, I now find boring. Zelda is always just a retread of the same-old-same-old, without any sort of deep storyline or anything else that disguises this fact. I still like Mario though. I don't know why, since he's probably just as guilty as Zelda.

I suppose it's because Mario isn't really even a real character. To me, he's just an icon for 'fun'. So if I feel like hoppin' some platforms, a little bit of Mario generally goes down a treat. For me Zelda started out like an epic adventure. But they haven't gotten any bigger or more complex since the N64, really. At the time it was the absolute pinnacle of gaming, and very high up the list of RPG-like adventures.

Modern games have since left Zelda way behind in terms of scope and depth.

( Edited 08.09.2010 13:22 by Martin_ )

Games have got more complex, and in many case's vastly better story's then Zelda. No question there.

But "depth of gameplay" Zelda is still very high scoreing at. Theres few games as diverse.
More stats, for example, does not make a game more complex or depth.

BG&E/Okami that sort of thing is on Zelda's level for sure. But games of that caliber are *very very rare*

Zelda is a game where your constantly doing very different things. Each room of each area practical has a new puzzle. New items always mean *new gameplay* too, rather then just a stat upgrade of what came before.

Honestly, what other games are like that? Theres plenty of superb games, but mostly your still doing the same thing over and over merely on different environments. Variation in enemy's, or in your "special moves", but not so much in gameplay.
Few have the level of "individual crafting" as Zelda.

And, actualy, yes, Twlight Princess did have a vastly bigger scope then Ocarina of Time.(landscape 4 times bigger, vastly more minigames all over the place, vastly better directing, combat system much better too...about the only thing gone/cut-down from before was the magic).

It just was only a minor step up from Wind Waker, it was no where near as revolutionary.
But that doesn't mean it was less in scope, only ambition.



Well, there you go.
If your looking for RPG's,certainly dont look at Zelda.
Its an action-adventure.
Its no more an RPG then Mario is.

Besides, Zelda is still pretty high up "the list";
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?sort=desc
(note, thats "all time")

Give us a way of transferring VC and WiiWare games please!

All they'd have to do is link our purchases with our Nintendo accounts instead of the consoles and, considering our accounts already record our purchases, I can't imagine why they couldn't/wouldn't do that.

( Edited 08.09.2010 17:36 by Ifrit XXII )

Their system sells better than both top competitors' consoles combined. I'm willing to bet they don't regret anything.

It's easy for you to sit back and think it an obvious decision to have done HD as well, but you're basing that off of today's technology. When the Wii came out, if it had done all it did and gone with the top-of-the-line hardware, it probably would've cost twice as much as it did. And then it wouldn't have sold nearly as well as it's selling now. Plus, they would've had to go with at least $60 per game, to cover the loss of money they'd be feeling from every console, rather than the profit they're seeing now.
It's not like Nintendo cut out the HD graphics just to piss you off, lol.

I'm sure they didn't back then. But without getting their console near the others Nintendo is missing out on many games. That might hurt them in the long run. Also, the Wii is starting to look incredibly dated.

And I love graphics as much as the next guy. But Nintendo changed me with its Wii. I don't think I'll ever feel good about going to a general control style. If I ever play 360 with friends, it just feels wrong. I'm not bitching about the graphics, I'm merely making a point.

I realize Nintendo hit a gold mine, and they deserve every bit of credit. I just think that they kind of regret not making their console as future proof of the others.

( Edited 09.09.2010 02:58 by GreythaGreat )

I'm not trying to disagree too harshly, or imply that graphics are all you care about, either. You seem pretty reasonable about it, but I just disagree that Nintendo will regret it. I'd love for the Wii graphics to look better, for sure. But not so much that I'd give up better controls.

Anyway, I apologize in advance for the novel, but:

I disagree that the Wii is looking dated. I think Wii games are looking better than ever. Call of Duty 4 on the Wii hardly looks different from the others, while playing. Sure, if you play them simultaneously, side-by-side, the difference will be distinct. But in-game, when you're actually focusing on the game, the difference is barely there.
And the Wii version's control scheme blows the others' away, so in my opinion, it's even better. But anyway, you play a game that the developer actually put time and effort into, and sometimes, you can hardly tell the difference. Observe, two Silent Hill screens:

1:


2:


Can you tell which is which just by looking?

The first is from a Wii game, the second from an Xbox 360. Wii games are looking better and better with time. I'd say overall, the biggest differences I notice, are that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are way better with mapping and lighting. When I see screens from the 3DS, it looks to me like what Wii would be like if it had the mapping and lighting and rendering abilities of the other two systems.

Anyway, I also don't think Nintendo will come to regret this "over time." There's really no time left. The next generation of game systems is perhaps two years away, tops. The PS3 is only now seeing a slight increase in momentum, while that of the other two systems has been relatively consistent. If the next generation of systems comes out in 2012, and you were to swap the sales speed of the Wii and the Xbox 360 right now, the Wii would still have a higher sales count by the time the next generation hits. And furthermore, Nintendo is still the only company of the three who makes any profit at all from the sales of the systems.

Long story short, Nintendo has no monetary reason to regret anything at all, and they likely never will. The Gamecube came in dead last of its generation, and still made Nintendo more money than the other two companies' consoles made them, combined. If Nintendo was to regret doing it a certain way, it'd be for artistic reasons. They've clearly shown that monetary gain isn't really their interest when designing products. They make games and systems because they truly love doing it. I think that's probably why they have such a devoted fanbase. It isn't a marketing scheme often implemented, but the results tend to have a certain magic to them.

Anyway, back on topic, I have a bit of a prediction for what they could be aiming for. Before the Wii was called the Wii and before we had any idea what its controller would be, I made a post on a forum that it would probably be motion-based. I was laughed off of the website. A few months later, obviously, I had the last laugh. Maybe I'll try my hand again here:

I think they'll probably have motion control implemented in some way, but also create more of a hybrid with the older methods of controllers. Probably something two-handed, something you can be a bit less active with, something easier to develop for.
I also think they'll aim for motion controll which requires no visiual input. No camera, no sensor bar, but true 1:1 controll using only the gyros and accelerometer technology.
Best example I can probably give: when you see people playing games in movies or on TV, and it's done from the tv's perspective and you see the guy sitting there holding the controller, and he's like moving it left and right and up and down and stuff. Imagine if that actually worked, but obviously less exaggeration, less flailing about. Imagine you're playing Resident Evil with a Gamecube Controller. You walk forward, see a zombie. Press L trigger, and your character takes out their gun. Now you move the countroller around before you, and they aim left or right or up or down or wherever you're moving it. Like a Wii remote that will never lose position or knife Ashley to death when you sneeze. You can play without having your arm fully extended and pointed within a certain realm of a few feet. I think that'd be a pretty interesting way to play games.

As for hardware, I don't even think it'll matter anymore. The hardware used in the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is a lot cheaper to make, so it can probably have at least that. As for the other two, I'm honestly not sure how much better graphics can get. Even on the Wii, it can be difficult to tell the difference between in-game and cinema.
But then again, that's about how I thought when I saw the last gen graphics. Only now that I have seen better can I really grasp all of the flaws and imperfections the previous generation had.