Bethesda... How early is "early"?
quickposter posted...WTF is he on about? Gearbox, Team Ninja, Ubisoft, Treyarch and many others confirmed Nintendo kept changing the hardware according to their feedback.
What kind of asinine argument are you making here? Have you even bothered to play Skyrim? Please oh wise one that apparently knows all about optimizing game engines, how do you suppose they make something like Skyrim any more efficient and less memory hungry when you can literally walk every inch of the outdoor world without any load screens AND have essentially EVERY object you knock over, pick up, drop down, etc. actually STAY where they are when you go back to them 10 hours later? Granted, the PS3 version was pretty bad BUT the PS3 also had a ridiculously limited memory system in place. It was shocking that they actually were able to get something like Skyrim to run at all on the PS3.
Here's the problem, you know nothing about how the game was designed and you know NOTHING about the scope of a game like Skyrim. All you know is about the critics and gamers complaining about the PS3 version of Skyrim and then just assume that Bethesda was just being lazy. No, Bethesda was actually NOT being lazy, what they WERE doing was being greedy. They forced a game that REALLY should not be running on the PS3 on to the PS3 just to cash in on that large PS3 customer base. It was a bad logistical decision but not really a bad technical flaw. It wasn't being lazy programmers, if anything, Bethesda has put TREMENDOUS amount of work being able to get that game to run on the PS3 hardware at all.
Do you even understand what further innovation in video games involves? It involves MORE of the kinds of games that Skyrim is. MORE games where everything you do in the world is persistent. Where you can play a game like Last of Us and be able to explore ALL the buildings and doors you see in the environment. Where your bullet holes basically all stay in place even 20 hours later traveling a map the size of 4 US states. Guess what? You're going to need the proper hardware to be able to support moving video gaming FORWARD. You think Zelda games are efficiently programmed? They only really appear to be efficiently programmed because they are essentially incredibly linear games, no real persistance system in the game world, etc. Nintendo still design their games much like how they have been designing games since the NES. Nintendo also builds their hardware to first and foremost support THEIR OWN VISION of what video games should be. 3rd party developers want to develop games the way THEY want to develop and design games, they don't want to be boxed into what Nintendo wants them to design.
Emerald_Melios posted...overkillwfo1978 posted...NerdimusPrime posted...Bethesda wanted all consoles to be gaming PC's with controllers, Nintendo didn't agree with that approach. If Sony had went with their plan A ( GPCPU design similar to the Wii U), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since Nintendo was the only company making a gaming console instead of PC for your TV, they didn't fit into this vision.
Most companies avoiding the Wii U are not doing so because of the hardware. EA is taking a dump on the Wii U because they are still mad that Nintendo Network isn't Origin (crysis 3 was running nicely on Wii U). Bethesda hasn't made a Nintendo game in gods knows how long, so they weren't exactly chomping at the bit to dev for them. Rockstar, same deal and Gearbox shot it's wad with Borderlands 2, essentially gimping Aliens so badly that no one would have wanted to buy it anyways.
Nintendo does things their own way. I personally think it's a good thing for gamers and gaming, you seem to feel otherwise. Perhaps you should get a gaming PC with an HDMI out and controller ports, it sounds like that is what you are wanting. I still enjoy what Nintendo has to offer as they focus more on the gameplay than spectacle. they still get support from companies that see their vision. If you don't agree with how Nintendo does things, there are other options. I, for one, will be sticking with them because I know when it comes to gaming entertainment, they deliver like no other company on the planet.
You only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.
That's why the only third-party support that matters are compies like Atlus. The big name companies like EA, Square Enix, Bethesda, etc. have generally pissed me off too much.
Mankind2pointO posted...Nintendo doesn't have to play ball with the 3rd Party Cartel. Sony and MS are beholden to 3rd parties. Every dick movie that MS tried to pull and is trying to pull with Xbox One can be attributed to the 3rd parties. They say "jump," MicroSony say "how high sirs?!" They're pulling the strings. Nintendo retains its autonomy. That's why the 3rd Party Cartel hates Nintendo and pulls support from them, under the most transparent of guises no less. This gen these fools blamed Nintendo 1st party strength and the user base for why their lazy, shovel wear garbage couldn't sell on Wii. With the Wii U, it's something else.
This is when most of HD last gen proved is a group of good developers can produce fewer games(that aren't copy-paste sequels) with less variety and more homogeneity that functioned and recieved worse than their sub-HD previous entries in the same time span.
Best example is how between 1997-2001 Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX and X were released. Between 2006-2010 Final Fantasy XII and XIII were released, HD development in generation 7 totally worth it right?
"The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time."