Does NIntendo need to chase the performance treadmill? It's time to rethink graphical performance...

Does NIntendo need to chase the performance treadmill? It's time to rethink graphical performance, technology and how they intersect with gameplay creation. If we can accept the idea that graphics don't mean anything, graphics are the least important component in gaming and graphics are irrelevant, we can urge corporations into putting a line in the sand and saying "enough is enough". How much more successful would the NIntendo Switch be if it had N64 style graphic chipset and 4megabytes of ram but cost only $30 instead of $300? How much more freedom would the developers would be afforded to havce if they wouldn't have to spend $500 million usd into making "perfect" graphics and instead focus their attention on making compelling and memorable gaming experiences?
There is absolutely no reason to go beyond the tech that was realized by the breakthrough of Silicon Graphics engineers. It's enough of a foundation to build all of the games we will ever need now and until the end of time. Anything that increases the performance beyond that is pure indulgence. Nintendo isn't going far enough into forcing consumers to realize this hard truth because it's the consumers that must make that change become a reality.

Our goal in the near future: the Switch 2 has to have n64 graphics. This will cut down on development costs, time, man hours, and it will result in a BOOM of new game product flowing into store shelves. This would actually sell a lot. Cheap to produce, fast to make new games. This would end up being the catalyst that will usher in a new age of gaming the likes of which we have never seen.

But it starts with us.

Nintendo is doing just the opposite, but it won't go too far backwards in performance. They seem to have filled the niche of being a toy company almost completely now. Instead of DLC, they seem to have amiibos, which are little toys. Instead of virtual console, they sell little plastic versions of their older consoles.

To gamers, they look like a massive joke, but as a toy company, they're doing very well indeed.

Well Nintendo was a toy company first. They know the game and how to play it.

Sure, but it's a different game. The video games industry is becoming quite reliant on performance and experience, giving the player a deeper and more polished line of games. The toy industry requires skillful use of PR and marketing to make the kids want what you have.

that nigga looks like he's from twinsun

This is true but you have to remember. Sony and Microsoft aren't really Nintendo's competition because the demographics are different. What made Nintendo change and try something out of their zone was little kids and their parents flocking to mobile gaming on the iPhone and iPad. They might cater to gamers now and then with good 1st party titles and some 3rd party support but their target audience is a different kind of person than Sony and Microsoft's.

Yeah, that's what i'm trying to get across. It's why the console wars thing on Sup Forums weirds me out. A very different kind of person is attracted to Nintendo products (kids) than other gaming machines (adults). Generally, of course.

I suppose it's the fact that adolescents are both and neither, so they argue over it. But they're very different companies with very different focii

The reason i'm on pc is not because of the graphics although it can be nice.
Its because i have a 60fps minimum guaranteed on everything i play

...

>It's why the console wars thing on Sup Forums weirds me out.
Everyone has to feel superior to someone else. Politics, music, movies, food, drinks. Video games are just an addition to an already long list. Everyone wants their team to win and their "effort" or purchase to be justified.

Nintendo's currently selling a console with capabilities well beyond the Nintendo 64 that goes for just $80 with a bundled game. Even if they could go as low as $30, would that really make a big difference in sales?

But Nintendo and Sony are so different. It'd be like trying to argue whether Warner Brothers was better than DC comics. They make very different products.

I don't own either (I game on PC like any sensible person), but it looks to me like if you want video games, you go with a Sony product, and if you want "Nintendo games" you go with Nintendo.

Nintendo is not really a company that prioritizes children specifically. The target audience for their consoles is a wide demographic of people. It's been their goal to expand the gaming population. Making products that children can enjoy is a part of that, but it's not the whole picture.

it is children and manchildren

I saw that maybe 10 years ago, but I see little evidence of that now. I don't see a release date for a new brain age game, but I do see a LOT of amiibos being released.

Maybe you could argue that the "classic" range is there to cater to 20-30's nostalgia..

Brain Age released on 3DS just a few years ago. Amiibo are being released, but what does that say about Nintendo not targeting a wide demographic?

>Brain Age released on 3DS

did it? I must have missed that.

>what does that say about Nintendo not targeting a wide demographic?

Focusing on literal toys? It means they're focusing on children and...certain kinds of adults.

>The video games industry is becoming quite reliant on performance and experience, giving the player a deeper and more polished line of games.

This video games industry you talk of must be pretty interesting. Wish there was one of those in this reality.

their target demographic is very wide

I think you're being a bit too nostalgic. I would have killed a guy for a game like..I dunno...AC: Rogue ten years ago.

Are Amiibo Nintendo's sole focus? They are just one line of products. Pointing to one product line and saying it's for children doesn't say anything about Nintendo's focus as a whole.

Point to any of their products, and you'll find them being sold in various different colours. You'll find a focus on cutesy jingles and collectibles. You'll find stuff that kids like.

>Sony and Microsoft aren't really Nintendo's competition because the demographics are different.
But all the surveys point towards the vast majority of Nintendo's customers by an overwhelming margin are men aged 18-28 or whatever. Followed by men in their 30s, followed by male teens. With everyone else being secondary.
Those are Sony's and Microsoft's demographics too.

Nintendo needs to reach the modern standard for any game.

1080p 60fps MINIMUM. Most current gen games on PS4/XBONE reach at least one of these.

Nintendo is generally pretty good at this, but BOTW, Odyssey, Splatoon 2, and plenty more games running below 1080p is unacceptable.

Sounds like you just played a shitton of crappy games then.
Meanwhile where the fuck is a Gitaroo Man equal? A F-Zero GX equal? Nintendo's killing it with Mario and Zelda but when the best games considered are a by the numbers run and gun outside its (marvelous) art style and a remake on other consoles, there's a problem.

>I would have killed a guy for a game like..I dunno...AC: Rogue ten years ago.

10 years ago you were awaiting a dumbed down action game that was playable on what is now 12 year old hardware?

I don't acre about photorealism but I want 1080p 60fps

Is being sold in various different colors inherently child-like? Many products are sold in different colors. Should we see smartphones as child-focused products? What about cars?

We're not arguing. You don't need to be obtuse in order to try and obscure the point. It's different from cars. And yes, smartphones in bright colours like this are marketed towards children and teenagers

>1080p 60fps
>Minimum
Maybe with a 400 dollar console with the XBOX XBOX and PSQuaruple but then you might as well save up for a PC upgrade if you got money to burn 700 dollars total on consoles or spend 4 years waiting for the upgrade.

What exactly makes it different from cars? I don't think these look very different from the color options you would expect to see from cars.

>What exactly makes it different from cars?

People don't buy more cars because they want different colours. Nintendo products are cheap and disposable ones. Kids will break them, and buy them in the new colours when they come out to show them off in the playground.

Fps is a type of graphical capability

Nintendo are a joke now. Multiplats running at 22 FPS is not accetable anywhere outside of Sup Forums

The upper end of the 3DS costs $180. The Switch costs $300. You'd have to be throwing a lot of money around if you wanted to keep buying new colors. Do you have any basis for saying that people, children in particular, regularly break Nintendo systems and buy new ones in order to get new colors? And that this scenario means that Nintendo products are primarily for children? This sounds like a stretch of the imagination to associate color options with solely children.

If comparing to phones and cars doesn't work, what about Sony's Playstation Vita? It's been manufactured in various colors. Is it a product made mainly for children? Or does that logic only work with Nintendo products?

I'm really not going to play these idiotic games with you. I'm not going to bother trawling the internet looking for examples of children breaking toys, or wanting them in new colours.

I'm not going to look at the available neon colours, or pokemon and zelda skins and argue with you when you say that there is nothing childish about them. Because I don't think you're arguing in good faith at all, rather than trying to defend Nintendo because you think there's something shameful in being a toy company, or marketing toward children, or are insecure about yourself.

If you cared at all, you could look for yourself.

It's never been the argument that Nintendo doesn't market to children. Nintendo obviously markets to children. I'm only saying that Nintendo's target demographic is a wide range of people that includes children, not specifically children. I don't think selling products to children is a shameful thing at all. I think it's really a great thing. I think the outlook on games could be improved if people weren't so concerned with labeling things as "for kids" and "for adults." As part of my argument, I'm just questioning the idea that the appeal of products available in multiple colors is specific to children. I don't think that such a simple thing is so limited in what age range it appeals to.