Nintendo has never pushed to make graphics their reason for being. They leave that for Sony and Microsoft to duke it out over.
What do you mean they've never pushed graphics as their raison d'etre? Neither have the others. Nintendo systems have always been on par with the others of their time, as far as power goes, all the way back. Wii is the first Nintendo console to break the company's trend in the console power department. And their first party games have always looked good. So I don't see how anyone could say they've "never" done this or that. You can't use the word "never" if there's only one instance of the phenomenon in the context of consoles (the Wii).
Nintendo focuses on a lot of quality games that you can enjoy with your friends. More so than the other systems, Nintendo has the party feeling to it.
True.
Of the 'next gen' systems, I think that PS3 and Wii have easily beat Xbox360.
Maybe they will in Japan. But the 360 is getting JRPGs now--something the original Xbox
never had. As far as variety in its library is concerned, the 360 probably has more than the Xbox already.
All I really see in the 360 is just a better version of the xbox. Nothing really 'next gen' at all.
Um, significant improvements in processing power and graphics and audio capability have been defining aspects of all previous next generation systems. Wii is what Nintendo considers "new gen" (though it definitely is the next generation of Nintendo console). The 360 and PS3 are traditional next generation systems. You could make the case that they're not because of their non-gaming capabilities, but we're talking about gaming aspects.
I'd say the same for PS3, but their unique Cell setup was pretty nifty.
We'll see what it can do, but so far it doesn't seem to be much better than the 360, if at all, outside of media-playing capabilities.
Aside from that, Nintendo was the only system that really tried to take the true meaning of 'next gen' and make a console that was truly 'next gen.'
Um, no. The "true meaning" is what the term has come to mean. It's come to refer to, for example, the transition between the NES and the SNES, or between the SNES and the N64, or between the PS and the PS2. And going by this, the Xbox 360 is the next generation Xbox. If we're to define "next generation" by these examples and not simply by a system being the next generation of a company's console hardware, the Wii is
not next gen, insofar as what we have come to expect from a next gen console.
They went for something completely new and unique and really made an effort to bring something totally new to the gaming table. Everyone pushes for better graphics, but that doesn't make up for poor gameplay. Give the Wii time and they'll really come out with some awesome games.
Are you insinuating that games for the other systems have had poor gameplay? I hope not, because they don't to any greater or lesser extent than what's been on Nintendo systems. Let's not get into some "gameplay vs. graphics" discussion, because they aren't mutually exclusive. (Funny thing is that Nintendo fans are the ones I've seen argue the distinction the most... it's like they're trying to come up with an excuse for the Wii's lack of power. So defensive.)
You have some really strange ideas about Nintendo, ideas that I see echoed on GameSpot. It's almost like revisionist history.
No offense, by the way. I've just seen so many people making the same arguments in favor of Nintendo--arguments I find nonsensical, given history--that it's hard not to get irate when I see one more.
