Saturday, 18. November 2006, 21:41:44
Needless to say the Wii is the console I am most looking foward to this go around. I am not a huge console gamer. I don't own a lot of games. I only buy games that I catch wind of that I might enjoy or I know I will. I'm a huge RPG gamer as well, so most games don't really appeal to me. I have absolutely no interest in the Xbox 360 as I have relatively no interest in Microsoft products as a whole. It's not out of a hatred of the company, but a recent history of releasing second-rate products at high prices.
PlayStation 3
Sony has a more recent problem with substandard products than Microsoft has and is hurting for it. Sony only has one moneymaker anymore in the consumer products area (the other is their movie business), and that's the Playstation line of gaming console systems. The PlayStation 3 is, however, interesting to me, but the high price tag turns me off. I can't afford to blow $600 on a gaming console that has few games out for it, none I have any interest playing. Why should I pay for a console that I'd only play the games I have currently for the PlayStation and the PlayStation 2 on it? Even then it does a bad job at doing that.
The designer side of me screams out in the horror of what the console looks like. It's predecessor wasn't much better in the looks department either. The logo is something that really turns me off as it is set in an extremely popular typeface popularized by the Spider-Man movies. It's general concensus when designing a logo not to use popularized typefaces. You shy away from using typefaces that were recently popularized. The only thing worse would have been to set the logo in the "Got Milk" typeface or the Harry Potter typeface. This is a phenomena called "Pigeonholing." Fonts become so popular after used on something equally as popular that the typeface loses its allure. The PlayStation 3 logo is even more unoriginal since the originator of the typeface's popularity is releasing Spider-Man 3. Two logos almost identical (even containing a 3 at the end) are used on popular products. I guess their idea is that since they both own the movie rights and the console then it's alright.
The PlayStation 3, however, is the winner when it comes to graphics capabilities by a longshot, beating out the XBox 360 and the Wii by a 1000 miles. Its video and audio capabilities as well are top notch, providing what the other 7th generation consoles should. I will talk more about this later.
The Wii
Nintendo is trying to shake up the gaming world with a different way of playing games. I've watched video showing off the Wii's controller and am dying to try it out myself. The Wii has actual good games out for its launch (it's all a matter of opinion). It can play GameCube games as well which is a plus, a first for Nintendo by the way. There are a few downsides to the console, though.
Its graphics are subpar to today's standards. They did improve upon the GameCube's graphics capabilities, although not by much. They are giving us yesterday's graphics capabilities tomorrow. This is not a good move in my opinion because a new computer bought with an average video card is capable of better graphics than a Wii. Graphics, however, doesn't make a game. Nintendo is hoping their new methods of playing games will save them from this criticism. Systems with poorer graphics have won the console war in the past, notably the Atari 2600 (over the Intellivision) and the Playstation (over the Nintendo 64 [this really is debatable]). Nintendo's game development skills are superior to just about any other company out there, so that is a plus for the console.
The controller itself is a downside. Why? Well there are attachments to the controller that make you have to purchase additional attachments to play many different kinds of games. Their new remote isn't going to work for all games at all. I think Nintendo knows this, though. Thankfully the console does come with an attachment, the famed "nunchaku" attachment.
Last and least of my favorite downsides to the console is the lack of modern audio and video capabilities. The PlayStation 3 is capable of high definition (1080p) with HDMI and toslink (optical) audio output at 7.1 SurroundSound using Dolby Digital. The Wii is only capable of 480p using component and standard RCA analog audio output using Dolby ProLogic II that's been around since God knows when. Why? The 480p resolution doesn't bother me as much, but the video output does. Component is a great analog output format, but when many people have high definition TVs capable of HDMI or DVI input it'd be a good idea to provide that and a built-in upscaler. It's sad when a $100 DVD player provides toslink audio and DVI output with a built-in upscaler. Sure the Wii can do more. I would have gladly paid more for a model capable of that. Digital video output is a new thing for a console, but optical audio is not. It's sad when a 6 year old console is capable of better audio output than a new one coming out today.
The last downside could be a damning thing for the Wii in my opinion. People with high resolution capabilities (I use a computer monitor for my TV and am planning to upgrade farther) aren't going to play a console that looks like shit on their displays no matter how cool their controller is. They are relying upon a consumer's upscalers to provide video to their high definition displays. Some early HDTVs didn't even have one. They would just blow up the picture to the size of the screen. You get an extremely pixellated picture. This is fine for 6 year old consoles as users would understand the limitation of those consoles, but not for brand new ones.
Even with the last downside being a potential dealbreaker for me I will buy a Wii. Before I will probably be able to purchase a Wii (due to the lack of them after they're all bought at launchtime) I will have a secondary display on my Mac that will serve the purpose of a secondary display as well as a TV/gaming station thanks to some nice equipment from Gefen. This secondary display will be high definition whether the Wii likes it or not.
