Does the Wii count as Nintendo's 5th console?

[jbanes]

You could, at a push, class the GB color as a seperate console because it had titles that wouldn't play on the previous gen. Gameboy.

I would certainly class the GBC as a new generation. It was backward compatible, sure, but it was architecturally different. The only reason why it seems like it was a minor upgrade is because Nintendo did such a good job at making the transition to the GBC seamless. e.g. The handheld unit was very similar in design, versions of the games were made that were backward compatible with both the GB and GBC, and Nintendo installed standard color palettes to "upgrade" the GB games to have (some) color. The result was that the whole thing had a feel of "Gameboy, but with color!" There really was a lot of genius in the design, despite being a fairly significant upgrade to the GB.

[Room 34]

And how is a handheld not a console?

Because it doesn't plug into a TV. It's a game system, but it's not a console.

[liveinabin]

And what's a TV? You can plug your Xbox 360 into a hi-def screen that may or may not have a tuner. Is that a TV? The only difference between that and the one that the PSP is running on is definition.

 

In fact, any dictionary seems to list console as being :-

 

(Websters) a combination of readouts or displays and an input device (as a keyboard or switches) by which an operator can monitor and interact with a system (as a computer or dubber)

 

(Cambridge) a surface on which you find the controls for a piece of electrical equipment or a machine:

 

So the Cambridge definition would be the controller. The Websters definition would indicate the unit containing both the input devices AND displays. So by their definition, ONLY handhelds are consoles.

 

Of course, this is taking it rather too far, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

It seems agreed by most that the first Games Console proper was the Fairchild Channel F.

There were various machines before it, notably the innumerate TV pongs and the Magnavox Odyssey. However, the Pong units had only one game built in and the Odyssey, though it had cartridges, were little more than circuit jumpers to enable games already in the system.

So the distinction, then, comes from the fact that the Channel F had cartridges containing ROM chips with actual microprocessor code. Like the Atari, like the N64 and like the Gameboy.

[n8littlefield]

i agree with kevin242 on the GameBoys etc..

 

anything designed to go on the run is a handheld..

 

and the Wii is defineately the 5th.. if i was running a console company i wouldnt personally feel any pride in having the most consoles ever made..

id rather have one console and have it be the dominent one for the longest period of time.. much more of a challenge.

 

I disagree - just being dominant for a long period of time doesn't make you successful, it means you messed up in the following generations. Like them or hate them, Nintendo has had the longest legs of any hardware manufacture thus far and should be proud they have been in every generation of hardware. I would argue any of the current companies (Microsoft and Sony included) would love to have the track record the Big N has had, and would love to have their profit too!

 

Nintendo has seen plenty of competition come and go (Sega, Atari, NEC, NeoGeo) and has outlived them all with the exact same strategy they are using now on MS and Sony - make great 1st party games, make a profit at all times even on hardware, and alway be the family friendly option for content and price. The only difference is now their competition has MUCH deeper pocketbooks.

[Jess Ragan]

It's their fifth console. Just because the architecture is similar to the GameCube's doesn't invalidate it as a new console release. Don't buy into Sony's lame "the next generation doesn't start until WE say it does!" propaganda... the Wii will have its own unique features and games, and has the potential to be more than just a turbocharged GameCube rehash.

 

Now if you were talking about a system like, say, the 32X, that's a little more sticky. Some call it a new console because it had its own set of games, while others call it an expansion because like a parasite, it can't survive without sucking. Uh, the blood from the Sega Genesis, I mean.

 

JR

[jbanes]

Don't buy into Sony's lame "the next generation doesn't start until WE say it does!" propaganda...

You misunderstood Mr. Hirai-san. He didn't say that the next generation starts when Sony says it does. He said, "the next generation doesn't start until Wii say it does!"

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

It's funny that the SG-1000 and Master System got brought up for a completely different reason in this thread since they're actually the closest analog in gaming to the Gamecube and Wii. The Master System is basically an SG-1000 with a more powerful graphics co-processor and more memory, which seems to be very similar to what Nintendo has done with the Wii. The Master System was even originally called the "Mark III" in Japan which was short for SG-1000 Mark III (the Mark II being just the same as the original SG-1000, but in a new case and with an expansion port).

 

Whether that means that Wii and Gamecube are indeed different systems or, on the other hand, that the SG-1000 and Master System are rather the same system, I couldn't say. I don't think it matters much.

 

Fans of the system seem to get awfully hot and bothered when people point out that the Wii is a souped up Gamecube. I don't understand why. I think it's absolutely great that Nintendo have just souped up their existing system rather than introduced an entirely new architecture as is the norm. There's some small disadvantages, certainly, but there's far more benefits in this sort of approach. Huge ones.

 

 

...word is bondage...

[Jess Ragan]

Computer manufacturers do this every year and nobody seems to complain. The Pentium 4 on your desktop is just a super-duper-charged IBM PC, and is even compatible with software written twenty five years ago. Why's it such a big deal now?

 

JR

[8th lutz]

And what's a TV? You can plug your Xbox 360 into a hi-def screen that may or may not have a tuner. Is that a TV? The only difference between that and the one that the PSP is running on is definition.

A tv is something that you are able watch cable, direct tv. and etc along with video games. I started reading game magazines in the early 90's and they called systems like gameboy, lynx, game gear handheld systems. Psp and ds are handheld systems. A game console needs a ac adaptor and the last time I checked a ds and a psp doesn't need ac adaptors all the time. All you need is a battery unless you use the ac adaptor. With a ps 2 you needs your ac adaptor all times to my knowledge.

 

Your conclusion is flawed do to the fact in order to be a game console the controller has to be a peripheral. In the psp and the ds case, it is not. The controller is built in the system unlike every gameconsole I've seen or played. This is not a gamer in his late teens or early 20's, this is a gamer that is older the intellivision! You make a case for a computer in that on being on a console except for the fact a computer need a monitor when you buy it and you need to get stiff like printers along with the fact computers do more then play games like the apple iie computer in having non gaming software like word processing software. The xegs is a game console only due to fact it thinks it is one, thanks to the Tramiel family. In other words except for marketing it is not a game console, it is a computer.

[JB]

It's funny that the SG-1000 and Master System got brought up for a completely different reason in this thread since they're actually the closest analog in gaming to the Gamecube and Wii. The Master System is basically an SG-1000 with a more powerful graphics co-processor and more memory, which seems to be very similar to what Nintendo has done with the Wii. The Master System was even originally called the "Mark III" in Japan which was short for SG-1000 Mark III (the Mark II being just the same as the original SG-1000, but in a new case and with an expansion port).

The Mk3 was the same thing with a new GPU.

 

The Wii is the same thing, only with more RAM and higher clock rates. And integrated save media. And wireless networking. And an online network. And a new IO device. And... you get the picture.

 

 

Fans of the system seem to get awfully hot and bothered when people point out that the Wii is a souped up Gamecube. I don't understand why. I think it's absolutely great that Nintendo have just souped up their existing system rather than introduced an entirely new architecture as is the norm. There's some small disadvantages, certainly, but there's far more benefits in this sort of approach. Huge ones.

I personally get annoyed because it's being thrown about as a bad thing.

 

If, for example, I was calling the XBox a crippled PC, the intent would be clear.

A crippled PC is still a darn nice game system, but the obvious implication is that the XBox is deficient.

 

 

 

No one calls the Genesis a souped-up Master System, or the SNES a souped-up NES(well, wouldn't if Nintendo hadn't basically named it that...).

They're allowed to stand on their own, instead of constantly being rebadged "NES 1.5" or "Master System 2."

[liveinabin]

A tv is something that you are able watch cable, direct tv. and etc along with video games. I started reading game magazines in the early 90's and they called systems like gameboy, lynx, game gear handheld systems. Psp and ds are handheld systems. A game console needs a ac adaptor and the last time I checked a ds and a psp doesn't need ac adaptors all the time. All you need is a battery unless you use the ac adaptor. With a ps 2 you needs your ac adaptor all times to my knowledge.

 

Your conclusion is flawed do to the fact in order to be a game console the controller has to be a peripheral. In the psp and the ds case, it is not. The controller is built in the system unlike every gameconsole I've seen or played. This is not a gamer in his late teens or early 20's, this is a gamer that is older the intellivision! You make a case for a computer in that on being on a console except for the fact a computer need a monitor when you buy it and you need to get stiff like printers along with the fact computers do more then play games like the apple iie computer in having non gaming software like word processing software. The xegs is a game console only due to fact it thinks it is one, thanks to the Tramiel family. In other words except for marketing it is not a game console, it is a computer.

 

There are some flawed definitions creeping in here. The GB, Lynx etc. ARE handheld systems, and the system that they are is a games console. A games console is a games system (ie. a computer whose principal purpose is gaming) that takes cartridges with the rom data on the cartridge (or whatever media). The screen and controllers are irrelevant, as is the power requirement. Look around the web, read any books on the history of these things, I'm not making this up.

You mention the Intellivision, the controllers for that system were hardwired into the main unit, so by your own definition it's not a games console.

And I'm as old as Pong

[Student Driver]

God, this reminds me of an old console vs. handheld debate from RGVC years ago. Or the old Game Doctor columns where the good Dr. would vehemently deny that GameBoy games were video games because of the lack of a CRT-- which always made me wonder what he thought when the Super GameBoy debuted, or if video games played through LCD monitors were suddenly not video games.

 

There are always systems that blur the edges:

 

Handhelds that can be attached to TVs: Watara SuperVision, Sega Nomad

Handhelds that play console games and vice versa: Sega Nomad, Game Gear with Master Gear, Super GameBoy, GameBoy Player, Turbo Express

Consoles without removable controllers: Atari 2000 prototype, RCA Studio II, Intellivision, some Odyssey 2s

Non-handhelds that don't connect to TVs: Vectrex

Consoles with battery adaptors: Atari 2600, PSOne (not to mention the Pong-era consoles mostly had battery capabilities)

 

Anyway... regarding the "is this Nintendo's 5th console" debate-- anyone know what to make of the Nintendo iQue? It's such an oddball, and easy to ignore since it's sold neither in Japan nor in the US.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Fans of the system seem to get awfully hot and bothered when people point out that the Wii is a souped up Gamecube. I don't understand why. I think it's absolutely great that Nintendo have just souped up their existing system rather than introduced an entirely new architecture as is the norm. There's some small disadvantages, certainly, but there's far more benefits in this sort of approach. Huge ones.

I personally get annoyed because it's being thrown about as a bad thing.

 

If, for example, I was calling the XBox a crippled PC, the intent would be clear.

A crippled PC is still a darn nice game system, but the obvious implication is that the XBox is deficient.

 

 

 

No one calls the Genesis a souped-up Master System, or the SNES a souped-up NES(well, wouldn't if Nintendo hadn't basically named it that...).

They're allowed to stand on their own, instead of constantly being rebadged "NES 1.5" or "Master System 2."

The situation of the Wii is quite different from the Genesis or SNES, though. Like I said before, more like the Master System (which was indeed called the SG-1000 Mark III whether or not could be considered a wholly new system).

 

I understand trying to defend the Wii from what you consider attacks, but the fact is that the Wii IS a souped up Gamecube (just as the Xbox is a crippled PC) and simply listing all the things Nintendo is adding to the Gamecube design to make it a Wii isn't a very good way of defending it if that's your intention. I think a better tactic would be to just embrace the fact that it's a souped up Gamecube and instead point out the many advantages that fact brings to the Wii such as lower hardware costs, easier development, lower development costs overall, attracting third parties and especially small dev houses, a focus on gameplay and solid engines rather than flashy graphics (that invariably look dated five years down the road), etc. These things are what I personally think are worth getting excited about with the Wii. They put it light-years beyond the Xbox360 and PS3 in terms of everything that makes for great games.

 

 

...word is bondage...

Edited November 5, 2006 by Sweater Fish Deluxe

[JB]

Fans of the system seem to get awfully hot and bothered when people point out that the Wii is a souped up Gamecube. I don't understand why. I think it's absolutely great that Nintendo have just souped up their existing system rather than introduced an entirely new architecture as is the norm. There's some small disadvantages, certainly, but there's far more benefits in this sort of approach. Huge ones.

I personally get annoyed because it's being thrown about as a bad thing.

 

If, for example, I was calling the XBox a crippled PC, the intent would be clear.

A crippled PC is still a darn nice game system, but the obvious implication is that the XBox is deficient.

 

 

 

No one calls the Genesis a souped-up Master System, or the SNES a souped-up NES(well, wouldn't if Nintendo hadn't basically named it that...).

They're allowed to stand on their own, instead of constantly being rebadged "NES 1.5" or "Master System 2."

The situation of the Wii is quite different from the Genesis or SNES, though. Like I said before, more like the Master System (which was indeed called the SG-1000 Mark III whether or not could be considered a wholly new system).

Not really.

Both systems are very much "upgrades" to the existing hardware. While more capable platforms, signifigant sacrifices were made for the sake of backwards-compatibility(though only one company ever exploited the fact).

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Mark3/SMS' ONLY improvement was more colors.

 

I understand trying to defend the Wii from what you consider attacks, but the fact is that the Wii IS a souped up Gamecube (just as the Xbox is a crippled PC) and simply listing all the things Nintendo is adding to the Gamecube design to make it a Wii isn't a very good way of defending it if that's your intention.

It was emphasizing all the things it does that a GameCube DOESN'T do.

It's been described as "a GameCube with a 150$ controller" in some places, which is massively short of the mark.

IMO, the SMS->Genesis comparison is more valid than SG1000->SMS(or SMS->GameGear).

 

 

Again, I don't care that it's an upgrade to an existing platform instead of a whole new one. Some of the best systems have been.

I just get sick of hearing that slung about as "OMG TEH WII AM TEH SUX!111 IT R GAYCUBE WIF A TV REMOTE!111"

 

I think a better tactic would be to just embrace the fact that it's a souped up Gamecube and instead point out the many advantages that fact brings to the Wii such as lower hardware costs,

That's actually more a result of Nintendo's reserved specs.

Hardware prices go up with amount of parts and component speed. Had they pushed for 3x clockspeed, or jumped the RAM further, it'd be a pricier system.

Had they pushed for more power without changing parts, it could've wound up costing as much as a 360, or even(heaven forbid) a PS3.

Edited November 6, 2006 by JB

[Jess Ragan]

I kind of wish that Nintendo had gone with the maximum clock speed available to them. IBM had the Broadway processor pushing 900MHz at its fastest speed... that would have been a definite improvement over the Wii's 733MHz. It would have cost them a little more, but at the same time, it would have given them justification for the $250 price tag (I heard that Nintendo had only jacked up the price to $250 because retailers didn't want to sell it for any less).

 

JR

[liveinabin]

I'm not too worried about the clock speed, not in a console at least. I find that in a dedicated machine such as a games system, you usually get much better results than the clock speed would suggest. The original Xbox, for instance, does a lot better than you'd expect from a 733Mh processor.

 

In the Wii's case, if they had more horsepower from that chip, I imagine it would have been more difficult, or impossible, to implement the WiiConnect24 concept.

Of course, I don't have figures to back this up, but I'm fairly sure that keeping the processor running cool goes hand in hand with having an system that can always be on to some degree, even while the fans can be off.

[SomeGuyWithDSL]

Anyway... regarding the "is this Nintendo's 5th console" debate-- anyone know what to make of the Nintendo iQue? It's such an oddball, and easy to ignore since it's sold neither in Japan nor in the US.

 

If you count it (it's N64-based), you have to also count the distributed N64 systems that power LodgeNet-equipped hotel rooms

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

No one calls the Genesis a souped-up Master System, or the SNES a souped-up NES(well, wouldn't if Nintendo hadn't basically named it that...).

They're allowed to stand on their own, instead of constantly being rebadged "NES 1.5" or "Master System 2."

The situation of the Wii is quite different from the Genesis or SNES, though. Like I said before, more like the Master System (which was indeed called the SG-1000 Mark III whether or not could be considered a wholly new system).

Not really.

Both systems are very much "upgrades" to the existing hardware. While more capable platforms, signifigant sacrifices were made for the sake of backwards-compatibility(though only one company ever exploited the fact).

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Mark3/SMS' ONLY improvement was more colors.

The SNES used a CPU in the same family as the NES, but it was a 16-bit version of an 8-bit chip. While the SNES's CPU had a mode where it could parse 6502 instructions, thinking of the SNES as a souped up NES is pretty silly, especially since there wasn't really much else in common besides the CPUs being in the same family.

 

The Genesis used a main processor totally unrelated to the Master System's. The Master System architecture was integrated as you pointed out, though I don't know how much this held back the potential of the Genesis. Things like cost were probably much more limiting factors.

 

All the factors I mentioned in the Wii's favor like the lower manufacturing costs and ease of development because programmers are familiar with the architecture don't seem to have been the case for the SNES and Genesis early in their lives, so the extent to which they were upgrades to the previous generation's hardware must be less than the case of the Wii. I still think the Master System is a better example. In addition to more colors, the upgraded video processor in the SMS had much better sprite handling capabilities. Much better. The SG-1000 rarely was able to produce graphics that looked as good as the Colecovision, the Master System regularly produced graphics that looked better than the NES with even it's most complicated mappers. That's a large leap. I haven't really been following the Wii stuff since I'm not the type of person that buys a system at launch, but I'm not sure the strictly graphical improvements of the Wii over the Gamecube are even as much as that. Which, again, I think is good. A move away from horsepower and graphics and towards gameplay and innovation as the measuring factors in a console can only be a good thing, but it seems like no one--either the Wii's detractors or its supporters--is understanding that as much as Nintendo does (they don't seem particularly embarassed about the Wii's heritage, for instance).

 

 

...word is bondage...

[Atarifever]

How is this topic still going? The answer is "yes". Man, what is this? The Matrix? 1984? 2+2=4; that's it. Not 3; not 5; 4. (That's from 1984; don't anyone say, "don't you mean 5?". I'm implying that the arguement is silly, and the oddest logic in the world is being used to try to make reality somehow fit some hokey fake reality).

Edited November 6, 2006 by Atarifever

[figgler]

I love semantics too

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

How is this topic still going? The answer is "yes". Man, what is this? The Matrix? 1984? 2+2=4; that's it. Not 3; not 5; 4. (That's from 1984; don't anyone say, "don't you mean 5?". I'm implying that the arguement is silly, and the oddest logic in the world is being used to try to make reality somehow fit some hokey fake reality).

What are you talking about? Nobody in this thread has argued that the Wii isn't at least Nintendo's fifth console, the arguments have been on other semantic points and have been totally academic not the fanboy nonsense that some of you seem to be assuming they are, so there's no need to get persnickity. I keep saying that we're not on GameFAQs, but the way people keep popping up and trying to defend the Wii as if there was some sort of attack in this thread, it's almost like we are.

 

 

...word is bondage...

[Atarifever]

How is this topic still going? The answer is "yes". Man, what is this? The Matrix? 1984? 2+2=4; that's it. Not 3; not 5; 4. (That's from 1984; don't anyone say, "don't you mean 5?". I'm implying that the arguement is silly, and the oddest logic in the world is being used to try to make reality somehow fit some hokey fake reality).

What are you talking about? Nobody in this thread has argued that the Wii isn't at least Nintendo's fifth console, the arguments have been on other semantic points and have been totally academic not the fanboy nonsense that some of you seem to be assuming they are, so there's no need to get persnickity. I keep saying that we're not on GameFAQs, but the way people keep popping up and trying to defend the Wii as if there was some sort of attack in this thread, it's almost like we are.

 

 

...word is bondage...

There've been a few posts over if it is a bigger leap than, say, SMS-Genesis or NES-SNES. The post was also originally about if it were indeed different enough to be the fifth. There was also some stuff over if it's like saying the Xbox is a crippled compuer. If you think the whole 2 pages of the thread have been about if the Gameboy is a console, you haven't been reading it.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Atarifever

[BydoEmpire]

Don't buy into Sony's lame "the next generation doesn't start until WE say it does!" propaganda...

You misunderstood Mr. Hirai-san. He didn't say that the next generation starts when Sony says it does. He said, "the next generation doesn't start until Wii say it does!"

LOL, that was pretty funny. Best thing to come out of this thread.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

There've been a few posts over if it is a bigger leap than, say, SMS-Genesis or NES-SNES. The post was also originally about if it were indeed different enough to be the fifth. There was also some stuff over if it's like saying the Xbox is a crippled compuer. If you think the whole 2 pages of the thread have been about if the Gameboy is a console, you haven't been reading it.

No, I've just been posting it. That was me who argued that the difference between the Gamecube and Wii is not as great as between the SMS and Genesis or NES and SNES, but that certainly doesn't mean the Wii shouldn't be considered a new console.

 

 

...word is bondage...

[JB]

I'm not too worried about the clock speed, not in a console at least. I find that in a dedicated machine such as a games system, you usually get much better results than the clock speed would suggest. The original Xbox, for instance, does a lot better than you'd expect from a 733Mh processor.

 

In the Wii's case, if they had more horsepower from that chip, I imagine it would have been more difficult, or impossible, to implement the WiiConnect24 concept.

Of course, I don't have figures to back this up, but I'm fairly sure that keeping the processor running cool goes hand in hand with having an system that can always be on to some degree, even while the fans can be off.

Could have variable clockspeeds, and standby mode runs a LOT slower.

 

The SNES used a CPU in the same family as the NES, but it was a 16-bit version of an 8-bit chip. While the SNES's CPU had a mode where it could parse 6502 instructions, thinking of the SNES as a souped up NES is pretty silly, especially since there wasn't really much else in common besides the CPUs being in the same family.

A. The 65816 sucked, and caused the SNES no end of trouble. That alone was a major sacrifice.

 

B.

The controller protocol is IDENTICAL. SNES and NES pads can be used on the wrong system, provided you change the plugs. NES games, properly written, can even read all the buttons on an SNES pad.

The video hardware contains a NES-compatible mode. This is the default state at boot.

The clockspeed is selectable, with the slowest of the 3 speeds matching the NES. This is the default state at boot. This speed is also, as I understand things, the ONLY speed at which the cartridge bus may be accessed at.

The CPU has selectable 8/16-bit modes. The default boot state is the 8-bit, 6502-compatible mode.

About the only part NOT designed to be compatible was the sound hardware. And an emulation program could probably be uploaded into it(The Arcade's Greatest Hits cart DID load an app to make it behave as a PSG).

 

NES games WILL run on an SNES if hacked to hit the proper SNES memory addresses.

 

Nothing in common, my ass.

 

 

 

The Genesis used a main processor totally unrelated to the Master System's. The Master System architecture was integrated as you pointed out, though I don't know how much this held back the potential of the Genesis. Things like cost were probably much more limiting factors.

The sound hardware, if nothing else, was far less than could have been done at the time.

Controller sacrifices were made too. They had a jury-rigged hack to get 4 buttons onto an SMS-compatible controller. The "6-button" controller gave up and adopted a serial communication scheme like the S/NES, as far as I know.

 

There were probably other issues related to SMS limits.

I know it had minimal collision detection(consisting of a single bit to tell you something hit something), and it was solely up to software to figure out what hit what. That was likely another inherited issue.

 

I'm admittedly less familiar with the Genesis than the SNES.

 

All the factors I mentioned in the Wii's favor like the lower manufacturing costs and ease of development because programmers are familiar with the architecture don't seem to have been the case for the SNES and Genesis early in their lives, so the extent to which they were upgrades to the previous generation's hardware must be less than the case of the Wii.

In terms of overall effect, I think the Wii ends up closer to SNES/Genny.

In terms of actual hardware changes, it's harder to gauge. The parts are closer related than the SMS->Genny relation(or even the SG1k->SMS move), but the RAM and speed diffrence is much more in line with the SMS->Genny.

 

I haven't really been following the Wii stuff since I'm not the type of person that buys a system at launch, but I'm not sure the strictly graphical improvements of the Wii over the Gamecube are even as much as that.

Really, the big thing this gen is high-def.

The Wii can't do it, as far as I know. That's a big part of the price diffrence.

 

And part of why I think the whole generation is too soon. HD isn't commonplace right now. 2 years from now it will be. Needless to say, hardware prices will've gone down too. The Wii can go HD without missing the price point, and MS and Sony get a price break.

 

 

Which, again, I think is good. A move away from horsepower and graphics and towards gameplay and innovation as the measuring factors in a console can only be a good thing, but it seems like no one--either the Wii's detractors or its supporters--is understanding that as much as Nintendo does (they don't seem particularly embarassed about the Wii's heritage, for instance).

I understand it.

But the Wii DOES have signifigant hardware upgrades too. It's not JUST a 150$ controller, and I think people are selling it short by rebadging it.