Dallas News: Nintendo Must Share Blame For Poor Wii Quality

Update 4:28PM EST: The Wiire contacted The Dallas Morning News' Victor Godinez for clarification on his claim that Dead Rising Wii was "limited to a dozen or so monsters on the screen simultaneously", for which he sourced a hands-on article posted by Kotaku in late August.  Thus, recent comments from Capcom Community Sr. Manager Seth Killian, who said "the TGS 'build' was mostly just a tech demo and is not the actual or final game," directly negates such claims.

Godinez' broader argument still applies, however, and raises important questions about Nintendo's role in the responsibility for poor third-party games on Wii.  A question, as we can tell from the comments so far, is a hotly debatable topic.

Original Post: In a column published today, Victor Godinez of The Dallas Morning News argues that while Nintendo President Reggie Fils-Aime correctly placed blame on third-parties for their lack of quality content on the Wii in a recent Forbes interview (where he also hinted at future community features), the blame is also partly Nintendo's.

"Nintendo bears some responsibility here, as well.

The Wii is the least powerful of the three current consoles, and you simply cannot easily duplicate a high-end Xbox 360 or PS3 game on the Wii."

 

Godinez points to the upcoming port of Dead Rising for Wii as a prime example, saying:

"Dead Rising on the Xbox 360, for example, was fun and amazing in part because there were often hundreds of zombies on the screen at one time, each shambling toward your brain.

The Wii version under development, though, is limited to a dozen or so monsters on the screen simultaneously, and the downgrade makes the game seem kind of pointless."

This argument seems to contradict recent comments from Capcom Community Sr. Manager Seth Killian, who said "the TGS 'build' was mostly just a tech demo and is not the actual or final game," and to expect some major changes along the way prior to a Q1 2009 release.

However, Mr. Godinez' broader point is still evident, and concludes his argument by saying:

"Nintendo chose to go down this path of less-powerful, lost-cost hardware, and one side effect of that decision is that some games simply cannot be ported over.

So as much as developers do need to step up their efforts, Nintendo hasn't done them any favors."

So what do you think?  Is Nintendo as much to blame for the poor quality of third-party content as the third-parties themselves are?  Should Nintendo institute stricter quality-control policies?  Let us know in the comments below.