Do graphics REALLY matter that much?

[Kevin]

Before I start let me say this: I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

1. Playstation had the worst graphics for the N64/PS era, yet they dominated everything.

2. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation, yet once again they dominated sales.

3. Nintendo Wii stole the show floor with inferior graphics but PS3 fans complain because Wii has far inferior graphics. What is that about? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

[dncardman]

Jealousy.....fear...

[Zer0-Sum]

Response. I am no fan boy, but PS1/2 have kicked ass.

1) I love PS3 and I am going to buy one. Anyone who really wants one will get one. They bitch now, but as soon as they see it in action, such bitching sill cease. Scuks for them if they have no job or are to cheap to pay for cutting edge tech.

2) Um, No it didn't. PS1 had better graphics than N64. By the end of each life span compare the graphics. PS1 graphics take daown N64 with no problems. BTW, I've owned EVERY single Nintendo system ever made. I like many games on N64 better than many games on PS1. Golden Eye comes to mind, which more me is what started FPS's on consoles and NOT HALO. Halo fans who think this are either suckers who have never played Golden Eye for N64 and are just ignoant or are delusional.

3) Yah, some PS fans are hypocites. This I admit is true. When X-Box had better graphics it was okay to have lesser graphics. They all screamed at the X-Box fanboys "It is gameplay that matters you dicks! Gameplay!". Yet now many deride 360 and Wii for the lesser graphics and forget about what important, which is gameplay.

That being said all three systems rock. I like PS3 because of the games it has, like MGS4 and DMC4, which is why I played a supposedly "inferior" PS2 over an X-Box. That and my much beloved GameCube. Oh come to me my Twilight Princess....

[Junox50]

2) Um, No it didn't. PS1 had better graphics than N64. By the end of each life span compare the graphics. PS1 graphics take daown N64 with no problems. BTW, I've owned EVERY single Nintendo system ever made. I like many games on N64 better than many games on PS1. Golden Eye comes to mind, which more me is what started FPS's on consoles and NOT HALO. Halo fans who think this are either suckers who have never played Golden Eye for N64 and are just ignoant or are delusional.



Actually, the N64 was a much more powerful console than the PS1 and had better looking games.

[Zer0-Sum]

Actually, the N64 was a much more powerful console than the PS1 and had better looking games.

Not by my memroy it didnt and I owned both. Sure the graphics for PS1 mkinda sucked at first and N64 was better. But N64 topped off and left flat. No more improvement. PS1 kept getting better and better. By the end PS1 was ghanding N64 it's own ass on a stick.

[Dwhitten]

PS1 one had horrible graphics. You find me one PS1 games that had better graphics than Zelda: OOT.

The thing that won for all Sony consoles is the game library. It's a good selling point to say "Hey we have the most games than the competition". To me the game library didn't mean anything because a lot of the 3rd party games for the Playstation didn't even need to be made. Sure they had some great games, but they had many many many horrible no name games too.


I'm not bashing Sony, but i'm just pointing out the flaws in the PS1. For me I had no problems with the PS2 and they improved a lot on that system. Good for Sony.

[Hrama]

Pff, I wish it was. PS1 games looked a wreck compared to the smooth textures, and polygons of the N64. Show me a game that looks as clean as the first title out on the N64 and I will give you a cookie.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v729/Hrama/SUPERMARIO64-0.jpg

And yes, a lot of PS guys are hypocritical. "Oh Sony would never release a console at 500 dollars or more, that is too expensive" And as soon as the price comes out "Man, that is a steal for what it offers!" Not to say that it isn't a decent price for what it offers, but its reall funny to watch the turnaround I noticed and I am an avid PS3 supporter.

[julps31]

1. I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

2. Playstation had the worst graphics for the N64/PS era, yet they dominated everything.

3. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation, yet once agian they dominated sales.

4. Nintendo Wii stole the show floor with inferior graphics but PS3 fans complain because Wii has far inferior graphics. What is that about?Ummm..tell me exactly who is putting down the Wii on this site because of the graphics, since you got the nerve to post this in the Sony E3 forum.

[kaphwan]

What matters is the games.

The ps3 has a brilliant line up of games, over 100 in the works (Not launch, obviously, but ones that are planned).

The uber graphics, blu-ray, etc are just the icing on the cake.

The 600 dollar price tag is like the sultana bits on the cake that I don't like to eat but kinda have to because it's there.

[woundingchaney]

What is a sultana bit and why are they on cakes???

[CreativeWriter]

Is this even a Sony forum? I can't wait until E3 is over and threads like this disappear. Hopefully we can get back to tech talk soon.

[Dwhitten]

Ummm..tell me exactly who is putting down the Wii on this site because of the graphics, since you got the nerve to post this in the Sony E3 forum. He saying in general. Not the site.

[overclocked]

1. I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

2. Playstation had the worst graphics for the N64/PS era, yet they dominated everything.

3. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation, yet once agian they dominated sales.

4. Nintendo Wii stole the show floor with inferior graphics but PS3 fans complain because Wii has far inferior graphics. What is that about?

1. I dont *really* have the money either in that sense but if you save a little every month its not going to be a problem for me, in your case well its your call. Its something that happends every Six/seven years so i wont miss that special feeling about being one of the first that gets one.

2. Well PS2 had/has the best games. The grafhic where rough on most titles but on the AAA titles MGS/ACE just to name a few it did the job very,very good IMO. First i thougt the coming GOW2 was a PS3 title honestly..

3. Many factors, higher price for N64 games vs PSone´s cd games.
Again many and good games.

4. Well i dont think the pressconferance or any games looked interesting for me or my taste, already had the Gamecube so im not impressed or interested.
As for PS3 has better gfx than Wii i have not heard anything about it on the boards or comparison cause its totally different segments, its a fact so not anything to discuss IMO, they did go another route simple as that.

You keep on bragging about PS3 fanboys. Here my take on it pretty short.

I say i prefer Sony because of the games, past experience, innovation(PSP) and a true vision for gaming that the other companys lacks.
Ken Kuturagi is a man i admire and most of the critic that was from PS2 have improved on PS3.

For ex MS i dont like the company and decisions/long term plans behind going
in to the console business.

And lastly everyone is entitled to prefer any company they will without being jumped on, i think thats whats makes a troll/Fanboy.
The rest that prefer a company over another is a whole different matter,
we are not blind, try too see trough the PR-bullshit/stealth bias from any media.

[VG Aficionado]

The thing that won for all Sony consoles is the game library.Congratulations for being the first one that makes sense :) The Playstation brand is where it is because of its games catalogue, and it doesn't seem like it's going to become any worse. Very much the contrary.

What matters is the games.I say i prefer Sony because of the games:clapping:

[Fats]

I think that Nintendo fanboys are quite ignorant of the fact that the Playstation and 2 have had really, really great games and lots of them.

[kaphwan]

What is a sultana bit and why are they on cakes???

Must be an Australian term then. Dry fruit bits that I don't like to eat (the price), but because it's part of the cake itself (ps3) I will accept it and enjoy the icing (the games, ps3, linux, the motion sense, etc).

Yes, there are people who decide to ruin a perfectly good cake with strewn sultana bits.

[venomv]

Must be an Australian term then. Dry fruit bits that I don't like to eat (the price), but because it's part of the cake itself (ps3) I will accept it and enjoy the icing (the games, ps3, linux, the motion sense, etc).

Sounds not good, but I have also never heard of them, no dried fruit on any cake I have seen.

[kaphwan]

I have heard people say that Nintendo could have just got a GameCube and released it with the Wiimote, but that was more saying that the point isn't graphics, it's the innovative interface. Not a jab at the graphic capabilities at all.

[woundingchaney]

Im really on the edge regarding Nin, where as I like the concept of the remote I have concerns over its ability to adapt to games. Once you get passed the motion sensing gimmick there really isnt much else to keep one enthralled with the Wii (unless of course you count old Nin titles that are available just about any where).

I think the remote may sound good on paper but when it comes to applying it to games it may indeed become a crutch.

[woundingchaney]

Must be an Australian term then. Dry fruit bits that I don't like to eat (the price), but because it's part of the cake itself (ps3) I will accept it and enjoy the icing (the games, ps3, linux, the motion sense, etc).

Yes, there are people who decide to ruin a perfectly good cake with strewn sultana bits.


Down with sultana bits and their communist principles.:honor:




PS

Communist principles - joke referring to the "Red Scare" experienced in the US during the mid 20th century

[martel]

1. I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

2. Playstation had the worst graphics for the N64/PS era, yet they dominated everything.

3. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation, yet once agian they dominated sales.

4. Nintendo Wii stole the show floor with inferior graphics but PS3 fans complain because Wii has far inferior graphics. What is that about?

1. I'll get the money for it. $600 isn't that much if you're into PC gaming, my PC ain't that fancy yet it cost about three times that amount. Yeah, I knwo, it does other stuff, but I could do that other stuff with a $/€400 PC from Dell, it's the gaming and multimedia features that got me to spend the other 1000+.

2. I got a PS1 before N64 was even out. PS1 was '95 in Europe, 64 was '97, PS2 was 2000. If Nintendo's console was any later it would've been closer to PS2 then PS1, so it's not a very fair comparison.

Even if it had have been out though, I can't stand Nintendo gaming. I was 11 when PS1 came out, so about 3 years too old for Nintendo gaming themes of fairies, talking mushrooms and Italian plumbers. I'll take inferior graphics on MGS, GTA and GT thanks.

3. I had a PS2 on day one, there was no Xbox at the time, so again this ain't a fair comparison. The only console around when PS2 came out that had anywhere near comparable graphics was Dreamcast, the most underwhelming console launch in the last ten years. It was released before I knew it existed, first time I saw it was in an ad that had it for sale. I know it has become "cool" to like Dreamcast but I'm not buying into the cult thing.

4. I've been following PS3 on this site for almost two and a half years, suffice to say that's built up a certain level of excitement in me for the release, a tantric purchase if you will ;-).

I'm not that interested in graphics, things like physics interest me more, which Cell is supposed to excel at. I've wanted to for years to do what Ageia are doing now, create a physics API to distribute among game devs.

The PS3 is by far the most complete console, and the price doesn't bother me, of course I'm gonna be into getting a PS3. I like that Sony are supplying Blu Ray, which I intend to use (anyone with a monitor 20"+ in size or more will appreciate that DVD res just ain't good enough), that they are open to gaming for all age groups unlike Wii (that name makes me cry even time I think it) and that Sony are not pure evil like M$ ;-) (if forced to buy from M$ I use a loop hole to buy OEM stuff for 2/5s of the price).

[Kevin]

By the way guys, I just posted this to stir discussion up a bit. I love Nintendo, but I have no problem with Sony at all. Like I said, I want a PS3 but I can't get one.

Anyways, to discuss a few points:

First of all, those of you that answered "great games," good for you because thats what ultimately matters. I have said before (even before Wii's inferior graphics were announced) that if they found a way to make a game with 2 pixels fun, I would play it. However, I have seen a problem with many people (admittedly I can't name names) still complaining about Wii's graphics when Nintendo is SOLELY going for gameplay. (If the games or concept don't enthrall you guys, that's fine though because different strokes for different folks)

Um, No it didn't. PS1 had better graphics than N64. By the end of each life span compare the graphics. PS1 graphics take daown N64 with no problems.You must not be remembering correctly. That was back when "bits" mattered and N64 had 64 while PS1 had 32. PS1 games were plagued by jaggies. Give me screenshots of one game that looked better than Super Mario 64 (a launch title for N64), please.



I say i prefer Sony because of the games, past experience, innovation(PSP) and a true vision for gaming that the other companys lacks.Well, you aren't a fanboy then. I prefer Nintendo but I don't think I'm a fanboy because I was very close to purchasing a 360 (I own an Xbox) and seriously considering a PS3 (I own a PS2) before the price announcement. I don't see how you can say PSP was innovative. Handheld gaming has been around awhile now. While I admit Sony stepped it up with the graphics and added an analog stick, nothing else hadn't been done before. By the way, there's a slight problem I have with Sony... I buy a game console to play games, not to play CD's, DVD's, etc. They try to make it all-encompassing and that's why people's wallets are REALLY going to suffer.

Ummm..tell me exactly who is putting down the Wii on this site because of the graphics, since you got the nerve to post this in the Sony E3 forum.I can't name any names, but I have seen it... but more than that I'm talking about the regular consumer and not forum-goers. Second, unfortunately for you I'm an admin so it doesn't really take any nerve to post this here ;).

[stanDarsh]

There's plenty of innovations to be found in PSP, gaming or non gaming it is the first portable games console to have:

Analogue Stick
Large portable screen (4.3")
Memory sticks
Disc based instead of Cartridge
Similar graphical capabilities to current generation home consoles
UMD Music and Videos.

and plenty more I'm sure.

As for why I pick PS3, I spent a lot of my teen years playing PS and PS2, and enjoy many games that are released for them such as Tekken, Ridge Racer, Jumping Flash, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Winning Eleven/Pro Evolution soccer, etc.

Having said that I enjoy Gamecube immensely, and a lot of my favourite games have also been released on it, Mario, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil, Zelda, and to a lesser extent i enjoy XBox, Chronicles of Riddick:EFBB is an absolutely must have game in my opinion, while Halo is quite decent I never really got into it, particularly after playing Chronicles of Riddick first.

So to the next generation of gaming, PS3 and Wii are definitely "must haves" for me. Wii because it looks like a lot of fun and brings something really quite different to the table as well as old Nintendo favourites and backwards compatible with Gamecube as well as lots of classic games from nes, snes etc, and PS3 because it'll have a huge library of the games that I want to play, as well as Blu-ray player and backwards compatible with PS2 and PS1 for the most part.

Which brings me to Xbox 360, it's a good console no doubt, but in a lot of ways it is actually competiting with the PC for me, a lot of the X360s games also come out on PC, and since my PC has quite decent specs, I can't really justify purchasing an X360 at this stage, hopefully that will change in the near future. I nearly bought one off ebay at a good price, but then I did the math, and realised I'd only be buying it for Kameo, PGR3 and to a lesser extent perfect dark 0, the rest I could more or less get on PC or it was soon to be released.

All in all which ever console/s you choose, you really can't go too wrong, just enjoy it/them for what it is/they are, and have fun.

[Viper]

I believe Kevin is speaking in general when he mentions Sony "FANBOYS" claiming its all about fun with PS/PS2 but have reverted to graphic whores now that they finally get the most graphically capable system and take any moment they can to slam X360 and Wii for inferior graphics.

I've seen it elsewhere and I've seen it here and I know the names. I mention them not for this is not about them personally.

It's the same sheep mentality that was mentioned before with most of claiming only last week that $500.00 would be too much and Sony wouldn't be that stupid to launch at that price but the moment $600.00 is announced it's a bargain and we can all afford it and it's a great price. NOTE, I DO NOT PERCEIVE MOST OF YOU AS SHEEP.

We're just baffled by it, that's all.

[makeitlookreal]

Graphics are what matter to me. Game play, physics, AI, and everything else is just the icing on the cake.

Basically, this is the evolution I have went through.

1) Early Age - Watching Star Trek broadcast on a black and white TV set (color sets existed obviously, but that was all we had). I was hooked. Later, I watched TV in color.

2) Atari 2600 - Played pong and so fourth. Later, played atari games. It was neat just to see stuff moving around the screen that I am controlling. Still love scifi, fantasty, etc.

3) Nintendo- Played some games and enjoyed moving the stuff around. Nothing was realistic, but enjoyed the console.

4) Sega Genesis - Realized things were getting a little more advanced, but not enough to matter at all. Played some games and enjoyed them.

5) PS1 - My younger brothers purchased a PS1 and I realized things were continuing to evolve. Still nothing realistic at all. Continued playing it as a game, but did not come close to a scifi experience like I craved on TV, movies, etc.

6) PS2 - Purchased a PS2 for my brothers and played it occasionally. I realized things were getting better, and there was a tiny bit of realism but I was not "hooked" yet into that realism. I had a tiny bit of frustration when characters looked so awful, but still enjoyed some games.

7) Game Cube and XBox - Played some games with a few friends, while shopping, at Walmart/BestBuy. Realized things were looking more realistic. Finally started getting "hooked" on that realism. I realized games were just now starting to tip toe towards a Scifi/Horror/Fantasy movie. Some of the games were really exciting (such as Resident Evil 4), but at the same time I started wanting MORE!

8) Early PS3 and 360 info - Started researching into games and PS3 information. I realized that there was the potential for MUCH more realistic games. Everytime I was invited to a friends house (usually the same friend who is an avid gamer) I enjoyed the games LESS because I realized how they were lacking in graphics, were not very realistic, and how they did not compare at all to anything on TV. I started getting VERY hooked into realism, and non-realistic games just did not look fun to me anymore. They actually started to seem dull.

9) Last E3 - Saw Motorstorm, Tekken, Doc Octavious, Spiderman, and other DEMOS and became a downright ADDICT to graphics. I finally saw something good enough to IN MY EYES at least be a MERGER of the VIDEO GAME and the SCIFI/FANTASY/HORROR movies I have loved for so long! Finally, there was the potential for something truly amazing! Instead of watching movies and dreaming of interacting with them I could almost be IN THE MOVIE! Unless the graphics of a game were GREAT I was no longer interested in them at all.

10) This E3 - Between last E3 and this E3 I quit playing video games except for a little WoW and then only for the interaction between people. The graphics were horrible, but I enjoyed talking to others. Most of the time I found myself chatting. But I did not play it for long because I realized I was spending too much time on it so I cancled. Additionally, the horrible graphics really helped me cancle that account. However, when it came to all other games I had no desire to play them. I became VERY bored with PS2, Gamecube, and XBox. Even the XBox 360 seemed lackluster with many titles. The ONLY one which stuck out was FIGHTNIGHT 360.

So I was hoping for the very best of games this E3 when it came to the PS3 since it obviously was the most TECHNICALLY powerful console. However, for the most part this E3 was very dismall to me.

What I desire is the best of graphics. There were some good graphics this E3, but very few games had great looking backgrounds and great looking REALISTIC characters. Because of this I guess I will have to wait and see if by the time of launch there is some major improvements made to these games.

To sum it up, Graphics DO matter that much to SOME of us.

To others it does not matter that much. But for me, I am hooked! I am a graphics addict, and if I don't see good enough graphics in a game I have no desire to purchase it.

[Z]

thanks for the edit Kevin ;)

as for the question, of course games will always bee the focus and one of the main reasons for any system's failure or success. but what I don't understand is people downplaying technology advances that brings new gameplay and more immersion.

for example, Viper said Rev games looks great without HD or high-end graphics. fair enough. but think how much better they could be if they had HD and high-end graphics.

those who only praise the specs that their system has and downplay the rest are just pathetic. they change their views depending on what their new purchase brings. it is like a sad psychological assurance that they made the right decision.

graphics will always be important, as sound, animation, physics, etc. all are. they all contribute to the game's experience. look at the MGS series for an example. from the MSX to PS3, the series has been great. the PSOne and PS2 games had great emotions and scenes. but look at the E3 trailers. because PS3 can bring so much more, they can make things more convincing. look at how the girl cries in Heavy Rain. look how scary a game can be with that much detail in monsters like Alone in the Dark.

of course I am not saying technology is all that matters. Tetris is still as fun as I first played it. but downplaying the importance of technology is very ignorant. there is no reason not to have simple games on PS3. PS2 had Alien Hominid, Katamari, Vietaful Joe and other 'simple' games that were great.
but because of good hardware, we could also play games such as Riddick, Shadow of the Colossus and RE4 that would have not had the same experience without the tech behind them.

read Heavenly Swords scans. they said that without the physics, animation and rendering they have using PS3 ( high-end PC or X2 imply here), the game would have played and felt completely different.

some of the ignorant examples that some posted here are things like: BD is too big", "PS3 is too powerful", etc

what the? I don't know if they realize that Devs don't have to fill a BD disk or squeeze every Cell ounce of the thing. but I still prefer having a powerful hardware to get to play the amazing games that could not be achieved without such high-tech.

3. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation
not really. Dreamcast had the least power. PS2 squashed it so bad people forget about it completely. some even consider it a PSone/N64 era- which by what it could do, it is definitely current gen ;).

the reason why PS2 succeeded so amazingly, is the same exact reason why PSone did, as DS, GBA, Genesis and Nes all did: great games, and plenty of them.

so, combine great dev supports (secure the games) along with having the best technology and see how your system soars. you think Rev's remote, things like online, eyetoy, etc. would be possible without good hardware?
you think games would be as emotional and stories as integral without hardware advances?

technology sure as hell helps propel games to whole new levels. if your game doesn't require certain specs, don't use them. other projects will need them.

those of you that answered "great games," good for you because thats what ultimately matters
to the majority yes, but not to everyone at every purchase. I sometimes get a game for the CG cut-scenes, observing new tech being used for the first time, etc. I am a techy as well as a gamer.

[stanDarsh]

Makeitlookreal, this is just my opinion take it or leave it for what it is worth, if graphics really matter that much to you, perhaps gaming really isn't your thing anymore. Yes yes, graphics can certainly add to a game I'm not arguing that, but at the same time, they aren't the be all end all. Games are meant to be fun and enjoyable, if you're not really enjoying the game and staring at the pretty graphics all day you may as well just watch CG videos.

Graphics will get better, by next E3 and the E3 after that we will begin to start seeing what these consoles are truly capable of, not just in graphics but physics, AI, gameplay etc. It is still early days yet. Rome wasn't build in a day, and neither was the roof of the cistern chapel.

[makeitlookreal]

Hey, by the way, wasn't I one of the people that said a high price would not bother me and if the quality is there I would be willing to buy it and many other people would too?

About the Wii... I just don't understand why Nintendo is making it SO graphically weak. I will admit, I want GREAT graphics. But let me put that aside for a bit, okay?

Lets say I am ordinary Joe Gamer. I played the PS2, Game Cube, and XBox. I liked their games. But now I see how the PS3 and XBox 360 are creating MUCH better games. Obviously, I dig the control scheme of the Wii, and want to get my hands on it.

Now, lets fast forward six months after it's release. I purchased a few games for my Wii, and they are fun to play. However, the PS3 and 360 games look soo much better. The final specs for the Wii were pretty much what had previously been revealed. Quite frankly, I Joe Gamer realize there is not much room for Wii games to improve. I buy another game for the Wii, but then the second wave of PS3 games is released. Hey, some of those games look fun to control with the PS3 controller which can do quite a bit what the Wii controller can do. And those games look AWSOME (this is Joe Gamer of course talking).

Eventually, Joe Gamer is going to get bored with the Wii and purchase a PS3 or 360 after the initial coolness of the Wii wares off.

Now, it's ME again. Makeitlookreal. This is my conclusion about the Wii.

If Nintendo sells it very affordably at $199 it will sell like hot cakes and fly off the shelves at first. People will have fun with the console! But the games won't have much room to improve and after a period of time the Wii folks will get bored, and start migrating to the 360 and PS3.

I expect the lifetime of the Wii to be much shorter than the PS3 or 360.

Personally, I just don't understand why Nintendo made the Wii SO MUCH LESS POWERFUL than the competition. I can understand that they wanted to make an affordable console. But if they had just thrown in a little more powerful processor, a little more modern GPU, and so fourth I believe that the console would have had a much longer lifespan.

The one BIG variable is how much Nintendo will sell the Wii for at launch. If they can sell it for something dirt cheap like $99 dollars and games for lets say $30 (verses perhaps $60 bucks a game for PS3) then I think they could get such a big piece of market share they will about around longer just because of sheer number of users. People will still get frustrated with the system, but more people will have them and be tempted to buy Wii games due to the vastly lower cost.

All of this is speculation of course. No one knows how things will turn out. But in it's current form, unless the Wii is sold DIRT CHEAP, then I think Nintendo has made a huge mistake in making the console so weak.

[Viper]

But now I see how the PS3 and XBox 360 are creating MUCH better gamesBetter as in graphically or as in fun? Remember, just because it looks better, that doesn't mean it MUST be better.


But the games won't have much room to improveWhere do you get this from? Do you know if they are already approaching some sort of cap on gameplay? Have they tapped it out graphically already? Can no new ideas be formulated?

[stanDarsh]

MILR, your definition of "MUCH better games" may be different to said average gamer, and to say that the Wii will be so underpowered in comparison to PS3 and Xbox360 is a major overstatement.

Let's have a look a the GPU, codenamed Hollywood and also known as R520N at ATI. That name R520N indicates that it part of the current generation of ATI GPU's. Now I highly doubt that is an X1900XTX customised for Wii, but at the same token even if it were more akin to X1300 or X1600 processors, that's still a very capable GPU you got right there.

[Viper]

I have a X1600 and it's very capable.

[Phoenix]

The Wii isn't graphically weak, it renders better graphics than the Xbox, that's certainly saying something. Of course, the 360 and the PS3 are more powerful, but isn't that a bit overkill?

[Sovereign]

OK, I am a Nintendo fan, have been for years. I own only a Gamecube, not because I didn't want the other consoles but because I could only choose one at the time. (No Job)

My point is I have not touched my Cube in all the right places in some time because the games haven't been to appealing to me as of late. Sure, the graphics mattered to me in some way but it all comes down to gameplay and how much I feel in the game.

And then I see God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Kingdom Hearts, and many other games on the PlayStation that are very much fun. I thought to myself why didn't I get a PS2? The games were very good and after playing some of the titles I wondered some more.

The Gamecube, in its last run as Nintendo's 'console pillar' didn't have a consistent stream of games making it less attractive by a Nintendo Fan as myself so when I hear you talk about how Sony won by games I totally relate.

It comes down to the games and not the graphical prowess of them. The Wii, 360, and PS3 promise great games but it all comes down to how has the funniest, original titles. I’m a gameplay whore.

PS. I still love my Cube-e.

[makeitlookreal]

About the TRIPLET E SYNDROME

It is creative, funny, and obviously is the work of a quite skillful author.

However, the truth of the matter is that the author is one of those who cannot tolerate others that have a different opinion. I have no problem that he wrote the article and published it. He has the freedom of speech. But at the same time I have the right to comment.

The disturbing truth is that there are many people here who seem to be overjoyed with less than what I consider satisfactory graphics from the 360 and PS3. They find lackluster games exciting and don't care if on the most powerful system around developers are not fully utilizing the capabilities of the system. In addition, they simply vent at anyone who suggests the developers need to be doing BETTER instead of recognizing the true potential of the system is not being met and we should all urge those making games for the PS3 to do BETTER!

I have never told anyone to disrespect any person, insult anyone, or in anyway whatsoever be hateful.

But there is nothing wrong with politely urging someone to do their very best and go the extra mile to accomplish something spectacular.

For example, if I had went to E3 I would have liked to say something such as the following to the makers of Motorstorm:

"I appreciate the hard work all of you have put into this game, but I really hope that by it's launch it will look as high quality as the demo you presented last E3. To be honest, this looks NOTHING like last years demo and personally it makes me feel very let-down. Last year's demo looked spectacular. You did a great job with it! If you can reach such heights in the actual game it would be simply amazing, and urge all of you to do your very best."

Then if they said, "Who are you to tell us what to do?" I would respond...

"I am no one at all, except someone that might purchase your game. You don't have to do anything at all I say, and I am not ordering you around. I am not your boss, just a consumer, and I want your game to be all it can be and hopefully match what was presented last E3."

You see, I am a consumer that is NOT scared to tell manufacturers what I want in a product or service! I am a nice person, and always try to be polite to people. But I am not so scared to offend someone that I will keep my mouth shut about something I might be willing to spend my hard earned money on sometime in the future!

Quite bluntly, graphics don't really mean didly to many of you. That is your right and you sure have the personal authority to keep those beliefs. If you want to say this game looks good and that game looks good then if I disagree I have the right to disagree just as much.

Obviously, many of you are upset with me because I have been negative. That is probably why that article was written and posted! But at the same time I get just as upset with those people that right such happy and glorious posts about how great the graphics looks on this game or that game when it does not.

Some games have had great looking aspects to it. Other games have had fewer good looking aspects. The flaw I see in many of you is that while being so hyped about the PS3 you are willing to overlook most weaknesses when it comes to graphics. Especially, when it comes to game developers working to maximize all of the graphical aspects in their games to look the very best possible!

Basically, if you want to say I have the Triplet E Syndrome I am honored. Because the critical nature of the article makes it sound like a human making comments about a mutant. And I sure don't mind having a few mutant E-gaming genes in my blood!

[Viper]

The problem is you are expecting beyond reason. Yes, they created target renders with CGI but actually doing that on unfinished hardware on a 50% completed games is not a reasonable expectation.

What you should be looking at is the fact they had nothing last year and now they are 80-90% of their target renders with lots of time left.

Besides that, if they fully tapped the PS3 right now and already pushed it as far as it will go, the system is in far more trouble than any of us imagined. Obviously this is not the case.

What I'm saying is draw not conclusions on non-concluded games.

[Kevin]

By the way, I'm not trying to say that I don't want good graphics on the Wii. I do. It totally enhances the experience. But to me that's only icing on the cake.

And Viper is correct, those were target renders. They looked absolutely stunning. The PS3 architecture allows for some amazing things, but the developer has to be able to create those things from scratch and quite frankly many of those target renders are frankly impossible to reach (see: Killzone 2... yes I know they didn't show it but I highly doubt the game will ever look or feel like that video from last years E3... maybe they'll prove me wrong.)

[makeitlookreal]

Viper,

That is the absolute MOST REASONABLE post I have read in a while.

I will agree that we cannot judge them completely until after their game is 100% complete and they have been working with final hardware. But in the process I still think we as the consumers should politely urge them to meet or exceed their targets and to do the best they possibly can.

One point I disagree with is that they have all reached 80-90 of their target renders. I am not familiar with the details of each target render for every game this E3. But when it comes to Tekken and Motorstorm I would say that they are certainly much less further along than that.

Tekken - 30%
Motorstorm- 50%

[jaxmkii]

Before I start let me say this: I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

you have 7 months...

stop buying he skin mags and cigerets and your golden!:cheers:

[makeitlookreal]

standarsh,

I will have to go back and do more research before I make another post about the Wii's specifications. However, just yesterday I saw an interview with a man who helped design the GPU for the Wii and he was reluctant to say one tiny word even GENERALLY about the quality of graphics.

He kept repeating game experience, game experience, control experience, and everything but anything related to graphics. The same can be said of many Nintendo representitives this E3.

Every analysis I have read about the Wii by those people who certainly know more about the true meaning of technical specifications than myself indicate the Wii is AT MOST only twice as powerful as the Gamecube. Additionally, even Nintendo won't say even that much about the technical power of their system. Now, some of these articles were by people who obviously supported Nintendo and their efforts. I have not seen anything at all that would indicate to me that the Wii is going to produce anything significantly better than the Gamecube.

[Viper]

Significantly better is subjective. All the games shown that are not just control demos were already graphically superior to GC. They are beyond what Xbox is capable of in many respects and that will continue greatly.

http://e3.bashsoftware.net/smash.wmv

Watch that and then question if the graphics deter the fun that would be had playing that game.

[makeitlookreal]

For someone chasing cartoon like graphics that would be a fun game. I will admit that if you love animation you would like that. It may also be popular with children (not as an insult because at times we all need to be more child-like) However, if you are seeking realism in a scifi, fantasy, horror, sports, or action game it probably would not be too appealing. Once again, it just depends what you like.

For that kind of cartoon game with non-realistic graphics probably the Wii has enough power to produce a decent looking game. But the moment you go from animated cartoons to making something REALISTIC the Wii will not cut it and sub-par graphics simply won't work for *some* people.

[julps31]

I see where you're coming from Kevin. It just seemed like your where trying to be ironic and sticking your tounge out at the Sony fans by posting it here lol. And i'll definantly be gunning for the $500 PS3 since the only thing your really missing out in the 600 model is the HDMI..and 720p is enough for me. Ha, ha..i made a rhyme... :pleased:

And the wii is very intriguing to me too. *imagines the wii sitting next to the PS3*

[Red_Eyes]

Of course graphics matter. Why do you think that every month, people go out and buy the newest video card for like $400/$500?

[Kevin]

Why do you think Counter-Strike is still the most popular online game? Why is StarCraft practically a national sport in Korea? Why is Tetris a really hot download for people's cell phones?

Do graphics REALLY matter?

[Homeru]

Of course Graphics matter, but they are not the most important. I'm a bit disappointed with Nintendo wii’s graphics, and I was expecting it to be between the 360 and ps3.

[Dwhitten]

Just remember that graphics do not mean anything. Remember the dreamcast? It had badass graphics back in the day, but lacked in games towards the end. A systems strength depends on companies backing it with good products.

[Phoenix]

Why do you think Counter-Strike is still the most popular online game? Why is StarCraft practically a national sport in Korea? Why is Tetris a really hot download for people's cell phones?Because of t3h hawt grafix, of course!

http://www.gamingbliss.com/games/unsorted/starcraft.jpg

[Z]

forgot to mention another thing: a lot of people may love graphics because graphics are an indicator of how powerful a system is. jus like when you say " I can play Half-Life 2 at full settings". that means you have a respectible PC build.

so when we see graphics such as Getaway and FF13, people know there is alot of power in a machine that runs those. and in the tech world, you can't have enough power.

personally, the hardware itself has is a major factor in my desicion on purchasing a new platform. if the system isn't capable enough by my standards, I can't enjoy it. that is why I don't play mobile games, GBA, etc. I sometimes have fun toying around them, but I never concider buying one just to play them.

[Helios]

Do graphics REALLY matter?

To some people and genre's they do. FFVII is a great game but if Square actually made a remake for PS3 you dont think people would like it that much more? Same thing with CC, dont think it would be better with improved graphics?

Im not trying so say people dont already love these games to death but I have yet to see a game that woldnt be better with improved visuals.
Because of t3h hawt grafix, of course!

http://www.gamingbliss.com/games/unsorted/starcraft.jpg

Ive been playing SC since the week it launched(yes really 8 years), and the way in which SC is animated give it some pretty decent graphics even to this day. Especially to a lot of RTS games that jumped to full 3d models, like Warcraft 3.

[bigwig]

yeah, I think graphics are very important in some genres...can add to the sense of emersion, the visual appeal of the game and its is vistas etc...very important to me

peace

[Viper]

Graphics indicate not whether the game is fun. The cover of the book tells not its whole story. You deny yourself the use of your own imagination. It's sad to be honest. Realism open many new visual faults and a reversal of creativity. Wanting the best graphics is not a problem in of itself. It's the denial of anything less.

Also, animated games such as Smash Brothers do not just cater to children. The volume of classic characters is a testament to that alone. It's one of the most played college party games. There are national torunaments for it just as there are for PC FPS's. If the problem is a self awareness issue of playing a non masculine game, then that probably extends beyond games and should be discussed with a professional (not suggesting you have that problem but I know others that do).

[LaLiLuLeLo]

"Do graphics really matter?"

No.

But they don't hurt.

[OG_Monkey]

grahics dont really matter but it would be nice to have it match or surpass the 360.

thats a good question though

But when you say does it matter, as long as its not the same as ps2 or worse than that then...

[LaLiLuLeLo]

dude just edit the first post, don't double and triple post. derr.
the problem is with more graphical potential comes higher consumer expectations. The saying goes, "to whom much is given much is expected."

The thing is, no one part of a game is more important than the other. If the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts, well, it falls apart. You lose the user, or audience. Horse power can be used for all kinds of things to improve gameplay and immersion. but if the gameplay isn't any good, doesn't matter if your game is photorealistic. It's not fun.

[Nameless]

dude just edit the first post, don't double and triple post. derr.
the problem is with more graphical potential comes higher consumer expectations. The saying goes, "to whom much is given much is expected."

The thing is, no one part of a game is more important than the other. If the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts, well, it falls apart. You lose the user, or audience. Horse power can be used for all kinds of things to improve gameplay and immersion. but if the gameplay isn't any good, doesn't matter if your game is photorealistic. It's not fun.

I think LaLiLuLeLo statements hit the nail on the head...
No need to add more... Peace

[julps31]

@ OG Monkey...edit your post instead of double posting.

And great post LaLi...its the whole package that matters. We learned that from games like The Bouncer. The more of the full package it has, the more memorable and well received the game will be.

[kaphwan]

It totally enhances the experience. But to me that's only icing on the cake.

Lol. Let's keep the cake allegory going, people!

[Kevin]

dude just edit the first post, don't double and triple post. derr.
the problem is with more graphical potential comes higher consumer expectations. The saying goes, "to whom much is given much is expected."

The thing is, no one part of a game is more important than the other. If the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts, well, it falls apart. You lose the user, or audience. Horse power can be used for all kinds of things to improve gameplay and immersion. but if the gameplay isn't any good, doesn't matter if your game is photorealistic. It's not fun.
Someone just hit the nail on the head +rep.

My question still goes out to the PlayStation fans which are disappointed with the inferior Wii graphics. PlayStation dominating the N64 is THE biggest example in gaming history that graphics don't mean shit when the games are amazing.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Someone just hit the nail on the head +rep.

My question still goes out to the PlayStation fans which are disappointed with the inferior Wii graphics. PlayStation dominating the N64 is THE biggest example in gaming history that graphics don't mean shit when the games are amazing.

which is why i'll be getting a wii at some point, and I never dissed it for inferior graphics because it's all about the games. It's fucking assbackwards to call yourself a playstation fan and be a graphics whore, just because all of a sudden ps3 is the strongest.

[HolyPaladin]

For someone chasing cartoon like graphics that would be a fun game. I will admit that if you love animation you would like that. It may also be popular with children (not as an insult because at times we all need to be more child-like) However, if you are seeking realism in a scifi, fantasy, horror, sports, or action game it probably would not be too appealing. Once again, it just depends what you like.

Artistic style doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the audiance. There are lots of examples of "cartoons" and games with that sort of style being directed at older audiances, including South Park (which uses plenty of adult language and themes and obviously isn't intended for young audiances), lots of anime, and more erotic stuff like hentai. Having an unrealistic/stylized/cartoony appearance doesn't automatically make it for kids, and a lot of it isn't for younger audiances at all.

For that kind of cartoon game with non-realistic graphics probably the Wii has enough power to produce a decent looking game. But the moment you go from animated cartoons to making something REALISTIC the Wii will not cut it and sub-par graphics simply won't work for *some* people.

The power of the platform doesn't limit it to what graphic style you can feature in a game. Wii still surpasses the original Xbox and GameCube's capabilities, and they produced "realistic" graphics, although not as sophisticated as what we're seeing with the next-gen consoles. PS2/GCN/Xbox weren't limited to "cartoony" games by their limited power, and these platforms featured plenty of "realistic" games. Whatever was possible on those consoles can be done even better on Wii.

Sure, they're not going to be quite as pretty as what you can get from PS3 and 360, but they're still a far cry from being cartoons:

http://revolutionmedia.ign.com/revolution/image/article/705/705685/madden-nfl-07-20060508024630175.jpg

http://revolutionmedia.ign.com/revolution/image/article/704/704040/e3-red-steel-screens-20060501034053043.jpg

[Z]

Wanting the best graphics is not a problem in of itself. It's the denial of anything less.
that isn't a 'problem'. it is a 'choice'.

some are already making fun of the whole effect of graphics. just read a few posts ubove. those old games used the best graphics available at the time.

to give an example of how important graphics are and what they add to games, I have two:
look at old re-makes. FF remakes on DS, classics on PSP/PS2 and others all have bumped graphics. even Ninties retro-gaming option will have some games with bumped graphics.

the other great example is looking at the same game for DS and PSP. look at things like Slinte Cell, Need for Speed, Spider man, Burnout, Ridge Racer, etc. heck, Tekken and Ace Combat on GBA are a joke. they aren't the Tekken and AAce Combat everyone knows and loves. just some side scroller and bad 2D brawler with the big names in their titles.

now look at how the whole gaming experience differes from both systems although it should have been the same name.
the difference is so big, sometimes you can't even concider both versions being of the same game.

graphics have been important since at least the current gen. with PS3 and X2, not only graphics will become even more integral to certain experiences, but physics will play a major role as well. the latter never really shined this gen despite having some good showing and uses of it here and there. would Hal-Life 2 been the same without those physics? would Fight Night be the same without the facial expressions? are sports the same as they were in the NES and Genesis?

like I said, if a game doesn't need that much power, or you like simple games, that isn't a reason to talk down and make fun of advancements. I don't know about you, but I don't really like to be 'locked' in some time-period. I can play classics when ever I want. at the same time, new experiences and gameplay are created as we learn more.

[stanDarsh]

I dare say no one is making fun of advances in technology, it is when people say in so many words, "graphics makes or breaks a game", that many people on these boards tend to have a problem with with that statement. Graphics are important, but they are not the only thing that matters in a game, otherwise we'd all be watching CG movies instead of playing actual games.

[cliffbo]

Before I start let me say this: I love PS3. Its one of the greatest systems of all time. However, I don't have money for it. Sucks for me.

1. Playstation had the worst graphics for the N64/PS era, yet they dominated everything.

2. Playstation 2 had the worst graphics of this generation, yet once again they dominated sales.

3. Nintendo Wii stole the show floor with inferior graphics but PS3 fans complain because Wii has far inferior graphics. What is that about? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?


Another negative thread.

1 you are mistaken here. the reason PS1 was successful is that it had more than adequate graphics and a plethora of fantastic franchises to boot.

2 you are completely wrong here. the PS2 has been even more successful than PS1 because its graphics are, and still are, on a par with any system out there. not only does it have continued franchises but it also has its own which have bettered anything on rival consoles.

3 its not hypocritical for PS3 fans to complain about Wii graphics are inferior because they are and Nintendo makes no bones about this. remember 'its about the feel of the games' this is a legitimate complaint as opposed to a pedantic claim.

4 its clear that you are a Wii fan and i can see no other reason for this thread other than simply to yet again knock Sony.

5 i am no fanboy, i'm just a realist. each console has its strengths and weaknesses, but Sony are the only company that manage to possition themselves neutraly, which is why they are so successful.

6 i'm getting really bored with this constant and childish bombardment of negativity. if you don't like it don't buy it. Sony are a victim of their own success unfortunately; a success that they richly desrve. for years now i have played a variety of games and genres (thanks to Sony's phillosophy)

7 graphics do matter, but when you say graphics that doesn't neccessarily mean realistic looking graphics or high resolution, it means emotive, endearing and charming. i love games that push the envelope for reality but equally i love games such as RaC or JaD or stylised graphics such as Okami. Okami is a perfect example of graphics that avoid being realistic in favour of being endearing. its the sense of reality that matters not the look.

[stanDarsh]

Cliffbo, you may wanna read the entire thread.

[Z]

yes, there are people making fun of the importance of graphics. look at the guy that posted an old game sarcastically saying. sayin the game succeeded because of its graphics. well, little does he know that that game was indeed a graphic galore at its time. read the Command and Conquer example at the end.

imagine playing your best NES game with Atari graphics. imagine playing Atari with Pong graphics.
graphics (a.k.a power) is very important to games. we couldn't play 'any' games at all if it weren't for the graphics. that is what we interact with, a graphical interface. soon, physics will be noticeably important. sound is also important. AI still has a long way to go, but when it becomes evident and plays a role, it will become yet another standard and important feature.

I won't say 'game-play is the ultimate point' since it is too obvious. that is why they are called 'games'. duh.

I played the MSX version of MGS. I played the original Prince of Perisa on PC. they are nothing like the experinces I get playing them on PS2. forget MSX, PSOne couldn't show you near the emotions of PS2 games with MGS having shaky heads to signal 'speach'. luckly, sound saved the day. look at the Heavy Rain Demo (one of the pics in my sig), how could they show that much facial expression and convinsing feelings with current graphics/power? have you seen her cry?
heck, Katamari wouldn't be as good if the graphics weren't capable enough to facilitate what was happening. you think it would be even playable on the Atari?. hey look, it is Command and Conquer for Atari. yuo are the blue squares, and I am the red ones. let us get close enough and then our squares will suddenly change color. who has the most color wins! what a fantastic real-time stratigy war game! I can almost smell that gunpowder!

that is why some games couldn't have appeared before. that is why some games all but died.

[cliffbo]

I played the MSX version of MGS. I played the original Prince of Perisa on PC. they are nothing like the experinces I get playing them on PS2. forget MSX, PSOne couldn't show you near the emotions of PS2 games with MGS having shaky heads to signal 'speach'. luckly, sound saved the day. look at the Heavy Rain Demo (one of the pics in my sig), how could they show that much facial expression and convinsing feelings with current graphics/power? have you seen her cry?
heck, Katamari wouldn't be as good if the graphics weren't capable enough to facilitate what was happening. you think it would be even playable on the Atari?. hey look, it is Command and Conquer for Atari. yuo are the blue squares, and I am the red ones. let us get close enough and then our squares will suddenly change color. who has the most color wins! what a fantastic real-time stratigy war game! I can almost smell that gunpowder!

that is why some games couldn't have appeared before. that is why some games all but died.

i agree Z. what i was trying to point out with Katamari was that when we say 'great graphics' most people immediately think in terms of looking real (jesus i'm beginning to hate those two words, wonder why?) you are right, without better graphical abilities you wouldn't be able to mimic an art form, but great graphics doesn't neccessarily need higher res or more pollys, just a better implimentation of what we already have. GoW, Kat and RE are good examples. before we start pushing more pollys around we have to determine what actually makes something beautiful. photorealism for instance has nothing to do with res. if you took a picture and downgraded it, you could still argue that it was photorealistic because it is a photograph! the secret is to create a sense of reality, be it surreal, real or abstract, by making the objects on the screen interact in their given environment in a consistant and emotive way. if i can feel for a character, even if its a blob, then its real.

[Kevin]

Another negative thread.
Read:

By the way guys, I just posted this to stir discussion up a bit. I love Nintendo, but I have no problem with Sony at all. Like I said, I want a PS3 but I can't get one.However, since you made some unfair assumptions about me, I'm going to assume you only read the first post anyways:

This is a discussion forum. I don't think I posted anything in that first post that was false. How am I mistaken in saying that PlayStation had the worst graphics yet it dominated the N64/PS era. I never said that it dominated BECAUSE it had worse graphics, I'm saying that it dominated DESPITE having worse graphics than N64.

Not to mention you are assuming things about me which frankly make no sense:
4 its clear that you are a Wii fan and i can see no other reason for this thread other than simply to yet again knock Sony. My very first sentence said that I love the PlayStation 3. I also said it is one of the greatest systems of all time. I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. Not to mention I never ONCE knocked Sony in this thread, only Sony fanboys. I never even mentioned ANYONE on this board being a fanboy.

3 its not hypocritical for PS3 fans to complain about Wii graphics are inferior because they are and Nintendo makes no bones about this. remember 'its about the feel of the games' this is a legitimate complaint as opposed to a pedantic claim. Its not hypocritical unless they were the same PS2/PS1 fans who claimed "its about the games, not the graphics." I'm not pointing any fingers here anyways, just making a general statement.

5 i am no fanboy, i'm just a realist. each console has its strengths and weaknesses, but Sony are the only company that manage to possition themselves neutraly, which is why they are so successful. Finally, cliffbo you make a post that makes sense. This is the kind of response I was trying to generate. I'm sorry if I am uninterested in many of the other topics on this board because I don't have the money to purchase a PS3 and so I don't want to watch many gameplay vids (as it will just make me jealous) and I want some Sony fans' opinions on graphics.

6 i'm getting really bored with this constant and childish bombardment of negativity. if you don't like it don't buy it. Sony are a victim of their own success unfortunately; a success that they richly desrve. for years now i have played a variety of games and genres (thanks to Sony's phillosophy)If you read the rest of the thread, you would probably realize that I'm not trying to be childish. I am no fanboy. In fact I would like to say that my position as admin on these boards and my reputation prove that I am no child. Sony does deserve success, they earned it. When did I say or imply that they didn't?


7 graphics do matter, but when you say graphics that doesn't neccessarily mean realistic looking graphics or high resolution, it means emotive, endearing and charming. i love games that push the envelope for reality but equally i love games such as RaC or JaD or stylised graphics such as Okami. Okami is a perfect example of graphics that avoid being realistic in favour of being endearing. its the sense of reality that matters not the look.Once again, this is the exact response I'm trying to elicit in this thread, and it seems that you are the only one that didn't get it.

To everyone else, thank you for taking the time to read the rest of the posts and come up with intelligent responses. I got a message from Kaphwan thanking me for posting this thread because it was an interesting debate.

[cliffbo]

kevin i was generalising when i said i was fed up with the childish bombardment of negativity. you start your thread with ps1 (inferior) ps2 (inferior) Nintendo stole the show and you don't think i'm going to spot bias. you may like Sony but i'm affraid thats a negative start as far as i'm concerned on a Sony forum, especially when you start with a sort of appology for what your about to say. which proves you actually realised it may upset some people. anyway i'm just getting fed up of all this negativity. i have enough arguments with Sony fanboys here about the fact that Sony are not gods and other consoles have advantages. sometimes i want to relax.

[Kevin]

kevin i was generalising when i said i was fed up with the childish bombardment of negativity. you start your thread with ps1 (inferior) ps2 (inferior) Nintendo stole the show and you don't think i'm going to spot bias. you may like Sony but i'm affraid thats a negative start as far as i'm concerned on a Sony forum, especially when you start with a sort of appology for what your about to say. which proves you actually realised it may upset some people. anyway i'm just getting fed up of all this negativity. i have enough arguments with Sony fanboys here about the fact that Sony are not gods and other consoles have advantages. sometimes i want to relax.
I'm sorry but I think you're whining a bit too much about this. For the past 11-12 years, all of the praise in the world has been given to Sony. Try posting in a Nintendo forum and then complain about negativity.

[masteratt]

For the past 11-12 years, all of the praise in the world has been given to Sony.

Rightly so! :cheers:

[cliffbo]

I'm sorry but I think you're whining a bit too much about this. For the past 11-12 years, all of the praise in the world has been given to Sony. Try posting in a Nintendo forum and then complain about negativity.

whining isn't a word i would use to descibe myself. complaining is more accurate.
nobody is suggesting that we should just stick our heads up our own backsides. but just for a little while at least lets get these forums back to what they were when i first came here. its been a relatively short time, and they have definately become more negative. :)

[Kevin]

Sorry, it was unfair to say you were whining. (and I have no problem with you ;) as I hope you have no problem with me)

Anyways, I understand what you are saying and I posted on Nintendo-only boards from 2000 until PSiNext was aquired. I was not a Nintendo fanboy, but I could not find any sufficient multiconsole sites. Nintendo has always garnered tons of negativity (frankly because of many stupid business decisions.)

However, this thread was not meant to be negative, and I opened the beginning up not to be negative about Sony but praise its consoles for their ability to overcome graphical lackings and point out that some Sony fanboys are being hypocritical if they say that Wii is bad because the graphics aren't up to par.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

dude, the only person I noticed here actually saying Wii's graphical power was problematic is MILR, cuz, he's kind of a tool.

[cliffbo]

Kevin :cheers:

[GRlFTER]

I think graphics matter, IMO...

[Kevin]

dude, the only person I noticed here actually saying Wii's graphical power was problematic is MILR, cuz, he's kind of a tool.
Haha!

This Sony forum is BY FAR THE BEST one I've ever been too, and not because I'm partial to E-mpire. Fanboys are few and far between and quickly put in their place. I wasn't trying to call out people here being fanboys.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I hate graphics whores and fanboys with an equal amount of scorn. I mean, that guy just takes graphic whoring to a level where it's STUPID.

[Stalin]

being manly a computer user, graphics matter alot more to me because you can upgrade a computer relativley easily, but console wise..and especially on a tv, graphics are next to meaningless so long as they are on par with industry standards.