ckmlb said: I find it funny that now that the Wii is by far the weakest graphical console, that suddenly every Wii owner is saying: 'oh graphics are good enough as they are, further improvement is really just a tiny thing at this point.' Also if you can't see what a huge leap there is between last gen graphics and this gen then you really are either lying to yourself or not looking hard enough. Just check a game such as Resident Evil 4 which by last gen standards was a great looking game, but in about two years it's already totally outdated looking and we're still in the beginning of this generation. If games like Gears, Unreal, Call of Duty, Mass Effect and others can be done this early in the generation can you even imagine what the games are gonna look and play like at the end? Also, saying that graphics is the only difference between what 360 and PS3 games can do and Wii games is totally ignoring all the other things that are totally impossible on Wii and possible on those other two consoles because of the power under the hood. Edit: Also, I seem to notice a trend lately that keeps trying to say that 360 and PS3 are both FPS consoles. Look at the lineup of big games for both consoles for the rest of the year, the majority are not FPS games and are either RPG/Action or Adventure type games. 13-15 year old audience huh? So I guess all the people playing Halo who are of all ages much older than that are made up...

*sniff sniff* Do I smell some BAIT? ;p

Avinash_Tyagi said: ckmlb said: I find it funny that now that the Wii is by far the weakest graphical console, that suddenly every Wii owner is saying: 'oh graphics are good enough as they are, further improvement is really just a tiny thing at this point.' Also if you can't see what a huge leap there is between last gen graphics and this gen then you really are either lying to yourself or not looking hard enough. Just check a game such as Resident Evil 4 which by last gen standards was a great looking game, but in about two years it's already totally outdated looking and we're still in the beginning of this generation. If games like Gears, Unreal, Call of Duty, Mass Effect and others can be done this early in the generation can you even imagine what the games are gonna look and play like at the end? Also, saying that graphics is the only difference between what 360 and PS3 games can do and Wii games is totally ignoring all the other things that are totally impossible on Wii and possible on those other two consoles because of the power under the hood. Edit: Also, I seem to notice a trend lately that keeps trying to say that 360 and PS3 are both FPS consoles. Look at the lineup of big games for both consoles for the rest of the year, the majority are not FPS games and are either RPG/Action or Adventure type games. 13-15 year old audience huh? So I guess all the people playing Halo who are of all ages much older than that are made up...   Talk to me when a game like Gears is somehow revolutionary, Gears doesn't play any differently than dozens of other shooters

The Wii isnt revolutionary with its Wiimote motion control was done by Nintendo has an add on for the SNES or N64(cant remember which one)called the Powerglove and Sega had a prototype motion controller that looked similar to the Wiimote for the Dreamcast its just that Nintendo has used as the selling point instead of the extra.  

Sigh.

Why don't we just go back to CD-Roms and the PS1? If graphics were nothing, then let's just go back to the PS1-era of games, put them out for $20, and sell the systems for $50.

After all, other than graphics, nothing has changed from the PS1 to the PS3 according to everyone here.

mitsuhide said: The Wii isnt revolutionary with its Wiimote motion control was done by Nintendo has an add on for the SNES or N64(cant remember which one)called the Powerglove and Sega had a prototype motion controller that looked similar to the Wiimote for the Dreamcast its just that Nintendo has used as the selling point instead of the extra.

That is certainly one valid way of looking at the situation but the Powerglove (NES) was a flop and the Sega Prototype never launched.

We can certainly argue the Wiimote in itself is nothing revolutionary, but somehow it still managed to revolutionize the game market turning Nintendo into the most successful video game company by a wide margin ushering in new never before seen demographics to gaming. It alone has by and large been the x-factor that has made the Wii the stunning success it is, so whether it as a mechanical device or new concept is technically revolutionary or not, its results certainly seem to be.

Dont say that then were would we be if we did go back to the PS1 era Nintendo would be pushed out the market and Sega would be bankrupt that wouldnt be good for anyone.We would be stuck with graphically poor games(they werent back then but they are now)and short games because CD's hold something like 700MB and no online play.
I am saying that people are calling the Wiimote revolutionary when it isnt it is only revolutionary in a sense that it is the main controller instead of an add-on.

mrstickball said: Sigh. Why don't we just go back to CD-Roms and the PS1? If graphics were nothing, then let's just go back to the PS1-era of games, put them out for $20, and sell the systems for $50. After all, other than graphics, nothing has changed from the PS1 to the PS3 according to everyone here.

Now now, let's not jump to such conclsuions, I can't speak for my fellow contributors in this thread but I don't believe anyone is really saying graphics don't matter at all, just that they're not as important as some would have us think or worth building a $400-$600 console for. Certainly we all want good looking games but I for one think value should be put first and foremost into the mechanics of the games then followed by graphics, not vice versa. The 360 and PS3 by and large sell themselves on their power and graphics just as most of their signiture games sell themselves largely on their power and graphics, however, as better graphics will surely come along, a game framed in this situation whose point of appeal is largely its graphics becomes a dated item that can only fade into obscurity. This is not to say 360 and Ps3 are without qualities other than graphics, but graphics are definitly the driving force for why the majority of their staunch supporters value them above their competition, the Wii. And its from this perspective that we attack the beast not the black and white perception of the issue either being graphics matter or they don't. It's a myriad of grays we have to look at from which the context of the question is framed.

Graphics aren't really that important as long as the game play is great. But they both need to blend well together. I just wanna play a game that doesn't look like c**p and that doesn't make me ,feel like I in the actual game or i am really in the story. Scarface(wii) sucks monkey balls(sorry about that..kinda dissppointed with that game). Its all a matter of taste. I could buy PS3 tomorrow if I wanted but the games are a factor(In fact I know a couple of ps3 owners. one said graphics nice but gameplay c**p please I aint dissing the PS3.). graphics and gameplay gotta bend to together. hope I aint off topic.

PS3 needs time, Wii surprised many,X360 gotta pull up their socks.

Very true wandie they do need to blend if Halo1/2/3 looked like pong would it be a million seller same goes for FinalFantasy which always looks top notch and the gameplay is aswell.The only reason a nea racing game comes out is because 1.More profit 2.Update the cars and 3.Improve the graphics to look more realistic.

Graphics are the main driving force for games now, just look at Gears of War, crap story but great graphics, and look at Crysis for the PC, go download some of their video's in HD and you will never go back to mario ever again.

Nonquihote said: Our society is based on looks. Put average Joe who knows little about games in a store put on a wii game on tvA and PS3 game on tvB. Take a wild guess what he will want more ? Wii and DS are selling better largely because THEY cost LESS, i don'a t know how any one can overlook cost as the main factor. Put that same average Joe in store say console on the left costs 250, console on the right cost 600. WTF do you think majority will choose ? Its all about price and the perception of value.

 

Are you kidding? Maybe if you just put the TV there, but not if you have the controllers for people to actually play! Put sports on the wii and motorstorm (a common PS3 bundle) for the PS3.

The wii is much more fun for the average Joe to just pick up and play.

Sorry to inform you, but...  many stores here do have TVs with all of the consoles, and are always out of stock on the Wii with plenty of 360s and PS3 in stock. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's a matter of sticker shock.  If the prices were reversed, the wii would still outsell the PS3/360, but not by near as much.