No offense Soriku, but graphics aren't that important for the enjoyment of most games. Yeah, sometimes they are important, like Fight Night, it was such a huge leap in graphics it made you forget that it was just another crappy game from EA. Graphics are more important for selling games to the "hardcore" (read: shallow teenage gamers) than to actual enjoyment.

Other peoples opinions of a game or system I like are even less important. Don't let the fanboys, trolls, and flamers get to you.

Am I right guys?

It's funny how Sony fans didn't care about Sony making the PS2 roughly 3 times as powerful as the N64, yet spit on the Wii for being roughly 3 times more powerful than the PS2 (CPU+GPU).

"Personally, I may be getting too old but I haven't seen anything on the PS3 or XBox 360 that has blown me away like games did when we switched from the NES to the SNES, SNES to the Playstation/N64, or Playstation/N64 to the Gamecube/XBox/PS2. "


We got something in common.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LEw3TrZQzpA

is it fact the PS2 is 3 times more than N64?

I would have thought atleast 7 times..

 You seem to be overlooking how developers were slow to catch onto the Wii, and how they are unfamiliar with the Wii's architecture, since so few actually did serious work on the GC.*

 Now this does not mean the Wii can handle games on the same level of detail as the other systems. It's just that your supposed proof of the Wii not handling those games, by developers not making them yet, is faulty.

 *Look at Ubisoft. They basically had rookies handling the GC ports, so they didn't really know how the Wii worked when they actually tried to make serious games on the system. Farcry didn't seem to use the TEV system at all, which cripples Wii/GC games even more than not using the SPEs on the Cell (in that without TEV, the Wii/GC cannot do decent shading, whereas the PS3 has shading with the RSX).

I think it's about 6.73... :|


"Personally, I may be getting too old but I haven't seen anything on the PS3 or XBox 360 that has blown me away like games did when we switched from the NES to the SNES, SNES to the Playstation/N64, or Playstation/N64 to the Gamecube/XBox/PS2. "

QFT, I feel old. I don't think it is just age though, really how much better is gameplay because of the graphical leap? Does playing in HD really ghange gaming as much as switching from SNES to PSone/N64 or from there to PS2/GCN/Xbox. I think that is my biggest problem with my PS3 (see my sig), I just feel like they are prettier PS2 games; where as when I went from PSone to PS2 it was a huge leap FPS were really viable, 3d action games had a real 3d feel, the difference in gameplay experience in FFX from FFVIII-IX, etc.

Can a mod please rename this thread to Beating a Dead Horse, Again

 Listen to me.  Stop making threads where the sole purpose is you "trying to prove a point"

We're all doing the talking here...once we make comments, we're all in the discussion together.  Don't try to act like every thread you make is in the grand scheme where you "prove your point."

Isn't that kind of redundant... Oh, I see.  Clever, clever.

Yeah this argument is starting to sound like a broken record. The fact is that the PS3 and 360 are vastly more powerful system than the Wii with much better graphics. Sure people could find the shittiest tvs in the World and claim the graphics aren't that different but they're only fooling themselves. Lets just move on.