Squilliam said:
Graphics are important for a lot of people as it enables them to be immersed into the game designers world. While its popular to say that they aren't important, more than 2/3rds of people here would respond to a game better if its visually more appealing. Based on some of the peoples comments here, I don't know why they would have even bothered upgrading from the SNES or the PS1 but Its funny I've never heard anyone say in the same breath that the Wii was overpowered visually and that gameplay > graphics.
|
There's a major difference between comparing graphics of the 360 and PS3, and of consoles from different generations. Graphical leaps were very important because it meant games can do things it previously could not - could Mario 64 be done on the SNES? Or could GTA3 be done on the PS1? I'm thinking no. This is one reason the Wii can do so well, even though the graphics aren't HD - they're good enough to flesh out any game concepts thought of right now. There aren't really games on the HD consoles that cannot be done on the Wii (with lesser graphics). Graphics were also important because they were so far from what reality looked like - now that we're approaching it, they don't matter nearly as much.
When people argue about the 360 and PS3, it's ridiculous because it practically takes experts to determine which system is better than the other. If it has come to that, the graphical difference simply doesn't matter, even to most of the people on this site - if they say otherwise I'd guess it's out of console fanboyism.
