Are graphics really that important?

[BenKenobi88]

MikeB said:

@ BenKenobi88

PC=flexibility

IMO it took the platform ages to advance in baby steps (and IMO it still does, nothing major has really changed the last decade apart from faster (processing) chips, a standard ongoing process ever since computers were released onto the market). I still remember the day when having a soundblaster sound card with a gameport, just one port for a gamepad was something impressive when on nearly all other platforms it was a non issue.

I still remember the 80's when I was able to do amazing video editing, adding special effects, subtitling, etc, etc with very little effort with for its time with professional results. It took PCs more than a decade to advance to that point, usually with far worse results. The Amiga for its day was flexible, the PC was not.

To me the computer market seems a lot less dynamic when PCs became standard in people homes. Mainly building on some good past ideas on other platforms. Computers have become slower in usage (bootup, instant user feedback, etc), which was unthinkable to envision for 2008 in the mid 80s as an Amiga user. Mainstream computers have become less open to know how the OS works and are less open to advanced customization and problem solving. There seem to less flexibility in general with regard to PCs than there was in the past.

I have been a vivid PC FPS gamer in the past, but now I prefer using the wireless Sixaxis/DH3 controller (I was skeptical, I thought I would miss the mouse or think it was better) sitting comfortably on my couch. IMO the PS3 game experience is much optimized for this.

You seem to be talking more about computer users than computers themselves...computers are more advanced now than ever...it only seems more closed because mainstream users don't know the ins and outs of OSs, hardware, and software. This doesn't seem like a problem to me...back in the 80s/early 90s not as many people owned a PC, so those that did knew what they were doing, and it catered to a smaller audience.
Now, PCs are everywhere and have to appeal to the mainstream...while still being technically more advanced every day. It's totally understandable that a mainstream user won't know the ins and outs, but anyone with some technical or gaming knowledge will be able to reap the benefits of a PC, which can do so much more than a standardized videogame console.
And who cares if it takes baby steps to advance? It's more advancing than any one videogame console can do, aka next to none. Consoles advance by taking hardware that is powerful at the time and stretching that out for a half decade before building another set of hardware. PCs are the same, but you can choose when to upgrade, what to upgrade, what you want to put on your hardware, software-wise, what kinds of peripherals you want to use...whatever.

I still don't see how consoles beat PC in the flexibility competition.  In the case of Amiga, that was a genuine step forward in technology, though of course back then PCs and consoles weren't very different.  In fact they never are THAT different...but in general a PC is more open and upgradeable...I don't see how consoles win in this regard.

As for your PS3 comment, that's just ease-of-use.  Many console users will say they'd rather grab a controller and sit on the couch...and that's a valid argument.  It's not foolproof obviously as you can technically do that with a PC as well (flexibility!) but the average user won't bother.