| volrath50 said: I believe that last gen pretty much reached "good enough" graphics for the most part. Just from personal experience, I've found myself often recoiling in horror or sort of laughing at PS1/N64 graphics, while GC/PS2/XBX graphics still look just fine for me. Not that I don't enjoy a graphical treat like Killzone 2 or MGS4, but I don't find the graphics of a Gamecube game getting in my way of enjoying them, while I often do for PS1 games. MGS1 and MGS:TTS are the perfect example of this, at least, IMO. Either way, graphical power has little to do with sales figures, no matter how you look at it. In almost every case, the weakest system wins. The WII and PS2 are the weakest technical systems in their generation, but ended up winning big. After the Saturn dropped out, the PS1 was the weakest, but beat the pants off the N64. Handheld wise, the Gamegear, Lynx, NeoGeo Pocket Color, Wonderswan, N-Gage and finally PSP probably all have a support group for losing out to Nintendo's (comparatively) underpowered handhelds. Only the GameGear and the PSP even proved a real competitor. I'm not sure I can think of a single example of graphics and technical abilities translating into sales figures. There probably are a few, but they are the exception, not the rule. If anything, it seems that technical ability is almost a hindrance to (sales) success. |
Well, in your first paragraph you seemed to get my point. After it, though, you seemed to diverge from the actual topic.
I'll try stating my point a little bit differently: putting more graphical power behind the same effects will not yield significant results when you are further along the graph on the x-axis. When you're getting up close to your monitor trying to find the differences between GT5P and Forza 3 screenshots, I think we've gotten to that "good enough" point in terms of simply upping the texture resolutions and polygon counts. Where the extra horsepower would go to are things that aren't immediately noticeable.
For significant things like destructible terrain vs non-destructible, that's a no-brainer. Every one would notice things like that. But when you try to compare two games that only really have their differences in the physics (tire deformation, any one?), can you really tell me that the difference between, say, the PS3 and 360 are so great?
Truth is, the PS3 does have more room to grow than the 360 at the moment, but the difference isn't going to be very significant. I brought this about simply because the bickering between the MS and Sony fanboys about their two respective racing games was getting very annoying.
THEY BOTH LOOK GREAT! >_<
The BuShA owns all!
