By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 26 April 2010
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
archbrix said:

You almost seem to finally get what I'm saying, although saying my logic is wrong is incorrect; it's your logic that's off.  You keep praising Nintendo's creativity like I'm disputing that, or their decision to go with Wii tech vs PS3 tech; I'm not.

Take your Resident Evil example.  The focal point of a system shouldn't be the graphics; but what you're saying is that RE on PS2 should limit itself graphically to what RE on PS1 offered.  That's where I'm pointing out you're wrong, just as I did when you originally said Mario couldn't look better on PS3.

I am enough of a realist to admit that, while I love the Wii, it is about a generation behind 360/PS3 as far as technical power goes.  So comparing two generations to each other in the case of Mario on PS3 is accurate.

I would never exchange Mario's gameplay and fun for better graphics.  Not to mention that Galaxy looks fine as is.  And it's true that not all of Nintendo's games push even Wii's graphical capabilities; look at Wii Sports/Play/Fit, NSMB, etc.  But when Nintendo has more power to work with in the future, their 3D Marios and Zeldas will look better than they do on Wii.  They will not base their next system on only looking better, but if it is indeed capable of looking better, Nintendo will take advantage of it.  Again you're wrong with your "cliffhanger logic" rant.  Just look at history, pal.  Marios and Zeldas have always been among the best looking games on their systems and Galaxy is no exception.  And when they have a system as powerful as PS3, said games will take advantage of that hardware as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trying to backpeddle now, firstly point to where I said RE on PS2 should be like PS1, smoke and mirrors on your part or you simply can't grasp where you've gone wrong in this thread, you and a bunch of HD fans have come out and said Galaxy would of been better on a system like the PS3 if you contest to not supporting this then you should read the replies in a thread before jumping in. We're not talking about in the future when Nintendo releases a more powerful system we're talking about the beginning of this gen, you and your mob have so far come up with nothing, nadda, squat to say how Galaxy would of been better if the Wii was as powerful as the PS3 apart from better graphics so all in all it qualifys as cliffhanger logic no two ways about you've provided bugger all but an argument consisting of imagine what they can do while quoting different gen. The NES, SNES weren't even the most powerful hardware available at their releases they were behind in tech when put against the gaming computers like commodore and such so your Wii being behind PS3 argument to justify comparing different gens is weak and doesn't hold no ground as it just shows each company had different aims of getting their goal achieved, this further proves how out of touch you are in your argument.

 

Tube shot your stance down even further by pointing out NSMBW and such and how Nintendo's aim is not neccessarily pushing hardware, f**k your history shit because it's a weak attempt at saving your sinking ship as we're not talking about different gens, it's not a case of people not admitting more power can help it's a case of you and your mob not admitting that more power doesn't mean a better game, we know Galaxy is good mainly because of the creative input. Nintendo used good art direction with serviceable graphics, you're banging on about hardware and taking advantage of it when it's clear Nintendo are more concerned taking full advantage of their creativity instead, for all we know Galaxy may not have even been in HD and still the same on a powerful system and it's this you do not understand as clearly as Tube pointed out they seem more concerned in their creative goal then maxing out hardware.

 

They clearly feel they have all they need, I couldn't give two f**ks if it's not as powerful as the 360/PS3 as those consoles are gens behind mine and many other PCs available yet the same mob here would fight to the death against PC gamers would claim consoles hold their games back. You're not a realist in this sense just a dreamer much like some others here, dreaming of a HD Nintendo console when the company themselves sees increasing power as not the way forward, it's time to wake up, PS3/360 are HD because it's their path for this gen Wii went MC for Nintendo's path.

I don't even know where to start; your post is so scattered and again does not address my point. 

Basically, you keep posting the same old arguments again and again, saying that me and "my mob" (funny) are knocking Nintendo for not having gone with more powerful hardware and that graphics are all that matter, something I've clearly disputed several times; talk about backpedaling and smoke and mirrors.  You say I should read some posts before jumping in?  Try reading mine before you respond with some ridiculous explanation.  You obviously have no argument against my point, which was once again, Nintendo could make better looking games on even better hardware, period.

Your completely off-topic responses shows what I'm dealing with, and that you are beyond reasoning.  @Tube didn't shoot down my stance, instead he offered another perspective based off an example that was at least ON TOPIC.  I'm done trying to explain one thing to someone who responds to something else entirely just to win an argument, with your edited f-bomb filled posts.

Fortunately there are many Nintendo fans on this site who, like me, are interested in intelligent discussion, not stubborn to the point of pretending like they don't hear the other person...