Rumor--Suikoden VI for Wii

[Bodhesatva]

Words Of Wisdom said:

Bodhesatva said:

You do realize that I, personally, do not care, correct?

If you do not care then why did you start this "discussion?" Why are you replying at all?

I don't believe you're a troll so don't say this and begin acting like one. I have more respect for you than that.

Bodhesatva said:

You do not have to convince me that lower-level graphics are okay, and again, I certainly udnerstood that the PS3 would be capable of a game with lower-end graphics; for the nth time, that's why I used the phrase "PS3-level graphics." That phrase was repeated multiple times in my first post (the one that spawned our current conversation) and it was chosen precisely because I'm aware that the PS3 doesn't technically require graphics of that calibur.

Your phrase is wrong. You can repeat it as much and as often as you like and it will still be such.

Bodhesatva said:

Sony has worked tirelessly to convince people that they should expect flashy, expensive, epics like Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and upcoming games like Killzone 2. It is not surprising, then, that the owners of their system are, by and large, particularly concerned with receiving games of that graphical quality. There are people who do not care so much about graphics and production values -- and guess what systems they're buying? The PS2 and Wii.

So everyone in this forum or who owns a Wii automatically ONLY cares about "casual" games then because Nintendo has been pushing them? For you to believe what you just said about Sony and PS3 owners, you must also believe this about Nintendo and Wii owners. I'm sorry, but making sweeping generalizations about millions of people is bound to be erroneous at some level or all levels.

 

1) I don't care about graphics. I should have made that more clear. However, I do care about the discussion of the industry, which is precisely what we're doing here.

2) The phrase is precisely correct. Please learn to comprehend -- I don't say that to be cruel, I say that because you seem to still not get it despite repeated attempts to explain it to you. Given the response of other posters such as NJ5 and Helios (Above, who specifically states that he understand my point), the problem is yours. Even if you didn't understand it immeaditely -- understand it now. Do you understand my point now? 

3)  Your discussion of generalities is logically invalid. We're talking about generalities, and then you say something like this: "So everyone in this forum or who owns a Wii automatically ONLY cares about "casual" games then because Nintendo has been pushing them?" That isn't a generality, it's a universality or an absolute, and that is enormously different. Do all Wii fans care only about casual fare? Clearly not. That is not absolutely true. Is it reasonable to say that in general there are more casual-oriented players with Wiis than 360s or PS3s? Yes, that is an entirely reasonable generality, and as such, one can reasonably conclude that casually-oriented games woudl sell much better on the Wii.  Similarly, games with low end graphics and technology are not aimed at the PS3 crowd. If Sony hadn't advertised the way they have, perhaps this wouldn't be the case -- but Sony has actively advertised the graphical power of their system. Yes, the people who own PS3 generally have certain expectations. If those expectations are not met, they will, generally speaking, not be interested.

Did you see many PS2 games with PS1 graphics? I didn't. It certainly would have saved the companies money if they had, though. Why didn't they do that? Because PS2 owners had certain graphical expectations, and games with PS1 graphics would generally speaking not have been accepted.