Words Of Wisdom said:
Bodhesatva said:
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. |
1) Good. 
2) Once upon a time, many people thought the world was flat. Someone said it was round and was mocked for it. Those people believing holding the former position, as numerous as they were, and their belief were wrong. The expectation that of what you deem "PS3-level graphics" is also wrong and so are the people that believe in it.
3) If you wish to believe that one company's marketing push is indicative about its userbase and not so of another, that would be an error. If you wish to believe that the userbase is dominant by those targetted in the company's marketing push and that a game not appealing to that userbase will not be successful, I will not disagree however I would not be so arrogant as to assume it true.
Also, do you really think that the cost difference of highend games of the PS1 versus PS2 is on the same level as that of the PS2 versus the PS3's? I would guess otherwise myself. |
2) You're welcome to believe we're all crazy and that you alone have a firm grasp of grammar and contextual implications, but that doesn't explain why we're still having problems. If you didn't understand me the first time, why hasn't any of my myriad, lengthy attempts to explain what I'm saying to you worked? Surely, if that initial phrase didn't stick for you for whatever reason, my later, more extensive explanations made my point crystal clear, yes? If so, why are we still discussing this?
3) I am saying BOTH generalizations are true. The Wii does, generally speaking, have more casual gamers; the PS3 does, generally speaking, have a lot more people who expect Heavenly Sword level graphics from their games.
And I agree that there is no way the cost jump was as steep, but the fact that the PS1 -> PS2 jump in costs isn't as large doesn't change the point, does it? We agree that there is a significant jump in development cost in either case. If so, why didn't they develop games with PS1 level graphics? This is barely even a generality -- past perhaps the first year when developers were still grasping the new hardware, can you think of any games for the PS2 with PS1 level graphics? I can't, but I'm definitely not an expert on the PS2 library. Even smaller, A/AA games with low expectations still surpassed this threshold.
Why did practically no one decide to make a game with graphical power that low? Answer: because PS2 owners had certain expectations of what a game should look like, and games with graphics lower than that would see their sales profoundly impaired.
