Graphics = "Great games" -- Does Age play a factor to this thinking?

[Xyrax]

Legend11 said:

HappySqurriel said:

You do realize that creating hardware on the level of the XBox 360 and PS3 wouldn't have been difficult for Nintendo, don't you?

Consider that the reason that Microsoft choose to work with IBM and ATI was because of how amazing of a job they did for Nintendo; do you think that ATI and IBM would have done a worse job for Nintendo than they did for Microsoft? Do you think that these large multinational corporations are bigger fanboys than you are?

It wouldn't have been difficult but it would have been expensive. Even more so if Nintendo wasn't willing to take a loss on each console sold like the competition did.

As for why Microsoft went with ATI, I think it had more to do with the fact that they had a falling out with Nvidia over pricing of components in the Xbox than anything else.

That still doesnt have a god damn thing to do with this thread. Stop hopping into discussions and labeling people N-Defenders or Wii-justifiers and just discuss the facking topic at hand.

 

And yes I definitely think age plays a part in it. But not a significant one. There are many factors above graphics.

 

And seriously, long gone are the days when "great graphics" in a game can be used to determine how much Tender Loving Care the devs put into the game. We are in the age of licensing engines people. Stop the madness, this isnt the early 90's.