By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 22 December 2016
Edit Thread
zorg1000 said:
curl-6 said:

I never said any of it was proof, but it's all evidence and you haven't offered any evidence that graphics aren't important.

Im not saying they arent important, im saying that you are giving graphics too much credit.

Heres my evidence, Gameboy vs Game Gear/Lynx, PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs GC/XB, GBA vs N-Gage, DS vs PSP, Wii vs 360/PS3, 3DS vs Vita. Multiple examples from the last 30 years where the weaker device not only won, but dominated.

Power didnt all of a sudden become the most important factor for the gaming market in the last 3 years.

PS1 and PS2 were the most powerful consoles in the world when they came out and were still power-competitive with later rivals like N64 and GCN. On the other side of the coin we have the SNES beating the weaker Genesis and both beating the weaker Turbografx-16, PS1 and N64 both beating the weaker Saturn, PS2/GCN/Xbox all beating the weaker Dreamcast, 

In the end, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion and cheers for keeping it respectful.

 

spemanig said:
curl-6 said:

PS1 and PS2 were the most powerful consoles in the world when they launched, and remained power competitive even against rivals launching 1-2 years later. The Wii was a one-off.

PS1 and PS2 were the newest consoles when they launched, and got a ton of multiplats and purchases because they doubled as CD/DVD players. Wii's decline had little to do with power and everything to do with audience and control interface.

PS1 and PS2 weren't really "underpowered" systems though; in 1994/2000 when they came out, they were powerhouses, beating anything else on the market. And Wii was lightning in a bottle; Wii U tried the same trick of being a generation behind graphically, and it was a disaster.