sc94597 said:
Mifely said:
Joelcool7 said:
Mifely said:
but I don't think you could actually claim them to be "better" looking... just "as good", or nearly so).
I would argue that your list correlates just as much to "installed base" as it does to the inverse of computing power -- since installed base goes up with earlier console releases, and CPU power goes down with earlier releases (when considering competition), this makes sense. |
You are somewhat correct. But I notice in your argument you only name a few of the more polished GameCube games. Take ResidentEvil4 and ResidentEvil4 on PS2 and sit them side by side and you see the hardware's differances. Capcom tried as hard as they could to directly port RE4 but the PS2 version still looked a little grainy and not as polished as its GameCube counter part. Infact it has been argued that GameCube's ATi/IBM proccessors made it almost as powerful as the X-Box.
You did name some of the best looking games on the PS2 and yes they do look pretty good. But to be honest GodOfWar2 and Shadow Of the Collosus. Games like Sega's Spartan Total War and EternalDarkness which I'd say are the closest game's to GodOfWar on a genre basis do look just as good if not better then their PS2 counter parts. Take a look at Konami's MetalGearSolid:TwinSnakes and compare it to MetalGearSolid3 for example. You can see the differance in hardware strength.
Installed Base plays a role to me but not much of one. PS2 had the largest installed base and PS3 sold worth crap. The Super Nintendo had the largest installed base (From NES/GameBoy) yet the N64 bombed compared to the PlayStation. Brand loyalty does play a role. GameCube is the perfect example it survived pretty much on loyal gamers and hardcore gamers who bought all three systems.
But I don't think even installed base plays the big role. I think its all about game quantity, many would argue Nintendo has always had the best first party titles, yet it still failed with 64 and GameCube. It was quantity that won the PS2's battle and now with Wii it isn't the high quality first party software winning the war alone. It's the quantity of party games shovel ware and innovative software.
It's quantity that wins console wars unfortunetly!
|
I have to disagree with the cross-platform comparisons -- the GC was considerably easier to develop for than the PS2, and thus most cross-platform games were shorted on the PS2, because the developer iterated faster by developing on the GC/XBox primarily. If you want to compare two consoles via software, the best way to do it, is to compare exclusives -- where the developer had to focus on the console at hand. Cross-platform games *always* have a console bias, due to the fact that its just plain easier for a dev studio to support one platform of development (from every standpoint, but especially IT, meaning having every engineer/artist/designer have the same kind of devkit, dev software, and working build) as a primary, and assign a small team to ensure that their engine ports to the other platforms throughout development.
RE4 was built primarily on the GC, by a Japanese development studio that favored Nintendo development over Microsoft development. You can compare it to an exclusive, like God of War, but comparing it to its PS2 counterpart is actually a bit unfair.
As I said, the PS2 and GC exclusives are actually quite similar, graphically, in my opinion. You could argue that, despite "real" hardware performance being similar, that the PS2s much greater learning curve effectively lowered its games' performance over the console's lifetime. I would definately say that's true... and frankly, that's what matters in the end to the user. In that sense, the only sense that matters, the PS2 was the slowest of its generation.
In the current generation, the same is true of the PS3 vs X360 -- except that the PS3 appears to actually be a bit superior when handled by a talented team, as opposed to "near equal". At this time though, the PS3 and X360 are only just getting to be "on par", from the user's perspective... the PS3 has suffered a bit from its learning curve thusfar (I would say very similar to PS2/GC comparisons, actually), although that trend does appear to be on the downward slope.
The Wii... is unique. It is, effectively, the very first "casual console" -- it almost deserves another comparison catagory, all to itself. Claiming it competes with the PS3 and 360 is actually somewhat of a stretch, in my opinion.
|
I disagree, firstly the ps2 was a very casual console. You see this by how many people owned the ps2. There is no way that all of them are hardcore gamers, and if they are that would mean more people would jump to next gen than they have. Then there are many casual games that sold extremely well. I'm not saying it is as casual as the wii, but it is a very casual system and should be classified as one. Secondly the wii isn't only casual at all either. You see this by many games such as The Legend of Zelda, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil 4 and Umbrella chronicles, etc selling very well. Also it seems that many ps360 owners also own a wii. Thirdly if the wii didn't compete with the other consoles then they are sellin poorly compared to previous generations and the market is shrinking. Also you see the wii taking many exclusives from these consoles such as Monster Hunter 3, and many potential exclusives such as Fatal Frame IV. The only reason the ps360 have more games for them is that there is less of a risk, and 3rd party developers didn't prove yet that their high budget games sell good on the wii.
Edit: Also you never replied to my other post.
|
My reply to your other post is, essentially the main body of the post you just replied to.
I can agree that the PS2 was a casual console as well, I guess. However, it was "casual" for a different reason -- some 70% of PS2 owners in a study, at one point, told NPD that they purchased the console primarily as a DVD player. Casual due to movie-playing ability, and casual gaming are really two different things. The Wii is the first casual gaming console, in my opinion. The PS2 was merely a living room appliance to a large portion of its owners -- I don't really think that qualifies.
You can see that the PS2's success didn't really spur amazing profits for Sony, too (from their annual profit margins) -- again probably due to the fact that one of its major reasons for success was apparently due to its utilily as a DVD player. Again, I think the Wii's success will spur greater profits/unit for Nintendo, because people bought it for casual gaming (which Nintendo makes licensing fees from), instead of DVD playing. And again, I don't think that the Wii and PS3/360 are really in the same ballpark, for the same reason.
Its my opinion. You don't need to agree with it, or argue me down. I'm always right anyway. ;)
The end result is that the Wii has never, and will never "defeat" the PS3 or X360. Its only a sideline competition. The PS3 and X360 are the only direct competitors in the current console lineup. The Wii is peerless, and thus, pretty much guaranteed success no matter how the other consoles fare.
I actually expect the Wii's sales to peter out long before the PS2's did, in its relative lifetime, however. It can't even play DVDs, and the casual gamer market is still, IMO, much smaller than the DVD-watcher market was back then. I think we'll probably see the PS3 slowly catch up to (I doubt it will ever actually catch it... but it might be close) the Wii over the next few years. Call me a nonbeliever, if you like. =)
