By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Why people are overestimating the Wii's life time sales

PS-She on 03 December 2007
HappySqurriel said:
PS-She said:
Rath said:
PS-She said:
 

I'm going to rant for a little bit so bear with me.

I generally hate the argument that improved graphics don't matter, because you know what? They do.

There's a reason that almost every review in the past 10 years has included graphics/looks on its scale. I'll give you a clue, it's because it's important. Everyone was fine with that until the Wii came around. Now because the Wii is so shitty that it can't even render a pair of waffles in HD, suddenly graphics don't matter. They're suddenly not an improvement.

I'm sorry, but that's a lame argument. It's akin to what you'd expect to hear out of a 7 year old.

Child 1: You got an F on your Math test. Ha ha!
Child 2: Oh yeah, well... Math doesn't matter!

That's honestly what the "graphics aren't an improvement" argument and the people who repeat it sound like-7 year olds. The argument itself is the retarded offspring of a bunch of fanboys trying to save their pride since their console sucks at making awesome graphics and represents little actual improvement in the graphic or sound area.

Keep using that argument though. Save your pride. Don't consider graphics an improvement. I'll be enjoying my PS3 with its amazingly well rendered environments and the many breathtaking visual effects of its games. Wii fans can enjoy their SMG complete with jaggies and a system so weak it can't even render Mario some shoe laces.


I don't know about you but I'd far rather worry about a game being fun than worrying if I can see Mario's shoelaces.

Thats not to say graphics aren't important in many games they are and in some games they are extremely important. To a first person shooter that aims to create a horror atmosphere graphics are important, in a racing game graphics are important, in a platformer not so much and in a puzzle game hardly at all. Graphics however is always at the very least third in my personal list of requirments for a game, with gameplay and length above it, sometimes its even lower with audio being a more important factor.

Oh and having subpar graphics is not like failing maths as maths is one of the most important subjects at school, its like failing physical education. Phys Ed makes you look good and requires a lot of power but it doesnt actually make you an academic.


Graphics and fun are not somehow mutually exclusive. That's another argument that needs to die.


They're not mutually exclusive, but (generally speaking) when you're taking 200 people and developing a game for $40 Million the game is "designed by committee" and the fun is lost. Many of the most fun (and best selling) games from the SNES/Genesis, Playstation/N4, or PS2/XBox/Gamecube generations would not be made today because a publisher would not be willing to produce a $10 to $40 Million game which was not based on an established genre; even if they scaled back the budget by using more modest graphics publishers would not green light a PS3 project because "Texels are what Gamers crave" ...


So your argument is that PS3 owners only care about graphics?  Your skill at crafting poor arguments is not to be underestimated I see.

PS3 owners don't care about graphics and nothing else, PS3 owners care about graphics because they're beautiful and pretty amazing on the PS3.  I always hear Wii fans telling people that developers don't need to use the waggle on every game, why is it so hard to believe that PS3 fans would tell developers that they don't need a $30 million graphics budget for every game? 

As I mentioned earlier, graphics are a single element of a good game.  All else being equal, a game with great graphics is better than a game with poor graphics.  That's the beauty of the PS3 though.  You can make a game with almost no graphics budgets as well as a game with a $50 million budget for the system.  With the PS3, you have as much power was you need or can afford to pay for.  With something like the Wii, you're stuck with bad graphics because the system literally can't do any better so you have no choice.

I love awe-inspiring graphics on my PS3 but I also recognize that not every developer will have that kind of budget.  I think once people get out of the mindset that only games with super huge budgets can be made on the PS3 that a lot of the graphics versus gameplay crap will go away too.



Around the Network
PS-She on 03 December 2007
Rath said:
PS-She said:
Rath said:
 

I don't know about you but I'd far rather worry about a game being fun than worrying if I can see Mario's shoelaces.

Thats not to say graphics aren't important in many games they are and in some games they are extremely important. To a first person shooter that aims to create a horror atmosphere graphics are important, in a racing game graphics are important, in a platformer not so much and in a puzzle game hardly at all. Graphics however is always at the very least third in my personal list of requirments for a game, with gameplay and length above it, sometimes its even lower with audio being a more important factor.

Oh and having subpar graphics is not like failing maths as maths is one of the most important subjects at school, its like failing physical education. Phys Ed makes you look good and requires a lot of power but it doesnt actually make you an academic.


Graphics and fun are not somehow mutually exclusive. That's another argument that needs to die.


Did I ever say that? I was merely stating that graphics don't make a game fun. Graphics are nearly independent of enjoyment, they actually add very little to how much fun you have while playing a game.

Of course graphics whores will disagree with me but hey, thats my opinion and the opinion of most Wii fans.


You spend ~99% of the time playing a game staring at the screen watching those graphics. If you truly think graphics are "nearly independent of enjoyment" then I can only assume that you don't understand the depth of your own statement or are an idiot.



Rath on 03 December 2007
PS-She said:
 

You spend ~99% of the time playing a game staring at the screen watching those graphics. If you truly think graphics are "nearly independent of enjoyment" then I can only assume that you don't understand the depth of your own statement or are an idiot.


Or I don't care about graphics?

One of my favourite genres of games is still rouguelikes and most of those games are made in the 1980's, I really honestly don't care much about graphics.

Oh and adding shoelaces to Mario would do nothing more than annoy me, he is meant to be an incredibally simple character.

 

Edit: Oh and just to comment I don't think graphics shouldn't be pushed. As I said graphics are about third or fourth on my list of priorities on a game but they still are on that list. I just think gameplay, length and sometimes audio are more important.



NJ5 on 03 December 2007
Rath said:
PS-She said:
 

You spend ~99% of the time playing a game staring at the screen watching those graphics. If you truly think graphics are "nearly independent of enjoyment" then I can only assume that you don't understand the depth of your own statement or are an idiot.


Or I don't care about graphics?

One of my favourite genres of games is still rouguelikes and most of those games are made in the 1980's, I really honestly don't care much about graphics.

Oh and adding shoelaces to Mario would do nothing more than annoy me, he is meant to be an incredibally simple character.


That "Mario's shoelaces" thing brought up by PS-She really cracked me up... Someone needs to learn about art styles.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

PS-She on 03 December 2007
Rath said:
PS-She said:
 

You spend ~99% of the time playing a game staring at the screen watching those graphics. If you truly think graphics are "nearly independent of enjoyment" then I can only assume that you don't understand the depth of your own statement or are an idiot.


Or I don't care about graphics?

One of my favourite genres of games is still rouguelikes and most of those games are made in the 1980's, I really honestly don't care much about graphics.

Oh and adding shoelaces to Mario would do nothing more than annoy me, he is meant to be an incredibally simple character.


Good to know.  Some of us prefer games to be more than 8-bit, to have more than 256 colors to work with, and to actually be enjoyable to look at.

I would much rather see the world come alive in my games than a bunch of white dots and pound symbols on a black screen.  I want to see a lush forest filled with greenery rather than the word "forest."  I want to enjoy every aspect of the game from the color pallete to the art direction to sounds to the fun gameplay.

If you want to close your mind and stay in the 80s then by all means do so.  I'll be here, in the year 2007, enjoying everything gaming has to offer.



Around the Network
Rath on 03 December 2007
PS-She said:
 

Good to know. Some of us prefer games to be more than 8-bit, to have more than 256 colors to work with, and to actually be enjoyable to look at.

I would much rather see the world come alive in my games than a bunch of white dots and pound symbols on a black screen. I want to see a lush forest filled with greenery rather than the word "forest." I want to enjoy every aspect of the game from the color pallete to the art direction to sounds to the fun gameplay.

If you want to close your mind and stay in the 80s then by all means do so. I'll be here, in the year 2007, enjoying everything gaming has to offer.


 How am I closing my mind?

Because I don't look for the same thing as you in videogames but merely care about getting the most possible enjoyment I can? I don't care if I can make out a characters toenails or if the leaves on trees have veins to be honest, I want the most fun and the most challenging games I can get.

Also if you cannot enjoy old games as good games then you are the one closing your mind, just because Ocarina of Time doesn't have a gazillion polygons doesnt mean its not one of the greatest games ever, just because tetris is entirely 2D doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. 



PS-She on 03 December 2007
Rath said:
PS-She said:
 

Good to know. Some of us prefer games to be more than 8-bit, to have more than 256 colors to work with, and to actually be enjoyable to look at.

I would much rather see the world come alive in my games than a bunch of white dots and pound symbols on a black screen. I want to see a lush forest filled with greenery rather than the word "forest." I want to enjoy every aspect of the game from the color pallete to the art direction to sounds to the fun gameplay.

If you want to close your mind and stay in the 80s then by all means do so. I'll be here, in the year 2007, enjoying everything gaming has to offer.


How am I closing my mind?

Because I don't look for the same thing as you in videogames but merely care about getting the most possible enjoyment I can? I don't care if I can make out a characters toenails or if the leaves on trees have veins to be honest, I want the most fun and the most challenging games I can get.

Also if you cannot enjoy old games as good games then you are the one closing your mind, just because Ocarina of Time doesn't have a gazillion polygons doesnt mean its not one of the greatest games ever, just because tetris is entirely 2D doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.


My comment was probably a little uncalled for as is yours in this post.

I have stressed in my posts over and over that graphics are an important element in a good game. When it comes to old games, I played them, I enjoyed them, and I put them away. They're done. Their time has passed.

We're in the year 2007 and I want to enjoy its games. That doesn't mean I never play old games, but I want to look to the future. Spend too much time staring at the past through rose-colored glasses and time will pass you by after all.



windbane on 04 December 2007
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
RolStoppable said:
PDF said:
@RolStoppable - give me a reason why people want to buy a inferior console after price of the 360 and ps3 are near that of the wii.

Games library.

Umm lets see. Does the Wii have COD4? no Assasins Creed? no Halo 3? no MGS4? no UT3? no GTA4? no.

Most games the ps3 and 360 will see the wii will not. Only real games you have are Nintendo made.

Also if oyu want to compare to wii games you can throw in ps2 and xbox games seeing how they are graphically the same.


Lord...What fool's these hardcore be.

 

Those games have never attracted a large following, you wish for gaming to remain niche, you are what is wrong with gaming today, and if left to you gaming would wither and die, all the games you have noted are of little interest to the markets at large, that is why your analysis fails


Granted, I have not read ahead yet but I'm trying to catch up and can not help but pause to respond directly to this post:

Wow.

 What a "fool" millions of people can be, huh?  You are trying to tell people, on a site that tracks software sales, that GTA, Halo, MGS, UT, and CoD have never attracted a large following?  Seriously?

I hate to break this to you, but many of the games in those series outsold everything on Nintendo's last 2 consoles.  The Wii so far is a direct descendant of those 2 systems' libraries in that the best games are Nintendo made and most likely will continue to be so.  Zack and Wiki is a great game supposedly and I hope to play it soon, but sales-wise it bombed.  It is not attracting people.  UC is a game I look forward to, but I'd rather play RE5 when it comes out.  But I suppose you'll tell me the RE series didn't attract people until it was on the Wii.

There are many appealing things about the Wii, but to compeltely discount that the PS1 and PS2 already expanded the industry is unresposible.  GTA is more popular than Mario right now. 



Nick on 04 December 2007
PS-She said:
 

So your argument is that PS3 owners only care about graphics? Your skill at crafting poor arguments is not to be underestimated I see.

PS3 owners don't care about graphics and nothing else, PS3 owners care about graphics because they're beautiful and pretty amazing on the PS3. I always hear Wii fans telling people that developers don't need to use the waggle on every game, why is it so hard to believe that PS3 fans would tell developers that they don't need a $30 million graphics budget for every game?

As I mentioned earlier, graphics are a single element of a good game. All else being equal, a game with great graphics is better than a game with poor graphics. That's the beauty of the PS3 though. You can make a game with almost no graphics budgets as well as a game with a $50 million budget for the system. With the PS3, you have as much power was you need or can afford to pay for. With something like the Wii, you're stuck with bad graphics because the system literally can't do any better so you have no choice.

I love awe-inspiring graphics on my PS3 but I also recognize that not every developer will have that kind of budget. I think once people get out of the mindset that only games with super huge budgets can be made on the PS3 that a lot of the graphics versus gameplay crap will go away too.


As I mentioned earlier, controls are a single element of a good game. All else being equal, a game with great control schemes is better than a game with poor control schemes. That's the beauty of the Wii though. You can make a game with almost horrible controls as well as a game with amazing controls for the system. With the Wii, you have as much control as you need or can afford to pay for. With something like the PS3, you're stuck with bad controls because the system literally can't do any better so you have no choice.

See what I did there? When you're comparing the wii and the ps3 they're just never going to be equal. The wii can't match the ps3's graphics as you pointed out. At the same time the ps3 can't match the wii's control schemes. Metroid Prime 3 will never look as crisp as Call of Duty 4. At the same time Call of Duty 4 will never control as well as Metroid Prime 3. They're both incredible games for different reasons as are the consoles.



Smash Bros: 2363-5325-6342 

windbane on 04 December 2007
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
RolStoppable said:
PDF said:
@RolStoppable - give me a reason why people want to buy a inferior console after price of the 360 and ps3 are near that of the wii.

Games library.

Umm lets see. Does the Wii have COD4? no Assasins Creed? no Halo 3? no MGS4? no UT3? no GTA4? no.

Most games the ps3 and 360 will see the wii will not. Only real games you have are Nintendo made.

Also if oyu want to compare to wii games you can throw in ps2 and xbox games seeing how they are graphically the same.


Lord...What fool's these hardcore be.

 

Those games have never attracted a large following, you wish for gaming to remain niche, you are what is wrong with gaming today, and if left to you gaming would wither and die, all the games you have noted are of little interest to the markets at large, that is why your analysis fails


I believe the Market was dong just fine without the Wii. It Continues to grow and did so without the Wii.

The games i have named are diverse and have attracted many. Maby alone they answer a niche but together they = a whole fanbase.


lol, actually the market was not growing fst enough, growth was due to pop growth and not capturing new markets, but costs were growing fast, and gaming was becoming more and more narrow, evetually such a market would collapse, Wii prevented that by exploding the market wide open


 The last time the market crashed it was because there was a huge influx of crappy games for the Atari.  Since Nintendo dropped their quality part of the quality seal I'm glad the Wii is not the only system to play.

Super Mario Galaxy was really fun, guys, but there's not much motivation for me to play all of those time-consuming simple levels again with Luigi.  By the time I got to the challenging levels again I'd be sick of the game.  The Wii doesn't have a very diverse library of games.

But hey, I guess I"m just a fool like the rest of them.