So graphics have yet again become a problem and gamers are complaining that they aren't getting HD and that third parties are screwing up graphics wise. While I can't really defend third party actions Wii or any other platform can justify the lower quality of Nintendo's own hardware. In history gaming has always been about giving the consumer the best value for their money and Nintendo has always stuck with that. Nintendo realized that this generation in order to bring graphics so far advanced as PS3 they would have to compromise consumer quality and price expectations so  they descided to for-go this and set out to provide us once again with ground breaking hardware and software.

Many people accross the internet have begun posting threads and starting discussions on whether Nintendo's latest console the Nintendo Wii may be on its death bed. The topic creators point to the competitions beautifully advanced graphics as the main point for the Wii's downfall. So the question has to be asked does the graphical power of a console directly contribute to a consoles success?

 Lets take a look at just what outcome has powerful graphics had on the gaming market in total unbiased terms. The games market has always been extremely predictable and again , You tell me what kind of outcome will occur.

Most PWR                           Least PWR                               Winner
1. GameGear       V.S             GameBoy                               (GameBoy)
2. MasterSystem  V.S                NES                                     (NES)
3. Genesis             V.S             SNES                                     (SNES)
4. N64                    V.S             PlayStation                             (PS)
5.GCN,DC,X-box V.S                 PS2                                     ( PS2)
6. NDS                  V.S                 PSP                                     (DS)




Just look at the track record, look at what happened to super powers like 3DO? , the DreamCast met its fait so early it never had a chance. Game consoles have never been descided by graphical power rather game power now lets look at the game power behind the Nintendo Wii versus the game power behind the competition! Just look at how many Nintendo franchises are among the top selling of all time (From Top 10 list) and that was with all the graphically inferior hardware.

 

The biggest problem you get when you have the system with the best graphics is the "get used to" - syndrom.

Several experiments proved that you get used to the graphics you see in about one week by playing games 1 hour a day. That means when you got used to the good graphics they are not interesting any more cause you expect them to be there.

 When Sony released Resistance nobody got crazy because of it cause there was already Gears of War which had much better graphics. But when Nintendo released Metroid Prime Hunters for DS everyone was impressed cause they were used to weaker graphics on the system.

 

Graphic is not a selling point for any system. When you see them you get used to pretty fast - just play 4 hours of Gears of War and you wouldn´t notice the impressive visuals anymore.

And then you get to the real problem: The system with the better graphics has the higher price too. And than the price is more improtant.

 No, Nintendo won´t fail with the Wii cause it has weaker graphics. If they fail they will because they don´t have enough good games. Nobody needed huge environments 10 years ago and you don´t need them today too. At least I don´t need a Hyrule Field that is 3 times as big as the one in Twilight Princess cause you wouldn´t get to an end anymore... and I don´t need Oblivion with 4 times the size cause it was really big enough

But FUN is something that get´s never boring (of course...) and fun is what really sells a system. It sold the NES; the SNES and the playstation line. Of course some people will say different things but it´s just the truth.

What Louie says is absolutely true, and in my opinion, there is another point coming with this generation which makes the graphics even less important.

I think graphics have become good enough with the sixth generation for most of the consumers. Back in the fifth generation, the graphics really showed that they need an improvement and sometimes the gameplay was handicapped because of the graphics as well. but with the ps2, the gc and the xbox graphics have come to a point were the average consumer is happy with it. i mean, many people say that the graphic of wii sports look crappy, but no average consumer will notice.

i recently talked with a 14-year old boy who plans to buy a x360. i asked him why he wants it, and he answered because of its beautiful graphics. i asked him then why he don't want to buy a ps3 because it has better graphics, but he did not accept that point and said that ps3-graphics are even worse than xbox. he was not joking, he really meant it, and this proves my point. he has been told that x360 has great graphics, but he can't distinguish between xbox, x360 and ps3 graphics anymore because they all look good to him.

Your chart is wrong, the SNES was -overall- more powerful than the Genesis and the NDS is weaker than the PSP. But I agree to say that power is not the factor that gives the victory. Good games drives good sales so good userbase then more games developped, so more sales, and so on, virtuous cycle.

Most PWR                           Least PWR                               Winner

 Nintendo had too much of a strangle hold for sega to compete at the time.

Nintendo strangle hold here, I also felt the NES had better graphics anyway.

STill a massive N strangle hold, research what N did, not pretty. SNES had better graphics anyway.

If nintendo hadn't pissed off 3rd parties and went to a CD the N64 could have won. This was  N's fault.

The PS2 was more powerful than the DC and sega was a screw up anyway. And the PS2 was not much weaker than the GC, in fact you wouldn't notice so that is moot. And the xbox was very new and sony had a large fanbase. MS didn't have the benefit sony did.

Not over and this is handheld so who really cares anyway?

 

Most experts agree the 360 has better graphics as the power between the two systems isn't great. But I can't varify if this happen with you, so I will just pass.

... good games that have great graphics sell hardware.  Gears of War!!!

 as much ass kiddy fans dont want to admit it, Good looking things SELL in everything.  

 

Games sell consoles.

Always have. Always will.

We don't play with the circuits and components of the machine; we play with the presentation on the screen.

JoelCool7, you and me seem to be cut out of the same cloth. The graphics race is over.

I talked about this long ago.

"Why Graphics Don't Mean As Much Anymore"

http://www.popzart.com/?page=view&topic=73

Graphics formerly meant one of the telltale differences between generations. But that's over now.

And graphics' purpose is not necessarily for eye candy. It's to make visualization distinct enough to allow more depth in game design. That's its primary purpose. The gloss & packaging is just the surface, the side benefit.

John Lucas

Hus said: ... good games that have great graphics sell hardware.  Gears of War!!!  as much ass kiddy fans dont want to admit it, Good looking things SELL in everything.

Games with shitty graphics hurt them for me. Bad graphics can take the fun out of a game.

nintendo_fanboy said:   i recently talked with a 14-year old boy who plans to buy a x360. i asked him why he wants it, and he answered because of its beautiful graphics. i asked him then why he don't want to buy a ps3 because it has better graphics, but he did not accept that point and said that ps3-graphics are even worse than xbox. he was not joking, he really meant it, and this proves my point. he has been told that x360 has great graphics, but he can't distinguish between xbox, x360 and ps3 graphics anymore because they all look good to him.

 LMFAO

is he blind or a moron ? honestly.  NO normal person could play Gears and then go back to xbox1 and say its graphics look good.