wii graphics - http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748547/img_3658646.html

 Ps3 -  http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748505/img_4283873.html http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/img_3934740.html

any one thats not blind can see a big differance. 

1) No, the Wii hasn´t won but it sells without HD. And I just say: NES, SNES, PSX, PS2, GB, DS... and you said the PS2 graphics suck - so why did it won?

2) Graphics never meant that much but you will never notice it. You´re nearly alone with your opinion of graphics selling everything so why does Nintendo Fanboy has to admit something? you have....

3) bad graphics can´t destroy a game. Bad developed graphics can make a game bad. If you´ve got glitches over glitches in a game it´s bad - but I really like Zelda 64 more than Twilight Princess and I prefer FF7 over FF12. So what? Am I a fool now?

 Choice a better picture from Metroid Prime 3 that one is not fair :D

I guess he has not seen that much of ps3 right now, and if he would play it for some hours he would probably admit that its graphics are a lot better than those of the xbox. but my point still stands, because even a person who cares about graphics has difficulty distinguishing the graphics of the consoles of sixth and seventh generation.

1) Where exactly do I say the wii has already won? all i say is that graphic differences between consoles get less important.

2) I never owned a ps2, but i have played it. for me, the graphic differences between ps2 and gc don't really matter, and if i say that the average consumer does not realise the difference between ps3 and xbox, how could he realise the differences between ps2 and gc? btw, in your other post, you say: "And the PS2 was not much weaker than the GC, in fact you wouldn't notice so that is moot." so maybe you should stick with an argument and not change it from post to post, because this could make people believe that you are biased and just picking the argument out of the air which fits for you.

The general rule is that good games sell systems ... People do want good graphics in their games but the quality of graphics of a game is typically judged in relation to other games on the same platform; most people will not compare the graphics of a game on the Wii to the PS3.

Now, the risk associated with the PS3 is that games are more expensive to produce, and have longer development times which means unless they have more publishers working on their platform (and they have more users to buy games) they're going to have less games available; at the same time it is selling poorly and has a massive price tag that keeps consumers away, which means publishers should be reconsidering how much support the PS3 really should get.

Videogames are one of those self justifying cycles in that people buy a platform because they think it will have the best games, developers focus on that platform because it has sold the most units, and the system has more good games than its competition ...

Yeah seriously.  It reveals the motive behind the post -- you don't have to try to find a bad example to show that the Wii has inferior graphics, but Hus goes out of his way to find a bad example anyway. 

graphics don't....... ohh, here we go again.

Let us prove this. All it takes is a little honesty on your part. If all three systems on the market right now cost $300 and you could only get one which one would you get? Which system has the best value? Which one seems more fun? Which one currently holds the best game? Which one overall seems like a killer deal?

Graphics matter. You may not want to pay for it but I am damn sure if things were different nintendo fans would be crowing like roosters if nintendo came out with the most powerful system and if Zelda made gears of war look like it was developed by kids who rode the schoolbus with tinted windows.

If you really didn't believe this was the case why is this subject continuosly picked up and debated? I have only seen this much defence over this subject on nintendo related forums. Seriously most 360 and PS3 related place refuse to compare to the wii and feel that thier sales are relegated to a different set of consumers.

Just by these long winded rants about graphics mainly coming from the nintendo fanbase, I am starting to feel that some guys out there need justification for there purchases. Or a rationilization, so to calm fears that they might have made a mistake. 

If all systems costed $300, there wouldn't be too much a difference in graphics between them. It is the option for HD graphics, that makes 360 and ps3 more expensive than the wii. 

of course, if graphic would be the only difference between the consoles the one with the best graphic would win. but at the current situation, many people don't even think about graphics when they buy a console.