Wii is attracting the casual gamers just like PS2 and PS1 were. In my country, for example, the great majority of people that bought PS2 did it just because of GTA and/or Winning Eleven. As a result, Play 2 sold 7 or 8 times more than GC and Xbox together.

Kaio_felipe said: If graphics reallly matter, practically ALL the hardware wars would be different, my friend: - Master System would have won NES; - ALL the rivals of Game Boy would have won it; - Nintendo 64 would have defeated PS; - DreamCast would have been a success; - PS2 would have been defeated by GC and, specially, Xbox. - PSP would destroy DS in the sales.

 N64 was a cartride joke, anti 3rd party.... PS was not.

Sega failed the Dreamcast, could never compete with Sonys bank.

Untill the PSP, most of the handhelds competeing with Gb were a joke. 

PS2 graphics were equal if not better, nothing gc or xbox has looks better then GOW2 

 

This makes me wonder-- if Microsoft and Nintendo didn't push to have the next generation come as soon as it did, Sony could have just kept the status quo and continued selling the PS-Double and would have raked in millions. The developers would be happy, they would make more money, and the people would have cheap systems.

But in the world of competition, the next generation will try to up the ante by releasing new systems. the next generation is great, but I wouldn't mind sticking to the current one for a couple more years.

 

Hus, explain games like Guitar Hero and DDR to me. They are insanely popular, yet not graphics intensive.  

Hus said: Kaio_felipe said: If graphics reallly matter, practically ALL the hardware wars would be different, my friend: - Master System would have won NES; - ALL the rivals of Game Boy would have won it; - Nintendo 64 would have defeated PS; - DreamCast would have been a success; - PS2 would have been defeated by GC and, specially, Xbox. - PSP would destroy DS in the sales. N64 was a cartride joke, anti 3rd party.... PS was not. Sega failed the Dreamcast, could never compete with Sonys bank. Untill the PSP, most of the handhelds competeing with Gb were a joke. PS2 graphics were equal if not better, nothing gc or xbox has looks better then GOW2

1. GOW2 was released 6 years after PS2 launch. With 3 years of life, GC already had RE4, which have the most marvelous graphics of Cube. Xbox, then, made it with less than 2 years, with, for example, DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball. In other words, PS2 took a long time to show visuals so good as its enemies' ones.

2. If handhelds before PSP were a joke, you just said that graphics weren't enough to win GB.

3. About N64 x PS, you have agreed with me and most of people that graphics didn't decided that war. =D

4. DC was another proof that being powerful isn't enough to reverse a uncomfortable situation.

5. Until today, the ONLY console that won a 'less powerful in graphics' rival was SNES, but graphics didn't decide that war - the mistakes of Sega and the variety of SNES's titles, yes.

I think technically the genesis/megadrive outsold the SNES. I'd have to check the charts, though.

 

That Guy said: I think technically the genesis/megadrive outsold the SNES. I'd have to check the charts, though.

I guess SNES outsold MD in Japan, lost for a little bit in Europe and Latin America and won in USA.

Kaio_felipe said: Hus said: Kaio_felipe said: If graphics reallly matter, practically ALL the hardware wars would be different, my friend: - Master System would have won NES; - ALL the rivals of Game Boy would have won it; - Nintendo 64 would have defeated PS; - DreamCast would have been a success; - PS2 would have been defeated by GC and, specially, Xbox. - PSP would destroy DS in the sales. N64 was a cartride joke, anti 3rd party.... PS was not. Sega failed the Dreamcast, could never compete with Sonys bank. Untill the PSP, most of the handhelds competeing with Gb were a joke. PS2 graphics were equal if not better, nothing gc or xbox has looks better then GOW2   1. GOW2 was released 6 years after PS2 launch. With 3 years of life, GC already had RE4, which have the most marvelous graphics of Cube. Xbox, then, made it with less than 2 years, with, for example, DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball. In other words, PS2 took a long time to show visuals so good as its enemies' ones. 2. If handhelds before PSP were a joke, you just said that graphics weren't enough to win GB. 3. About N64 x PS, you have agreed with me and most of people that graphics didn't decided that war. =D 4. DC was another proof that being powerful isn't enough to reverse a uncomfortable situation. 5. Until today, the ONLY console that won a 'less powerful in graphics' rival was SNES, but graphics didn't decided that war - the mistakes of Sega and the variety of SNES's titles, yes.

  MGS released in 2001 held its own vs anything.. FF10 was the best looking rpg for a long time...  and every racing game was compared to Gran Turismo.  PS2 was never out done in thr graphics department.

N64 vs Ps was decided before the console launch,  nothing could save that sinking ship.  

DC was good but sega could not support it the way it needed, they lacked a $ to market it.

 

 

Hus said: Kaio_felipe said: If graphics reallly matter, practically ALL the hardware wars would be different, my friend: - Master System would have won NES; - ALL the rivals of Game Boy would have won it; - Nintendo 64 would have defeated PS; - DreamCast would have been a success; - PS2 would have been defeated by GC and, specially, Xbox. - PSP would destroy DS in the sales. N64 was a cartride joke, anti 3rd party.... PS was not. Sega failed the Dreamcast, could never compete with Sonys bank. Untill the PSP, most of the handhelds competeing with Gb were a joke. PS2 graphics were equal if not better, nothing gc or xbox has looks better then GOW2

If you mean in a numerical sense, you are wrong. The PS2 can handle graphics close to the GC and Xbox, but the system can't handle texture compression (due to Sony not knowing about compatibility issues in the GPU before the system was finalized), while the GC and Xbox can handle it. Therefore, most PS2 games are limited to 8-bit textures, even the most advanced games. Plus the GoW games don't even push their textures as much as other PS2 games (such as FFXII and Gran Turismo 4).

The game does look good artistically, but that proves the talents of the developers, not the power of a system.

I think the PS2 is a great price-point.

However dont compare God of War 2 to RE4. 

Possibly compare God of War and RE4. As God of War2 is the same engine as God of War.

How about compare FF10. As I think FF10 was the early pinicle of graphics. I think FF10 is still one of the best looking games on the PS2.

I think PS2 sales will continue to be high for another 1-2 years on software, just becasue of the monster player-base, and re-make games useing old engines. 

LordTheNightKnight said: The game does look good artistically, but that proves the talents of the developers, not the power of a system.

 Does not matter how they do it as long as it looks good.

 at the end of the day PS2 games look no worse then the competition, thats what matters.

 many were the graphics bar for the gen.