thank you kwaad for saving this thread for certain flame war-dom!

 good points!

Few reasons the PS2 keeps getting good sales:

Price. When you can get a system for $129 that still has decent graphics with the newer games, it becomes very attractive.

Games. God of War 2 and Guitar Hero 2 are very impressive, strong, great AAA titles that came out AFTER the PS2 was cancelled. Tell me a SINGLE system that has AAA titles once it's predicessor has come out. Nintendo moved Zelda: TP to Wii rather than GC-Only, MS moved everything (PDZ, PGR 3) to 360, ect, ect ect.

Library. The PS2 has, by far, the best overally library in gaming history (atleast to most people). At $129, it's easy to buy one and find a few dozen games @ $10 or $20 that are great.

The PS1 was similar. When you have an incredible library, price and support, a system WILL sell well regardless. Thats been the key to the winner of every console war. They've always had a good mix of innovation, dev support and good WOM. Atari 2600, NES, PS1 and PS2 were the winners due to those major reasons.

So, Hus, a hardware war was NEVER decided effectively for the graphics. A lot of other aspects have to be considered. As I said, most of the 'winners' (NES, PS, PS2, GB, DS) didn't need to be 'technically superiors' than its enemies to defeat them.

graphis are a part, but kidy fans do their best to make them look irrelevant.

 superior game/graphics/enviroment/physics/online is needed to defeat them.

I don't think the gameboy had superior graphics/environment/physics than say, the sega NOMAD, which was essentially a portable Genesis. And to date, i think the GBA is still selling more than the PSP.

I dont care if the game has better 'graphics' or not. I love the art. LocoRoco is a GREAT example of that. The art is amazing.

I dont think graphics matters that much, I just like the art. (god of war blows the doors off RE4)

I feel the PS3/360 enviroments are the ultimate for the 'art' In terms of, you add alot more power to the artists.

The Wii really adds nothing new to the art.
That is like the diffrence from finger painting, to amazing art like the mona lisa.

Finger painting just dosent have the detail, the canvas painting does.
I'm not saying the Wii cant have great art, and styles. But I am saying the PS3/360 can have BETTER art.

Like StaticNeuron has been saying. He loves epic games. I love epic games. Brining a game like oblivion to life is amazing. The first time you leave the city, and you look at the city from across the world, with everything turned on, and you see the city in on the horizon, and you start walking there... You walk... and walk... and walk... and walk, passing villages paths, ruins, and other assorted stuff, to only look up agian and see the city is still far off in the distance.

That was a launch title for the 360. Games will get better. They will look better, and be even more massive before the end of the generation. That is what I want, that is what I demand from a console. The Wii offers morrowind. The PS3/360 offers Elder Scrolls 5. (I expect it to be PS3/360)

"I dont care if the game has better 'graphics' or not."

This comes from a guy that constantly and incessantly bashes a console because the graphics are not "good enough".

Let's see...

"You wanna talk about graphics. FF10 looks FAR better than RE4."

"please name one PS3 game that looks worse than Zelda"

"So I'll take the PS2's processor, and graphics card for the best... wich leaves... the PS2 as the definate winner."
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=261

Or, how about this entire thread:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=327

Or, perhaps this thread:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=310


Or, how about this contradiction:

"I agree seriously. the Wii is 250$. It is cheap."
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=261

"When I bash the Wii in price. I think 250$ is a ripoff."
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=1251&start=0#end

Where's the "I am laughing so hard that my head just exploded" smiley?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Kwaad.

PS2 games are going to continue to sell well through this year and into next. The installed base is massive and there will be plenty of people who won't or can't pick up a new system. The same thing has happened with each winner of the video game generation. NES sales were strong a few years into the Genesis/SNES cycle, SNES games sold well into the N64/PS1 era, etc. So while Xbox and GC releases have dried up, we'll see new titles on the PS2 until sometime in 2008.

The sales of a console are always based on the games on it not the technology in it. NES won because of Nintendo's first party titles and control over third parties. SNES had a similar situation, but faced a serious challenge from the Genesis/MegaDrive due to Sega's arcade ports and EA's sports titles. Since it was so much cheaper to publish games on the spacious CDs, the PS1 had more games. It also didn't hurt that Sony wasn't afraid of more mature titles like Resident Evil. And the PS2 continued to have greater third party support and their RPGs and a title called Grand Theft Auto helped a lot.

As we enter this generation, there's a new paradox. It costs a lot to take full advantage of the Xbox 360 and PS3. And at this point in time the installed base on the PS3 isn't high enough to justify those costs. Sony promised better sales to third parties and movie studios, but it's clean that the PS3 won't live up to those projections. As such, exclusives are getting ported to both systems and developers are jumping through hoops to support the Wii. How will this play out? That really depends oh what games wind up on what systems and where player loyalties lie. I think this generation may be the best one since the 16 bit days with competitors having a much more equal share of the market and each system having it's strengths and weaknesses.

(Oh, as and side, the Dreamcast died due to a lack of support from EA and other key publishers. Many consumers also felt burned by Sega in the Sega CD/32X/Saturn years.)