There are a ton of misconceptions that we've formed about video games over the years that could use a little correcting.   Let's try to set the record straight on a few of them, shall we?  I'll toss out a few:

-Video games are for kids.  We all know this is bullshit.  Even when I was a kid in the 80's, all of the arcades were filled with grown ups playing Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Ikari Warriors, and such.  We've grown from kids to adults and gaming has grown with us.  The average age for a game buyer is 41 and the average game for a game player is 35.  Hardly kids (this is mostly for my girlfriend who thinks I'm too old for games) at all, are they?  Hopefully, when I'm 80 years old, there will still be some form of video gaming for my old, stinky ass to play.

-Nintendo only produces underpowered hardware.  Those that know their history know that this isn't true at all.  The Nes, Snes, N64, and Gamecube were all state of the art in terms of raw power.  Even the DS blew away everything that came before it in terms of power and functionality.  The only "underpowered" console Nintendo has released is the Wii--which apparently turned out to be a smart move when you look at its sales. 

-The PSP is a failure:  Failure is a relative term.  Yes, the PSP failed to outsell the DS but, with 70million+ consoles sold at a profit can hardly be considered a failure, can it?

-The Playstation 3 has terrible online:  I have to say, I took Call of Duty:  Black Ops online with my PS3 quite a bit in the last few months, and for the most part, the experience was pretty close to identical to the Xbox 360 version.  Aside from Cross Game Chat, the PSN matches Xbox Live pretty much feature for feature in its current form.  I'm sure both services will, for lack of a better phrase, "step their game up" in the future but, if it's so hard to imagine what new features they can add, maybe those features are more luxury than neccessity.....Bottom line, when it comes to getting a group of friends online and playing a game, the PS3 does it quickly and easily for free.

-Xbox 360 fans only buy shooters:  Look at this thread for the argument: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133341&page=4  (it does seem to go "full retard" near the end, though.)  The general conclusion is that, while 360 gamers do favor FPS' a bit more than PS3 gamers, they are almost identical in their gaming diversity. 

-Nintendo does everything first and Sony/Microsoft copy:  This is actually true.   Okay.  Maybe Nintendo doesn't do everything first.  A lot of Nintendo's breakthroughs can be traced as the evolution of something from the past.  That doesn't mean that Nintendo isn't an innovative company.  At the same time, Sony and Microsoft have brought products to store shelves that have made an impact, too.  Everybody copies.  Everybody innovates.  Perhaps it can be said that Nintendo takes more risks than the competition but the popular belief that Nintendo is the smart kid in class and everybody else just copies from their paper is wrong.

-The 3DS has weak hardware:  The 3DS is already being perceived as "underpowered" and "slightly more powerful than a PSP" by many.  As a PSP and a 3DS owner, I've seen first hand that games like Dead or Alive, Super Street Fighter and Resident Evil are a generation ahead of anything the PSP could dream of AND in 3D!  Seeing video of Super Mario Bros., Beyeond the Labyrinth, and even Starfox 64 convince me that the 3DS is a graphical beast.  Already boasting better graphics and effects than the Wii, it may not be the most powerful handheld on the market (actually, for the remainder of the year, it is) but it's no slouch, either.  It's not DS it's 3DS.

Anybody else have a misconception that they feel needs to be clarified?  Any disputes with what's already been posted?  Think Spider-Man can beat up Batman (you dumbass!)?  Let's hear 'em!

--Examples:  360 3rd party games always outsell their PS3 counterparts, Wii can't sell 3rd party games, Xbox 360's are unreliable, 3DS needs a 2D Mario game, etc.

*disclaimer*  The preivious post is the opinion of d21lewis and not the opinion of VGChartz.  VGChartz is not responsible for any factual inaccuracies presented in the above post.  By entering this thread, you agree that d21lewis is not to be held accountable for any name calling, trolling, hair loss, erectile dysfunction, shortness of breath, loss of sleep, or bad breath.  Also, the opinon of d21ewis is not the opinion of d21lewis.

How about the myth that the PS3 has generally better graphics than the X360. While this may be true for certain games its also the other way around. Some games look better on the X360. Even at that when differences are compared between the two for multi-plat games it is evident that the differences are very minor. They do both have different hardware that perform in different ways, but time and again it appears in games that they are very close in graphics capabilities. I still know people that say the PS3 graphics are way better due to the fact that it uses bluray discs. I keep telling them bluray just allows for more storage on the disc. Im not sure why they keep insisting this point. Both have relatively the same HD quality during gaming.
So, did I spark any debate on this? Does anyone else have a take on the graphic differences of PS3 and X360.

Nice thread. I like it.

Here's another rumor, ps3 haz no gaems.

When I think about it, there isn't a single game I can think about to prove this wrong. I'm not even sure why I own a ps3, ( a broken ps3) and thinking about buying another one now with that pricedrop that I predicted. Maybe I should go to the store and ask if they have a ps3 game section..

And yes this is a very good thread, d21lewis. And I like your disclaimer. Gave me a good laugh.

Biggest one I can think of: PC Gaming is expensive.

i believe that when people say that they are generally reffering to ps3 exclusives like uncharted 2, god of war 3, killzone 3 etc not multiplats...

I swear, I actually considerd putting this in the OP but then I remembered some graphical debates from the past where someone would post comparsons of multi-plats and show that "if you look under the table in the bar on the back left corner of Super Puffball Adventure, there is a texture that isn't in the 360 version so the PS3 version is tons better!", or come with all of this technical jargon about processors and RAM and I figured it was best to just leave that one alone.

To be honest, I've reached a point where I'm pretty numb to graphics (I know it was one of the points in the OP about the 3DS).  As long as the games look good enough, that's good enough for me.  I don't think I'll ever be blown away by something from this generation, again.  Just like when I look at Super Nes games and they all pretty much look like they're on the same level, or when I look at PS2 games and they all look about even, now, no matter how impressive they were at the time, that's how I look at current gen games.  They all look about even to me.

true. While I will say some of those PS3 exclusives are very impressive graphically for this gen I don't think they are "amazingly" better quality than any X360 games like some people like to tout. I can still tell they are from this gen of consoles. To me there are some mutiplats on X360 that look just as impressive graphically as the PS3 exclusives you are referring to.

I still have that stigma burned into my brain from, like, 1995.  I can't get over it.  I know that I see PC games actually selling for less than their console counterparts and I see good PCs selling for $500 or so but I still have it in my head that I can't afford PC gaming.  I also have the idea that PC games crash all the time, that they can't run at decent specs on anything that I can afford, that their controls are overly complicated (even though there are tons of console style controllers available for them), and that they take forever to get running. 

It's like some sort of racist stereotype against PC gaming.  I know better but I still can't help myself.  I blame it on my parents.  They didn't want PC gamers to go to school with us "real gamers" or for PC gamers to have the right to vote, either.

I agree. I think at the beginning of this gen some of the new graphics blew me away when compared to most last gen games. Now when I look back at some of the first games for this generation I see a bit poorer quality than games coming out now. But the differences I saw at the start of the gen between games in graphics seemed more in my mind than now. Now its hard to see visibly with the human eye much difference in muti-plat games. And like you graphics are not the biggest part to me anymore. My main attraction to a game is the storyline, cohesive flow, game smoothness, enjoyability, and value of my purchase to gameplay. Of course if a game has Pong graphics quality then there are issues. So graphics still play some part, but not everything.