personally, I think that everquest screenshot looks terrible.

That's the point, actually. It has way, way higher graphical requirements than WoW does, with much richer textures and much higher polygon counts per model. But because EQII was done with little or no artistry, it just looks much worse. EQ II looks like it was designed by robots in a vacuum. 

 Isn't there a subscription needed with WoW?  If so, I think you have to include the subscriptions coming in as part of the PC game sales.  If you do that, are you sure they are down?  I suspect they are just shifted...

I would have said that the whole artistic graphics being better than pure great graphics is debunked by finding out which game was the best selling game for the best selling console. To give you a clue, I think it sold in excess of 13 million, and we all know which console has sold the best

Tispower said: I would have said that the whole artistic graphics being better than pure great graphics is debunked by finding out which game was the best selling game for the best selling console. To give you a clue, I think it sold in excess of 13 million, and we all know which console has sold the best

Pokemon? Because that's the correct answer, if we're just talking systems. Otherwise, I was never very impressed with GTA's graphics. It did have style though :x

Its hard to say at what point graphics can increase and at what point they plateau, the unique gap between the Wii and 360/PS3 is interesting in which standard is true next gen. My personal opinion: If Sony and MS want to create their own standard of graphics by building ridiculously expensive machines, that's fine, but don't hold Nintendo to that standard and call them backwards simply because they chose to stay the course. If the PS3 and 360 graphics were truely next gen they wouldn't have needed to inflate the economic standard of 200-300 dollars a unit to 400-600 dollars. Next gen is what's can be done within the limits of the current technological economy, not what can be done regardless of the cost. Sorry the Wii's graphics aren't that impressive, but technology has plateaud and the only way it can go any farther at this point is by doing what MS and Sony have done and make ridiculously expensive pseudo-computers.

No, this is not the last generation of graphical improvement. Microsoft and Sony just need to create a motion control like the wii-mote. Nintendo just needs to improve there graphics and an upgraded GC controller would be nice. We will see how important graphics and more importantly physics are when PS3/360 get there pricedrops (2008). Next Generation of gaming Graphics/Physics will start Q3 2007.

PS3 won't be getting a price drop for a long, long time, and even then, 500 dollars isn't that impressive either.

Bodhesatva said: Tispower said: I would have said that the whole artistic graphics being better than pure great graphics is debunked by finding out which game was the best selling game for the best selling console. To give you a clue, I think it sold in excess of 13 million, and we all know which console has sold the best Pokemon? Because that's the correct answer, if we're just talking systems. Otherwise, I was never very impressed with GTA's graphics. It did have style though :x

 Soz, forgot about GBA, but I was thinking PS2. Also GTA III was not the best selling game, it was GT3. The point of GT3 was to be the "ultimate driving simulator" and so it's main advantage was it's graphics, which kinda debunks the Artistic style vs. graphics really.