I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting tired of these kinds of threads in which some Wii owner (and yes pretty much every thread like this is created by a Wii owner) tries to validate Nintendo's decision to go with hardware that is significantly less powerful than the competition's.

The truth is that Nintendo did it because they realized that it was becoming impossible to keep up with the competition's ever increasing hardware specs without pricing their own beyond their core audience's reach and being forced to take significant losses on hardware. It would have then become a race to see who has the deepest pockets, a race Nintendo would have never been able to win.

As for graphics they add to the experience of a game. Great graphics can complement great gameplay and can help your immersion and enjoyment of a game. Of course the best graphics in the World won't make for a great game if good gameplay isn't there.

As for the 360 and PS3 and the talk of good graphics, whenever very good graphics are seen in a preview of a game it holds the possibility of an amazing game if the developers puts as much time and effort into the gameplay as they did with the graphics. Of course not all great looking games live up to that possibility but the ones that do can be an amazing experience.

And for those that will still argue I ask you this, how did you feel the first time you saw Link riding on Epona through the majestic fields of Hyrule in the opening of Ocarina of Time?  I'm pretty sure those graphics added to the experience compared to what it would have been like had that same opening had been on the SNES.  Now imagine that game on a large widescreen television with even more lush fields, an even more stunning sunset, with Epona even more majestic, all the while a glorious epic symphonic soundtrack is playing all around you in 7.1 sound making you feel like you're there.  Now can you honestly tell me that it wouldn't add to your enjoyment and experience of the game?

Gears and Resistance beter than Twilight Princess?  For Shame.  Thirty lashes for you

 I strongly agree, Legend.

I think that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tnt2">TNT 2</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo3">Voodoo 3</a> graphics cards changed everything. Roughly speaking, both of these graphics cards were similar in performance to the Dreamcast and survived for years as the minimum requirements for many of the best PC games ever created.

The reason I believe this is that most modern games on the PC, PS3 and XBox 360 are prettier versions of these games; the ammount of actual improvement in physics, AI and gameplay has been minimal over the past 8 years even though processing power on both the GPU and CPU has grown by over 20 times.

You do realize that creating hardware on the level of the XBox 360 and PS3 wouldn't have been difficult for Nintendo, don't you?

Consider that the reason that Microsoft choose to work with IBM and ATI was because of how amazing of a job they did for Nintendo; do you think that ATI and IBM would have done a worse job for Nintendo than they did for Microsoft? Do you think that these large multinational corporations are bigger fanboys than you are?

Legend,

               Yes I own a Wii, but honestly, WTF does this have to do with my question? I can care less about trying to defend Nintendo. I think their portfolio can defend them well enough, especially given your nonsense about keeping up with the competition.

Frankly, to split hairs, I'm tired of PS3 and Xbox enthusiasts getting defensive every time people attempt to look at the broader spectrum of this hobby as a whole.

Graphics can wow me but very rarely can they make the game more fun to me.

I suppose thats the reason I like the Wii more than either of the two HD consoles, its cheaper and has just as good, if not better (I like the Wiimote) gameplay and its only serious disadvantage is its graphics - which really dont mean that much to me.

Just last year I spent hours playing through a game made in 1989 - Castle of the Winds, which is probably my favourite dungeon hack of all time. Its graphics were let me tell you pathetic. Heck, I enjoy games in ASCII.

As for the age thing, I'm 17 - '64 and PSX generation. So your idea of age doesnt work for me personally at least.

It wouldn't have been difficult but it would have been expensive.  Even more so if Nintendo wasn't willing to take a loss on each console sold like the competition did.

As for why Microsoft went with ATI, I think it had more to do with the fact that they had a falling out with Nvidia over pricing of components in the Xbox than anything else.

I would still rather play Harvest Moon 64 over any other game. And it's not all that pretty looking of a game. Graphics mean nothing to me. The art in a game, that matters to me though.

Exactly. Microsoft is trying to turn this industry into a spending war -- and Sony is playing right along, which is why I think they may be the company to lose out (if any company does) simply because their pockets are much shallower than MS's are. They're playing the same ballgame as MS, but MS is simply better equipped to play that type of game.

Nintendo chose to play a different game altogether; not because they think graphics are pointless, but because they knew they couldn't win a spending war. Simple question: if Nintendo could have made the Wii as graphically powerful as the 360/PS3 without spending any more money, would they do so? The answer is yes, obviously. Nintendo made an extremely savvy move, but it was a financial decision, not a philosophical stand against the importance of graphics.