The Wii version of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has won numerous game of the year awards. It recieved better reviews than Gears of War and significantly better reviews than Resistance: Fall of Man. It has also sold better than either game. You're welcome to your opinion, SSJ, but Zelda: TP for Wii has better reviews, sold more copies, and recieved more awards than Resistance (and probably Gears, but I haven't checked to see precisely how many GoTY awards it has won). You're welcome to say: "I prefer Resistance to Twilight Princess," but there is almost no conceivable angle from which one can say Resistance is the better game on a large scale. 

To some it may have been far more enjoyable but not for everybody.  Everyone doesn't have the same tastes (just look at music) so it's unrealistic to pick one game and say it's better than games in a different genre.  I bought a N64 to play Ocarina of Time and I became bored with it and stopped playing about 3/4s of the way through.  Some people simply aren't into Nintendo games or for some reason grow out of them (and I used to be into them at one time, I played Super Mario Brothers 1 and 2 and Zelda 1 and 2 to death).  And that feeling you got while playing Twilight Princess, it's probably the same feeling I got while playing the original Tomb Raider on Playstation 1 or Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn or Deus Ex on PC.

Some games take awhile or don't come on PC, also I enjoy playing games on my HD tv but don't want to have to drag my computer and equipment to it everytime I want to play a game.

Depend on the game, graphics can enhance gameplay if used correctly, such as collision detection, details, etc, to give a better sense of space/dimension and ease of identification. But, only a certain level of graphic is necessary for a game, any more than that may detract from the game (not as in too much graphic detract time play, but as in more time spent on graphic may mean less time spent on developing other aspects of game) Example of this includes most 2D Platformers, while I am not saying the 3D is bad, but there have not yet (keep in mind I haven't played too many 3D platformers) been a 3D platformer game (with analog or digital) that quite recreate the high precision of the 2D platformers (depend on game, it's not like there's no bad 2D platformers)

In addition, there's something called "Imagination" that we used to make a whole picture or imagine more details way back when such detail wasn't available, so as long as a game have reached the necessary graphic capacity to flash out the gameplay, it would age well.

Finally, gamer tend to go with whatever the graphic they were first introduced to play, and it's more of what they are used to and how much they can accept new/retro/different things in order to play game with different graphic capacities.

P.S. Nostalgia also plays a factor when comparing games, although often enough that a game is still great without the nostalgia so it's definitely not the only factor.

P.P.S. On a side note, human perception feel change in roughly 1/60 or so for visual sensation, and 3D graphics require exponential increase to achieve that different. In short, Graphic increase will need to become exponentially high to make someone go WOW. yet hardware doesn't increase at an exponential rate (it increase by multiplicity as per Moore's Law). I'll leave you, the reader of this comment to fill in the blank.

  I completely agree.  That's why I said our opinions differ.   Ssj12 told me Gears and Resistance were way better than TP.  So I responded he's wrong, and added it's just that our opinions differ. 

Edit:  Why arn't you getting on ssj12 for telling me one game is better than another?  8)

Maybe some guys are missing something here. What about free market capitalism? Since when selling a product at a price higher than production costs is something evil. Profit is sin only for some neo-communist organizations.

Now Nintendo is the evil organization selling consoles for profit? What about Gamestop, Best buy and others game stores are they greedy bastards for geting some $5-10 dollar profit for every game they sell?

Fanboyism must have some logical limits. Anyone with an IQ of 3 digits here really thinks that Sony or Micro$oft loses money on their consoles because they care about their customers? The only reason to sell at a loss is to sabotage the competition, especially when your company have more money than the GNP of some 3rd world countries.

The Wii is a not scam, you get back every penny you paid for. You have a system that is more powerful than any VG of the last generation, free online connection out of the box, a Gamecube player, nunchuck and wiimote ($60) that cost the same as a wireless xbox360 controller, 512 mb of memory for saves and VC games and a game. If all that is not worth 250 I give up. The PS2 was 300 with only a $ 25 controller, no memory card or game and some early versions had no support for the HD and online play.

Maybe some fanboys have some kind of stockholm syndrome. They are so used to disk errors, red rings, supply constrained launches, overpriced software that when a company treats them well they think there is something wrong.

Sorry for over reacting, but things always goes like this: someone makes a claim about the Wii being a fad and the others just go along without even analyzing the contradictions in the argument. Profit is not a crime neither being successful.

That still doesnt have a god damn thing to do with this thread. Stop hopping into discussions and labeling people N-Defenders or Wii-justifiers and just discuss the facking topic at hand.

And yes I definitely think age plays a part in it. But not a significant one. There are many factors above graphics.

And seriously, long gone are the days when "great graphics" in a game can be used to determine how much Tender Loving Care the devs put into the game. We are in the age of licensing engines people. Stop the madness, this isnt the early 90's. 

@ItsaMii

>The Wii is a not scam, you get back every penny you paid for. You have a system that is more powerful than any VG of the last generation, free online connection out of the box, a Gamecube player, nunchuck and wiimote ($60) that cost the same as a wireless xbox360 controller, 512 mb of memory for saves and VC games and a game. If all that is not worth 250 I give up. The PS2 was 300 with only a $ 25 controller, no memory card or game and some early versions had no support for the HD and online play.

Well it should be more powerful than any system of the last generation because it currently cost twice as much as they now do.

On the topic, one of the best selling games ever is ugly as hell Dragon Quest VII. While it is not my favorite DQ it has a lot of strong points. Resident Evil 4 is a masterpiece in gameplay and graphics. FF VIII plays like shit and has one of the most corny stories ever. The graphics are shiny and sexy though.

There you go playing dumb again. You implied that Wii selling at a profit is something that Nintendo did to avoid the competition.
"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".
"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".

See? t is almost like Nintendo is the villain for not playing the chicken race with M$ and Sony. At least you looked down at Nintendo for winning the race that way.

In free market capitalism this kind of strategy is not good. How could Nintendo or any other company go against a M$ willing to lose 5 billion dollars to dominate the market. You say that Nintendo can not take on the competition, the truth is that no one can take on the competition in such terms.

"Umm nobody here was talking about free market capitalism".
"Nobody said Nintendo was evil".
"Nobody said anything about the Wii being a fad, and nobody said anything about profit being a crime".

How old are you really, 15? Do we really have times for these little games? Read the whole thread and maybe you will understand why I talked about these things. Also for someone playing the smart ass you are not so smart. I talked about free market, Nintendo being evil, Wii being a fad (in a context you did not really understood) so you should write "nobody except you" said that instead of "nobody".

"What does this have to do with graphics? In fact where in this thread were people talking about the price of the Wii, PS3, or 360"?
I do not Know. The discussion was about that until a user called Legend11 accused the thread creator of being a Wii defender and started talking about Wii not keeping up with the competition, about Wii not being that good, Sony and M$ strategy, Zelda OoT, Gears of War and stuff not related to the forums. Please quit being a hypocrite. You went out of topic started a mini flame war and now play dumb.
It is my fault really for taking the bait.