MikeB said: BenKenobi88 said: MikeB said: @ 4lc0h0l Yep I heard about lots of people complain about the Wii version's graphics and general game complexity of Star Wars. This was one 3rd party game I thought had potential on the Wii as a Light Saber sounded like a good fit for the Wii-mote. I think it's one of the reasons why 3rd party games often sell relatively slow on the Wii considering its install base. Controls on a PC is usually very limited (often designed with keyboard/mouse control in mind), but buying a PC or a 360/PS3 version often seem more appealing, also due to Wii games looking less appealing and simplified (sacrificed) on the Wii IMO Star Wars on the PS3/360 feels a little disappointing as well. The graphics are OK, but the gameplay also seems to be merely OK. The game looked more promising in previews. Controls on a PC are limited...? There's tons more buttons and inputs available than with console games... Yes, it's one of the oldest forms of most basic game control. All Amigas had a keyboard and a mouse by default, but of course almost everyone preferred to use arcade sticks for playing most kinds of games. Some games are best played with a mouse like Lemmings, the Amiga original was the only version you could play with two mice simultaneously for multi-player fun. We have come a long way, you can now hook up 7 far more advanced wireless gamepads. The PC lacks flexibility in this regard. For PS3 games for which it makes sense to be able to use mouse and keyboard, I am all for supporting this. It's a minor effort as virtually all PC games are already designed with this in mind.

Yes, and for PC games where it makes sense to use an analog joystick, the option is there. The option is there even for when it DOESN'T make sense (FPS games).

I always play PC racers with a dual analog controller, and the option has existed alongside console joysticks the entire time.

PC=flexibility.

I know you weren't trying to start a flame war, but your "Controls on a PC is usually very limited" comment still does not make much sense. PC games are often designed for keyboard+mouse, but I would not call that limited, and almost all PC games that support analog joysticks support them fully (aka have analog movement available, not just digital or WASD movement).

@ BenKenobi88

IMO it took the platform ages to advance in baby steps (and IMO it still does, nothing major has really changed the last decade apart from faster (processing) chips, a standard ongoing process ever since computers were released onto the market). I still remember the day when having a soundblaster sound card with a gameport, just one port for a gamepad was something impressive when on nearly all other platforms it was a non issue.

I still remember the 80's when I was able to do amazing video editing, adding special effects, subtitling, etc, etc with very little effort with for its time with professional results. It took PCs more than a decade to advance to that point, usually with far worse results. The Amiga for its day was flexible, the PC was not.

To me the computer market seems a lot less dynamic when PCs became standard in people homes. Mainly building on some good past ideas on other platforms. Computers have become slower in usage (bootup, instant user feedback, etc), which was unthinkable to envision for 2008 in the mid 80s as an Amiga user. Mainstream computers have become less open to know how the OS works and are less open to advanced customization and problem solving. There seem to less flexibility in general with regard to PCs than there was in the past.

I have been a vivid PC FPS gamer in the past, but now I prefer using the wireless Sixaxis/DH3 controller (I was skeptical, I thought I would miss the mouse or think it was better) sitting comfortably on my couch. IMO the PS3 game experience is much optimized for this.

MikeB said: @ BenKenobi88 PC=flexibility IMO it took the platform ages to advance in baby steps (and IMO it still does, nothing major has really changed the last decade apart from faster (processing) chips, a standard ongoing process ever since computers were released onto the market). I still remember the day when having a soundblaster sound card with a gameport, just one port for a gamepad was something impressive when on nearly all other platforms it was a non issue. I still remember the 80's when I was able to do amazing video editing, adding special effects, subtitling, etc, etc with very little effort with for its time with professional results. It took PCs more than a decade to advance to that point, usually with far worse results. The Amiga for its day was flexible, the PC was not. To me the computer market seems a lot less dynamic when PCs became standard in people homes. Mainly building on some good past ideas on other platforms. Computers have become slower in usage (bootup, instant user feedback, etc), which was unthinkable to envision for 2008 in the mid 80s as an Amiga user. Mainstream computers have become less open to know how the OS works and are less open to advanced customization and problem solving. There seem to less flexibility in general with regard to PCs than there was in the past. I have been a vivid PC FPS gamer in the past, but now I prefer using the wireless Sixaxis/DH3 controller (I was skeptical, I thought I would miss the mouse or think it was better) sitting comfortably on my couch. IMO the PS3 game experience is much optimized for this.

You seem to be talking more about computer users than computers themselves...computers are more advanced now than ever...it only seems more closed because mainstream users don't know the ins and outs of OSs, hardware, and software. This doesn't seem like a problem to me...back in the 80s/early 90s not as many people owned a PC, so those that did knew what they were doing, and it catered to a smaller audience.
Now, PCs are everywhere and have to appeal to the mainstream...while still being technically more advanced every day. It's totally understandable that a mainstream user won't know the ins and outs, but anyone with some technical or gaming knowledge will be able to reap the benefits of a PC, which can do so much more than a standardized videogame console.
And who cares if it takes baby steps to advance? It's more advancing than any one videogame console can do, aka next to none. Consoles advance by taking hardware that is powerful at the time and stretching that out for a half decade before building another set of hardware. PCs are the same, but you can choose when to upgrade, what to upgrade, what you want to put on your hardware, software-wise, what kinds of peripherals you want to use...whatever.

I still don't see how consoles beat PC in the flexibility competition.  In the case of Amiga, that was a genuine step forward in technology, though of course back then PCs and consoles weren't very different.  In fact they never are THAT different...but in general a PC is more open and upgradeable...I don't see how consoles win in this regard.

As for your PS3 comment, that's just ease-of-use.  Many console users will say they'd rather grab a controller and sit on the couch...and that's a valid argument.  It's not foolproof obviously as you can technically do that with a PC as well (flexibility!) but the average user won't bother. 

MikeB said: @ BenKenobi88 PC=flexibility IMO it took the platform ages to advance in baby steps (and IMO it still does, nothing major has really changed the last decade apart from faster (processing) chips, a standard ongoing process ever since computers were released onto the market). I still remember the day when having a soundblaster sound card with a gameport, just one port for a gamepad was something impressive when on nearly all other platforms it was a non issue. I still remember the 80's when I was able to do amazing video editing, adding special effects, subtitling, etc, etc with very little effort with for its time with professional results. It took PCs more than a decade to advance to that point, usually with far worse results. The Amiga for its day was flexible, the PC was not. To me the computer market seems a lot less dynamic when PCs became standard in people homes. Mainly building on some good past ideas on other platforms. Computers have become slower in usage (bootup, instant user feedback, etc), which was unthinkable to envision for 2008 in the mid 80s as an Amiga user. Mainstream computers have become less open to know how the OS works and are less open to advanced customization and problem solving. There seem to less flexibility in general with regard to PCs than there was in the past. I have been a vivid PC FPS gamer in the past, but now I prefer using the wireless Sixaxis/DH3 controller (I was skeptical, I thought I would miss the mouse or think it was better) sitting comfortably on my couch. IMO the PS3 game experience is much optimized for this.

 

The problem is not the PCs (IBM based ones), the problem here is Microsoft Windows... it has so many flaws for gaming (and almost everything else) but because it became the standard, then all PC game devs do their games for Windows (that's why i really hope that Microsoft doesn't become the standard in consoles too, and also why i won't buy a 360 or any Microsoft-made console)...

With the awesome computer specs we can have today, it would be really cool to se a GAMING DEDICATED OS, and it can be done, but most gamers can't (or won't) do a dual boot in their machines, (hell, most PS3 owners don't use the Other OS function, and it's easier to do that than doing a dual boot)... So there's no market for this... That's why i prefer consoles even when the PCs have more power...

This thread is yet another stupid one.
Of course graphics are important, they are how you can get feedback from a game.
The video part in "video game" itself involves graphics. Without graphics, no video, so no game.

It's even better when you have good graphics. But then, what is good graphics?
That's when you start to separate those with poor picture culture from the others.
Most people won't even notice that the graphics are good, they will just be naturally drawn to them, and they have no need to understand why.
That's also when you start separating the graphics whore from the rest. Of course, "graphics whore" has a bad connotation. That's because most of the time they're wrong.
"Graphics whore" are people with very limited picture culture. It's extremely limited because what they consider good graphics can be easily described: the more pixels, the more polygons, the more colors, the more effects, ... there are in a picture, the best the graphics are for them.
Notice that game reviews are based on "graphics whore" stats and thus are completely wrong most of the time (I noticed that more than 10 years ago).
That's what leads to stupid reviews of Megaman 9 that gives it a 3 in graphics and yet says it makes the game better. That's so stupid it's unbelievable, and yet, those that put this nonsense are so entrenched in their nonsense they don't even see they look insane.

Of course, good graphics are not stupid things like number of polygons or effects. No, good graphics are just the graphics that suit the job of a game. Of course, for this to be understood, the concept of "overshooting the customer" must be understood or at least fathomed. Most "graphics whore" are so limited they can't understand it.
Tell them that Tetris or NSMB or Wii Sports have perfect graphics is impossible to even understand to them. That's where the problem is. I don't know if Megaman 9 have perfect graphics, but at least they look very good. The repeated failures of Sonic games should have told Sega that they were overshooting with the 3D aspect of it. 2D graphics were better for Sonic games than 3D. It seems like it was the same for Mario games, and nearly every other platformers.
The same seems to be true for 2D fighters games. They had good enough graphics, and overshooting them just destroyed their gameplay.

So yes, graphics are very important, as they go hand in hand with gameplay. But number of polygons, effects, resolution or others stupid stats like that are not important when taken alone. At least not for a game.

Depends alot on the game. If a game is really good in terms of story, gameplay, difficulty then graphics take a backseat. However graphics can make a good game great and in some genres such as FPS or driving simulator (ala GT) then graphics are very important indeed. In the end good art direction and a unique style can compensate. Its very much a personal thing. For some people graphics matter intensely. That is the way of things.

a game that depends on graphics to impress will be good for about 3 weeks before something beats it out. A game that depends on gameplay will be good forever (Like Super Mario Brothers for instance).

Graphics have always been a commodity for video games, though you'd never convince the discriminating gamer of this fact. The systems which sell the best rarely have the best visuals for their time; what they do all have is the highest volume of (and overall best quality of) pick-up-and-play games across many differing genres for their time.

No, graphics dont matter to me, Ill play Super Mario Bros. and still enjoy it, its the enjoyability (word?) of the game that counts.

From a console-selling standpoint, having the best graphics has usually meant that you don't win the generation, ironically.

3rd generation: NES outsells graphically superior Sega Master System
4th generation: SNES outsells graphically inferior Sega Genesis (though it had faster processing speed)
5th generation: PS1 outsells graphically superior N64
6th generation: PS2 outsells graphically superior Xbox
7th generation: Wii is outselling graphically superior PS3/Xbox 360

Better graphics are 1 for 4 in the past four generations, soon to be 1 for 5.

The common factor among "winning" CONSOLES is superior game libraries, not graphics. However, when it comes to individual GAMES, I think really does depend on what faction of gamer you are trying to sell them to, so there's not a definite answer there.