johnlucas said:
pearljammer said:
johnlucas said:
jhlennon1 said:
http://www.nintendorevolution.ca/10132007/15/more_nintendo_wii_bashing_from_cnet "Listen, we all know the Wii is selling well, but that doesn't mean people are actually playing the console," he writes.
"Sorry to say, graphics still matter, and because it is lacking, some walk into a room, play with it for an hour, tell everyone how fun it is, and go back to their PS3 to marvel at the look of a game," Reisinger theorizes.
But "if people decide to buy it because it looks nice at a friend's house and proceed to play it until they get bored with it, where are the opportunities for third-party developers to make money?" |
This writer is gonna have a heart attack once Wii proves graphics DON'T matter. The graphics were fine last generation. Get to the gameplay, suckas. Nobody's having PS3 parties with ma and grandma. Opportunities for 3rd parties? The vast vast VAST marketshare Nintendo has and will have. Where there's money to be made the opportunity will be taken. John Lucas |
So apparently greater graphics and great gameplay cannot coexist? |
*sigh* Tired argument. All explained here. Why graphics don't mean as much anymore http://www.n-philes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22174 You seem to imply that gameplay and graphics are individual unto themselves. MY point is that until you get to virtual reality where game and life are hard to tell apart this graphic race is now futile. Give a million to a homeless bum on the street and he is joyously elated. Give a million to Oprah and she's like that'll buy some pet food for the dog. There is a threshhold on this thing and you're seeing it in the market. This is why PS3 & XBox 360 have not conquered. THIS tells that graphics REAL function is ROOTED in gameplay not an accessory added later. Gameplay is ALWAYS first. Logical, right? They're games after all. Not movies. John Lucas |
I could say the exact same...
*sigh* tired arguement.
You completely missed what I was saying. I was simply addressing to when you had said "Get to the gameplay, suckas" where it seemed that you were implying that neither the 360 nor the PS3 had games with great gameplay. I apologise if I had read into that incorrectly, but my intentions were not to imply that gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive of one another, just thought you were suggesting that one was being sacrificed for another for either the 360 or the PS3.
On another note, though. I do believe that graphics do matter to a certain extent. Perhaps not to all of us, and as you say they are games, not movies, but everyone has different tastes so I'm sure there are those who will, indeed, purchase a system based on it's "kewl graphix".
