Reputation: 10
Wii was never intended to be with superior ultra realistic graphics. Nintendo is always on gameplay. Judging Wii with PS3 standards is just ridiculous since ps3 is supposed to be about ultra mega superior realistic graphics.
Personally i hate all this eye candy stuff. Maybe its because im more of a hardcore gamer then a casual. A casual would go pick up madden 8947358937549834753 because it looks really dope and realistic over say grandia or final fantasy.
Reputation: 17
Personally, I think gameplay and character depth (I'm not to great of an FPS player, obviously) matter a whole lot more then graphics, but I get what he said about better visuals allowing the player to connect with the characters more. It's all fine and great to read or hear a segment with great emotion, and another to be able to actually see their emotions and mannerisms right in front of you.
Reputation: 67
Oh guess what?We knew that,and we didn't argue on how "It suckers lol111".We all enjoyied the console for the fun,not for the rip off eye candy.
PS:ATI developed the graphics,not Nvidia.I think Nintendo rejected they're proposal,when it started beeing developed.So they have an ankle sore,over the most fast sold console.
Reputation: 82
I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to rate it on the PS3 or 360 scale.Originally Posted by Syetactic
The lack of graphical power was obviously intended. Rating it on that scale would not be fair game because they're being counted into something that wasn't part of their bargaining.
[On-Topic]
What nVidia said made no sense.
It's not like the Wii's graphics are completely incompetent. You can still see facial expressions on the character's face (take the Bleach game for example), and details within the game's environment.
Reputation: 10
That guy is just a plain phag...
has he even played the wii?
Graphics doesnt matter... i care about the quality of the gameplay / storyline / fun factor.
Will people just stfu about graphics tbh.
Reputation: 23
Right, so if they are higher then both of them, they shouldn't be rated differently/easier. MS and Sony didn't focus all on gameplay, so should they be rated easier in that section?
The point was you were wrong about saying Madden looks better.
You should re-read things before posting.
Right, you wouldn't be in the International Olympics, you would be in a completely different scale. You wouldn't be in the same scale for one thing (gameplay) and a different scale for another (graphics). And did MS and Sony come out and say, "We fully want to be in the console war!" No, so that part of your reasoning fails.
Reputation: 18
To me, graphics are the biggest part of immersion in a gameplay experience.
I've always been a Nintendo fan, but I look down on them for their inability to compete with the latest consoles.
And graphics aren't the only thing the Wii can't compete with, unfortunately. It falls short of all technical aspects featured in the PS3 and Xbox 360. For now, you're not seeing much difference, but, in 2-4 years, the PS3 and 360 will be doing much greater things, and the Wii just won't compare.
It's very disappointing. I've gone back to trying some PS2 games (after getting used to PS3's 720p/1080i), and they just look horrible on my TV in contrast.
Reputation: 67
How do you know if Nintendo won't upgrade they're graphics too?To me, graphics are the biggest part of immersion in a gameplay experience.
I've always been a Nintendo fan, but I look down on them for their inability to compete with the latest consoles.
And graphics aren't the only thing the Wii can't compete with, unfortunately. It falls short of all technical aspects featured in the PS3 and Xbox 360. For now, you're not seeing much difference, but, in 2-4 years, the PS3 and 360 will be doing much greater things, and the Wii just won't compare.
It's very disappointing.
Reputation: 18
They'll upgrade them, of course.
But they're bound by poor technical limitations and complete lack of HD.
Game designers will always find ways to make games look better on the hardware they're given, but there is a point past which you just can't expand, no matter what you do.
Reputation: 23
^Go Google and wireless phone services for only 24.95 a month!
A hardcore gamer would want both gameplay and graphics, not just one or the other. And personaly, I don't see why the Wii's gameplay is so great, it's different, but that doen't automaticaly mean it's great.
So you're saying everything before the Wii had bad gameplay? The only good things I've heard from the Wii is the Wii Sports, which is more of a mini game, and Zelda which you can get for Game Cube.
And yay for Aru, he will kick your ass when it comes to fanboys dissin' up Sony. :cool:
Reputation: 12
Yes what you all were saying is true. But yopu have to except that now in this time and age graphics do matter. The technology we have no days is superior, we want to see how great things will become. Most console gamers out there couldn't sit down and playing GoW with GTA graphics, when the game would get rated it would get it low. Why? Its a great game with a great story and gameplay. But the grapics did not back it up, did not make it apealing, did not grab the gamers attentions and pull them in with the gameplay.
Thats whats graphics are for... They are the fishing lines, and the gameplay and story, and interactivity is there rods. The fish sees the fishing line with the bait, bites at it, then the rod takes it in. Its how it works now. The Wii should not be able to get off easier now in this day and age, they are fully capable of creating a system like the 360 or PS3, but they don't, so they shouldn't get special treatment.
Reputation: 152
The 20GB is 599$, the 60GB was 699$
Posting Permissions
