Yes, gameplay is more important than graphics, but that's not what the argument is about. It was claimed that with the PlayStation, you could have graphics as good or better than what was in the arcade. I disagree. For mainstream consoles, I say that the Dreamcast was the first one to provide graphics as good as anything in the arcade; because it was essentially NAOMI, and NAOMI was one of the best arcade hardware platforms going at the time.
Yes; with the PlayStation you could have Tekken's ghetto graphics at home, but if you wanted something that actually looked good, like Cruis'n USA, you were out of luck. The PS didn't have the berries for it, and neither did the newer N64. Of course, the PS never got a Cruis'n USA port, but the N64 did and it was not on par with the arcade version; and if it had've been ported to the PS, it would have undoubtedly looked worse than the N64's version; in the same manner that the PS's port of Hydro Thunder looked worse than the N64's version (which in turn couldn't compare to the arcade version).
wow dude you are lost in the sauce.
it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.
you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.
i guess i should very carefully and long windedly spell out exactly what i mean because then you get on this kick about neo geo which i personally knew no one that actually owned one besides dealers.. so im sure that the true arcade graphics.. after all it's extremely similar to the arcade hardware and extremely high price tag for it is what cause the death of the arcades not the PlayStation.. no no it was the nearly non existent neo geo.
then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck.. well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck, at which i'd say it's really in the eye of the beholder and that they are in my opinion "as good" as what i played in the arcade, but again im sure you have found some tiny difference that is only noticeable to people such as your self to either goes over the hardware with a fine tooth comb which amounts to nothing, or one or two pixels are out of place.
i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.
yet the playstation which was also the platform for some arcade games has what you consider poor graphics so it does'tn get the same respet, wow man like to have you cake and eat to too dont you?
also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.
which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..
this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..
the or better part comes from playstation or home console born games, obviously it's hard to get better then what was in the arcade when it's being the baseline standard of what you're trying ot port in the first place.
one of the games i mentioned before was jumping flash.. i for one at the time thought the game was quite breath taking.
infact all those "ghetto" 3d games was considered good graphic wise back then.
of course game play is more important then graphics but if arcade games dont have good game play in the arcade they dont last very long, my originla point was playstation was the tipping point where nearly all of it's games was comparatively as good or better then what was typical in the arcade at the time, game play aside as every platform has crappy games.
as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.