Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[versapak]

Well in all fairness, you're selling point seemed to be on Wii games looking like GC games (the key word was "looks").  So it's not a mental block, it's what I gathered from your argument.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. 

Also, I will see that you have no official stance against backwards compatibility.  Never really thought you did.  I just gather that you see it as more of a "curiosity" feature than a real viable selling point for a system.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

But for me, it's most definitely a selling point.  You'd think I'd be playing more GC titles on the Wii than I would PS2 games on the PS3, but I think the exact opposite.  I don't want to keep my PS2 around when I have a PS3 (space and wiring concerns), but I don't want to give up some of those great games I have.  And the ones I'm talking about (Rez, Katamari Damacy, Bombastic, Hot Shots Golf, Activision Classics) looked dated when they were first released so for me it's a non-issue anyhow.

I'm not saying I'm always going to use it.  I just like having the option and a clutter free entertainment center.

On a seperate note: I like to think that the Wii has more potential than just a system with a unique controller method.  I see is as a system with some good, exclusive titles.   The title I'm anticipating the most (Super Smash Bros. Brawl) doesn't even require any Wiimote antics (you can use a classic controller or GC controller if you'd like).  Nintendo, as reviled as they are by the hardcores, makes a damn good game. 

Postscript: I'm trying really hard not to paint myself as a Nintendo fanboy, because I enjoy my PS2 and Xbox (hopefully soon to be upgraded to Xbox 360) too.  But it just seems that in this generation, only Microsoft and Nintendo are appealing to their audience.  And I have to admit that I'm kind of nostalgically giddy that Nintendo is on top again.  But Sony, on the other hand, let it's hubris market their latest system.  It's sad.  Before the original price announcement, the PS3 was first on my shopping list...

I do actually see backward compatibility as a selling feature.


As pointed out in a previous post way back in here, I did actually think of it as a selling point for me.

It is just that in reality is is seldom used. It is more a piece of mind/comfort that it is there than it is an actual feature that is in the forefront.

I am more likely to buy a system with backward compatibility (PS3 with vs PS3 without), but if it never was an option... It most likely wouldn't be an option I would really truly miss. We went for generations without it ever even being an option.

On the Wii it really is more like an extension of its games library than it is an option to play old games. That is probably a better wording I should have used.

I don't really think of the Wii as a just a system with a unique controller either. I stand by my statement that its only significant new hardware advancement is something that could have been simply added to the gamecube, but as a whole...

The Wii is part of a new philosophy on games from Nintendo. They are doing unique and fun things with their systems, instead of trying to just compete with the most powerful and prettiest.

I personally LOVE the DS. I own 3 of them, and my kids and I love gaming together on them. I think the Wii, like the DS it is apparently going to take some time for some quality stuff to come from anyone but Nintendo, but I do believe that Nintendo is on a great path.

I love the powerful and beautiful too, but at the core it is always about fun, and the Wii is another way to have that fun. I think it is a great complimentary system to the other more "traditional" gaming machines.

[knave]

One thing that I really like about backward compatibility is that it allows me to cherry pick from an already established library of games.

My game time is limited.  I have no desire to play all the games out there.  I only want to play the best games out there.  So when I picked up a Wii I looked up the highest rated games and bought the ones that interested me. It also was a bargain.

If I were to pick up a 360 or a PS3 I would do the same thing.  Those are the games I would play for a long time.  I'm not likely to get a current release unless it is awesome, and even then I'm likely to wait a while.  I want to get Smash bros. Brawl someday but not at release...

...I'll grab it after I'm done with all the really fun games I have.

It's my patience and willingness to wait that makes me get so much value out of BC. 

[ChadTower]

Graphics are the first and most obvious thing

A great, great many people disagree with this, myself included.  I don't care if a game looks more real than real life - if it's no fun, I won't give it more than a few minutes, if I even bother picking up the controller. 

[versapak]

Graphics are the first and most obvious thing

A great, great many people disagree with this, myself included.  I don't care if a game looks more real than real life - if it's no fun, I won't give it more than a few minutes, if I even bother picking up the controller. 

BS


When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.


Better texturing, draw distance, higher resolution...

All those things make any style of game look better, and it is the first thing you will see in a new game.

I never said that is the first thing a person looks for in a good game, but it is indeed the very first thing you will see when playing a game. When you boot up an old game, whether the game is amazing fun or not, you will first see its graphical quality, and that will date the game to a prior generation no matter what.

It is not like I have said anything about the quality of games. Of course a game has to be fun. It is like you are trying to make an argument about something I have never even said.

[ChadTower]

When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.

I pay very little attention to the title screen or graphic quality until well after I've decided whether or not I like the game.  I may see it, but I don't look at it, and for the most part won't even later.  A fun game is a fun game.  I don't care if it looks like an NES game or if it looks like a 1080p movie.

There is no "dating a game" in my eyes because the graphics are of little relevance.  You need to accept that some people just don't care very much how graphically advanced a game may or may not be.

[patrickl]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

[ChadTower]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

The debate has since expanded to backwards compatbility and the Wii was brought into play as a relevant example.  It is no longer limited to PS3 buyers.

[versapak]

When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.

I pay very little attention to the title screen or graphic quality until well after I've decided whether or not I like the game.  I may see it, but I don't look at it, and for the most part won't even later.  A fun game is a fun game.  I don't care if it looks like an NES game or if it looks like a 1080p movie.

There is no "dating a game" in my eyes because the graphics are of little relevance.  You need to accept that some people just don't care very much how graphically advanced a game may or may not be.

Again...


BS.


If you go play a NES game right now, you will darn well recognize that you are playing an old NES game. Again, I have said nothing about the fun of the games, but to say you don't notice the dating of the game is nothing but complete BS.

You may not care that it is an older game. I personally don't care if it is an older game. A fun game is a fun game, but that has literally nothing to do with what I was saying.

When a game boots up, the first sign of it being dated will be its graphics. Whether that has absolutely any impact on your playing of the game is a moot point. That is the first and most noticeable sign to anyone that has working eyesight.

Plain and simple.


Your argument is ridiculous. I don't see until I enjoy the game enough to see? Seriously... What the heck is that? 


I don't judge a game overall until I have played it. I have enjoyed some pretty darn ugly games. I still enjoy many games from several generations of gaming. I am pretty sure that there is the whole point of this site, but what the heck does that have to do with being able to see a game is older.

I can boot up an Xbox game on a 360, and the very first sign that it is not a 360 game is its visuals. I don't care about that, but I can certainly see it.

Same goes for a PS2 game on a PS3.


That is not really the case on the Wii. You boot up a GC game, and you don't first notice that is is an older title because of its visuals, because there is very little (if any in most cases so far) difference in the visuals between the two.

[patrickl]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

The debate has since expanded to backwards compatbility and the Wii was brought into play as a relevant example.  It is no longer limited to PS3 buyers.

It only about PS3 when the discussion is about PS3 gamers not needing backward compatibility because people don't want to play old games on their nextgen console.

[Dartful Dodger]

A problem I had with the wii sports games were that the people don't have legs or arms.

the game is fun to play, but the graphics, or lack of graphics take away from the games.

If you go to any game review site they score the games by game play graphics.  Some titles that are cross console score better because of the improved graphics.

If GTA was designed with Atari adventure style graphics, the game would be fun to play, but I wouldn't spend 60 bucks for it.

Actually I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for any game.  I'm will to pay 40 bucks for some games, but a 4 bit GTA isn't one of them.

[ahofle]

A problem I had with the wii sports games were that the people don't have legs or arms.

the game is fun to play, but the graphics, or lack of graphics take away from the games.

I'm starting to feel blessed that I don't let minor details like missing Mii body parts "take away" from any of the games I play.

[patrickl]

I wasn't to bothered about the simple cartoonlike graphics of Wii Sports either. The lack in sophistication of the games and the disappointment in the use of the Wiimote stopped me playing these games after the novelty wore off.

[ark_ader]

My friends have been seriously goating me to get a PS3.  They have sold their PCs and just play with the PS3.  I can see doing that if I wanted to have Linux on the PS3....

I looked at Sams Club, Walmart and the game shops and they have good deals on.  The biggest issue of buying one is the price.

$499 is too much to buy a console for when there is a handful of games for it.  The issue become more clouded, when the backwards compatibility has been removed on all the later units and all those games I bought for the PS2 and PS1 will need its own console sitting right next to it.

That is a bummer.  I cannot see myself buying a 2nd hand PS3 60GB for $349 for it to go tits up after 30 days and I'm out of pocket.

Bring the price down to $299 and give us backwards compatibility, and I'll buy one.  My guess that others would buy one too.

[versapak]

Bring the price down to $299 and give us backwards compatibility, and I'll buy one.  My guess that others would buy one too.

The bolded part is the only part that will make a difference on sales.


My guess at that price many others will buy one, and they may be a little bummed that there is no backward compatibility, but it will not be a major factor in the buying deceision.


Of course there are exceptions, so I don't need anyone in this thread to tell me about how important BC is to you. For starters having the current consoles isn't really much of a big deal to many of you in the first place, and secondly we are a minority in many areas of gaming on sites like these.

[shmokes]

Why do people insist on talking about graphics and gameplay as though they exist in vacuums?  You cannot, simply CAN NOT play Donkey Kong on a system that will only display text.  The gameplay of Super Mario Bros. cannot and could not take place on an Atari 2600.  You cannot hide in the shadows in Splinter Cell if your game console cannot visually depict shadows.

Graphics matter for the sake of eye candy.  They create more immersing worlds.  They affect suspension of disbelief.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that you're as pleased with the special effects in Willow as you are with Lord of the Rings -- that the Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were no more satisfying than those in Land of the Lost. 

But they're a helluva a lot more than that too.  When individual trees are rendered, you get a golf game that PLAYS better than when they're just some two dimensional ghost trees that the ball will pass straight through.  A football game with three dimensional models that have actual arms and legs that obey the laws of physics plays better than one where the players are actually just rectangles with functionless arms that are painted there for your viewing pleasure. 

Even if graphics were nothing but eye candy they would be VERY important for the same reason special effects are important in movies.  But in actuality they are SO MUCH more than that.  The argument that graphics are unimportant or even not very important simply has no legs to stand on no matter how you want to look at it.

[ChadTower]

But they're a helluva a lot more than that too.  When individual trees are rendered, you get a golf game that PLAYS better than when they're just some two dimensional ghost trees that the ball will pass straight through.  A football game with three dimensional models that have actual arms and legs that obey the laws of physics plays better than one where the players are actually just rectangles with functionless arms that are painted there for your viewing pleasure. 

You're presuming to speak for everyone again.  I don't want a gaming experience that lifelike.  If I want golfing that realistic and immersive I'll go to a golf course.  If I want a perfect football experience I'll grab my sons and go outside.  I don't want nor do I need that experience from a game console.  I actually avoid games like that - they have no appeal to me.

[knave]

Graphics can be an important part of a game that already have a good playable concept. A fun game can be made more enjoyable by a certain level of graphical sophistication. It's realism that is not necessary.  The best games have graphics that fit the playstyle and enhance the experience.  Pac man is great for what it is, Better graphics would not improve it. Some games are more fun when you can distinguish details or when the graphics enable different features such as hit locations in a shooter.

In the end if a game has fun and engaging gameplay the graphics matter less, but they still must be up to supporting the gameplay.

[Dartful Dodger]

If I want a perfect football experience I'll grab my sons and go outside.

Playing against 5 year olds is a perfect football experience for someone with football skills of a 5 year old.

Better graphics = more of a challenge = better game play

Like shmokes said.  A game with 3d is more challenging than a 2d game.  A 3d game with realistic sun glares and rain, is more challenging than one without.

Better graphics result in more options in a game.

[AtomSmasher]

Better graphics = more of a challenge = better game play

Umm...what?

If you had just said better graphics = better game play, then I could of at least understood your point of view, but better graphics = more of a challenge, just doesn't hold true.

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

[Dartful Dodger]

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

...add targets that move on the Z axis. That would be even more challenging.

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

That game could be even more challenging if there were a 1,000,000,000 boxes floating around a 3d environment and you had one chance to shoot the right one.  Add shadows and lighting effects...

[AtomSmasher]

I should of added that it doesn't even matter if better graphics does automatically mean more of a challenge (which is doesn't) because if you look at modern games you'll see that the skill level required to play them is usually a lot less than older games.  Game makers are trying to tell a story, so they want players to finish their games, back then they just wanted you to put more quarters in the slot.

[shmokes]

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- . . . I just laughed for like five minutes when I read that.

Chad . . . better graphics does not mean realism.  It means options.  World of Warcraft bears little resemblance to any world I've seen.  Psychonaughts takes place in the minds of the deranged.  And maybe you don't want a realistic football game, but NFL Blitz could not happen on an NES.  However ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that the NES could do can be done on modern consoles.  Better graphics may allow games to be utlra-realistic, but to focus on that is to miss the bigger picture.  Better graphics simply allow the developers to do more things.  Realism is simply one of a million of those things.  And, frankly, there are very few games out there that seriously strive to mimic the real world.

[ahofle]

Chad . . . better graphics does not mean realism.  It means options.  World of Warcraft bears little resemblance to any world I've seen.  Psychonaughts takes place in the minds of the deranged.  And maybe you don't want a realistic football game, but NFL Blitz could not happen on an NES.  However ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that the NES could do can be done on modern consoles.  Better graphics may allow games to be utlra-realistic, but to focus on that is to miss the bigger picture.  Better graphics simply allow the developers to do more things.  Realism is simply one of a million of those things. 

I think you are really reaching with this "better graphics = better gameplay" argument.  You are comparing an NES to a PS3, when the topic is really more of a comparison between the consoles of this generation (ie. missing Mii arms ruining the Wii Sports gameplay experience for Dartful Dodger  ).  The technologies that you mention have been around since the last generation of consoles.  You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii (I would even say you are getting fewer "options", but that's due to the archaic controller design and has nothing to do with graphics). 
As an example, consider Unreal Tournament 3 for the PC.  There is absolutely nothing in that game that wasn't a possible "option" in UT 2004, a game made 3-4 years earlier.  The graphical improvements are nothing but eye candy at this point.

[patrickl]

You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii

Yes you do. Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie). Slightly better, but still ridiculous that you can kill someone/something by hitting it in the foot.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

[ahofle]

Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie).

You sure that has anything to do with graphics?  Sounds more like the game was simply coded without separate hit zones.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

No argument there.  My only point was that things seem to be 'leveling off' in terms of GPU advancements yielding ground breaking gameplay options that were previously impossible.

[AtomSmasher]

You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii

Yes you do. Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie). Slightly better, but still ridiculous that you can kill someone/something by hitting it in the foot.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

You could also look at the video game Soldier of Fortune which came out 8 years ago and had 26 different parts of the body you could shoot and have different reactions to.  It's just a matter of what they want to put in the game, not a matter of superior technology since even the ps2 and dreamcast were capable of doing that.  (and just to be clear, I'm only talking about the multiple hitpoints, not gameplay in general)

[patrickl]

Games are a compromise of what they can do within the limited availability of GPU and CPU. If the GPU and CPU can handle "more" then the games will allow more possiblilties to built in together.

[somunny]

Could another price drop be a week away?

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24454

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28. SlickDeals.net is a website dedicated to providing consumers with the latest prices in electronics, breaking the news of both of the previous PS3 price drops and the 360 price drop a few weeks early, along with the CheapAssGamer forums.

Though it does seem early for this to occur, Sony did recently announce that the price of manufacturing of the PS3 did drop from $800 per unit at the launch to $400 currently. This is mainly due to the success of Blu Ray, especially with Warner Bros. going Blu Ray exclusive earlier this month. Now there are also rumors that Paramount found a loophole in their HD DVD exclusivity contract and will be going Blu Ray as well - leaving Universal and Dreamworks as the only remaining HD DVD studios.

Well, looks like no dice on the price drop today.  I still think that it makes sense in the very near future, especially with the rumored 120 and 160gb versions on the way.  A $299 40GB unit would be excellent competition for the 360 "Arcade" SKU.

[SithMaster]

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

...add targets that move on the Z axis. That would be even more challenging.

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

That game could be even more challenging if there were a 1,000,000,000 boxes floating around a 3d environment and you had one chance to shoot the right one.  Add shadows and lighting effects...

so you would enjoy a game like that?  cause i wouldnt and neither would anyone else except someone who works for nasa or if you want to fail.

realism doesnt always make a game better.  would you rather be entertained or forced to do ridiculous tasks in game.  realism adds to immersion and can be used for gameplay elements.  like the hiding in shadows bit.

to be honest id prefer smarter AI in my fps games then shiny things, but thats just me.

[shmokes]

Um . . . I tend to not typically agree with Dartful on many things, but I can say with 100% confidence that he did not say anything remotely close to what you are suggesting.

[SithMaster]

Then what did he say?

[shmokes]

He said that 3D makes a game more challenging than 2D, everything else being equal.  I don't know that I necessarily think that's true.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's what he said.  He did not say that he would enjoy a 3D or a 2D version of the choose-the-correct-number-between-1-and-1,000,000,000 game, nor did he say that realism always makes a game better.  In fact, the only thing he said about realism as far as I can tell was that adding realistic sun glare to a racing game makes it more challenging than without.  I think it's reasonable to assume that he thinks the more realist "with lens-glare" version is superior to the less realistic "no lens-glare", but that hardly amounts to a wholesale claim that all games should be as realistic as possible. 

And, I know that this was ahofle, and not you, but he never said that the lack of legs and arms ruined Wii Sports.  He said Wii Sports is fun, but the graphics took away from the experience.  Those are two wildly different positions.

I'm just sayin' . . .

[SithMaster]

He said that 3D makes a game more challenging than 2D, everything else being equal.  I don't know that I necessarily think that's true.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's what he said.  He did not say that he would enjoy a 3D or a 2D version of the choose-the-correct-number-between-1-and-1,000,000,000 game, nor did he say that realism always makes a game better.  In fact, the only thing he said about realism as far as I can tell was that adding realistic sun glare to a racing game makes it more challenging than without.  I think it's reasonable to assume that he thinks the more realist "with lens-glare" version is superior to the less realistic "no lens-glare", but that hardly amounts to a wholesale claim that all games should be as realistic as possible. 

And, I know that this was ahofle, and not you, but he never said that the lack of legs and arms ruined Wii Sports.  He said Wii Sports is fun, but the graphics took away from the experience.  Those are two wildly different positions.

I'm just sayin' . . .

You win.  Assuming of course that is what he meant (which is probably correct).

Id lump graphical superiority into preferences of the gamer more then into whether or not it makes the game that much better.

anyway sorry shmokes if i sounded angry in my posts.

[shmokes]

No . . . not at all.  I'm just naturally argumentative.  As a rule of thumb, don't ever take my breaking into an argument as evidence that you have done something out of line. 

[Dartful Dodger]

I use to think I spoke over shmokes head, but he understood.

Take any game you like or think is challenging improve the graphics and the game will also improve, both game play and challenge.

On the other side of the coin if a game idea stinks better graphics won’t help.(unless those graphics involve nudity)

[patrickl]

Simulation games improve by making the graphics better. Maybe not so much the game play, but visuals do help in the enjoyment of the surroundings.

[ahofle]

On the other side of the coin if a game idea stinks better graphics won’t help.(unless those graphics involve nudity)

 

[shmokes]

If you're going to argue technical aspects on a console, can you at least not inflate the numbers there? The SNES does not have three times as much main RAM, it's 64K vs 128K.

I don't know how I completely missed this way back when.  I hate when I do that.  Anyway . . .

I didn't inflate anything.  SNES has 192K RAM, not 128.  192 is exactly 3 times 64.  The Genesis has 64K of shared RAM.  SNES has 128K of system RAM and 64K of VRAM, i.e., 192K.

What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.

Can you at least check your game list before making that comment? If you're talking strictly about graphics, OK, you have that.

At this point, all I'm saying, shmokes, is that if you want to argue the merits of any console, can you at least get the facts straight?

Well . . . of course I'm talking about graphics (and other processing intensive tasks like AI and physics).  I can be ridiculous at times, but not so ridiculous to suggest that games requiring IR pointer and/or accelerometer would work with a standard Xbox controller.  For this reason I figured that my meaning was pretty clear.  I'm talking about hardware capabilities.  The fact is, all you'd need for the Xbox to be capable of doing 95% of what we've seen on Wii is release an appropriate controller for it.  It won't happen, of course, but not because it couldn't be easily done.  There's just no market for such a device on the Xbox.