Top
100°

Why Graphics Matter for the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360

Do graphics really matter? With Nintendo's incredibly popular Wii platform being the talk of the town, the topic is even hotter. While Microsoft and Sony both followed a more traditional path with their next-gen machines, faster processors, more RAM, more powerful GPUs and thus more advanced graphics – Nintendo did something different. It built its newest gaming platform from components that aren't cutting-edge and aren't the latest in graphics technology. Indeed, the Wii is more comparable to an Xbox or a GameCube than it is its current competition – at least when it comes to its graphical powers.

Read Full Story >>
advancedmn.com
The story is too old to be commented.
KeiZka3436d ago

Debate, once again. Or a flame war, if that's your niche.

My opinion? Sam & Max: Hit the road should do.

Chris3993436d ago

Graphics matter. End point.

Cheers,
-C

tplarkin73436d ago

We wouldn't be debating this, now. Only a few hardcore Nintendo fans defend the Wii's poor graphics.

Nightrider1283436d ago

We have a winner for the most worthless opinion ever.
Graphics didn't matter to me when i used to play sonic for my dads sega
when i used to play(and still do)Why you ask because it was fun, not because it tried to look real. I play games like Wii sports and scarface for wii not because of what it looks like but the content of its character. And any way if your one of those halo fan boys you just made your whole subspecies of humans look stupid.
Cracker.

dinkeldinkse3436d ago

Wow your a genius,I couldn't have said that better myself.

Chris3993436d ago

the act of involving yourself with a human interface device and a an image projecting machine.

It is by it's very nature a VISUAL medium. I think that we can all agree with that.

People might assume that by me saying:

"Video games, are by definition, a "visual" medium. Graphics matter. End point."

That I am undermining the Wii or spitting in the face of retro gaming (for the record I was weaned on the NES: Deadly Towers, Rygar, Mario the whole lot). I am not.

While the Wii's graphics are piss poor when stacked next to a PS3 or 360, they are still adequate for this generation.

There seems to be a lot of chatter about retro gaming and whatnot, but what people forget is that those were THE BEST GRAPHICS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. That time, was anywhere from 15-20 years ago. Things evolve, the dinosaurs died off and so did 8 bit gaming. You can't directly compare the current state of gaming/ media/ technology to "the way things were". They're not that way any more. And why would you want them to be?

Everything has changed; the interfaces - Wii controller, PSEye camera, that big visually-impaired looking Microsoft thingie, the technology, and yes THE GRAPHICS.

Welcome to the 21st century. Deal with it.

Cheers,
- C

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3436d ago
Bloodmask3436d ago

But overall, gameplay is the most important. A game can be photorealistic but without great gameplay it will still be subpar.

Great gameplay can stand the test of time. A good example of this is the game Tetris. Very primitive graphics but great gameplay.

Good graphics are also very subjective to the time the game is released. I still think some games are great that have been released over ten years ago. But from a graphics standpoint they are horrible.

Rooftrellen3436d ago

Do graphics matter? Yes. If a game for the 360/PS3 (take your pick, whichever you personally think has better graphics) had a game that looked like something on SNES/Genesis, but it was a great and fun experiance, would it bother me? Heck no.

I've said it before. It's not that graphics are unimportant, its that for 15 years, graphics have been good enough.

I'm also not sure why this guy says the Wii isn't graphicly powerful. I must have missed the memo that said that Mario Galaxy doesn't look exactly like the Mario world in everyone's dreams. Heaven help us if we get to the point that all games must look as realistic as possible, because some games just aren't about that.

Graphics are important, because without them, we'd be looking at a black screen while trying to shoot down hordes of aliens or drive in a race. However, its not important that graphics look great. A good game will pull me into it, no matter how it looks. When I boot up my NES, Mario and Zelda still get me into the game. I sit down to play Mega Man...don't bother me. Legend of Dragoon looks terrible by today's standards, but no game's story can pull me in like it can.

Gameplay is the most important part of the game, and photorealistic graphics aren't what pull you into that world. Tell me a good story, and let me feel like I'm a part of it (aka give me good gameplay). So long as your graphics match what we saw 15 years ago, and you do all that, you got me hooked.

Kholinar3436d ago

Exactly.

They matter, but other things always matter much more.

If a game has great graphics, lousy gameplay, bad story, etc. then the graphics do nothing for it. If a game has great gameplay, a great plot, interesting world, but not that great of graphics etc. Well, basically we're talking about every great game that's been made in past gens. The graphics world is still not on the other side of the uncanny valley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... it's still disconcerting to really look at characters in any game at this point. Sure, some are sexy, but look at old Lara Croft scans. Look at the geeks who went for Samus in her 16 bit glory.

Graphics matter to games about as much as CGI mattered to Revenge of the Sith. Absolutely the most amazing CGI at the time, but it still paled in comparison to Empire.

Also, we're just in a realism phase in gaming. Which shows how far behind videogames are as art where graphics are concerned. It'll be nice when we stop trying to approximate the real world and try something a little more abstract and stylised, not because we have to, but because we want to...

Rooftrellen3436d ago

I was going to say something about the uncanny valley, but I thought no one would know what I was talking about. Obviously, I was wrong.

However, though we are still in the uncanny vally, we are climbing out of it. If you compare video games now to the graphics in the Final Fantasy movie (if anyone actually rememebrs it), I think it landed right about at the bottom of the uncanny valley, while if you look at games now, people are looking more real, and its certainly to a point that people who are meant to look real aren't creepy.

No one pays attention to it, but it may actually be why NIntendo is having so much success right now, though. First party Nintendo games have characters that look too different from humans to fall into the valley (and that does include Link with his pointy ears and all), while the PS3 and 360 have nice graphics, and look very real, but are still crawling out of it. They're still in kinda-realistic-looking-robot stage, while Nintendo is hanging back in stuffed animal stage.

If that is true, and I believe it is, it may actually be impacting sales, but to what degree, we can't be sure.

Vizion263436d ago

If super duper graphics were important than the DS wouldn't be outselling the PSP, the Wii wouldn't be outselling the 360 and PS3 COMBINED, and the PS2 wouldn't have dominated last generation. Able to see every blade of grass in a game is, for the most part, important to hardcore gamers. The mass market doesn't care much for that.

Nintendo made a brilliant move not to focus on graphical capabilities. They know that home consoles have come to a technological point where developers' vision of a game can be realized. There were games that developers' vision couldn't be realized on the NES, so there was the SNES (games like F-Zero and Star Fox). There were games that developers' vision couldn't be realized on the SNES so there was the N64 (games like Mario 64 and Zelda:OoT). Now it's like where do you go from here? Developers' vision are not limited by the Wii's hardware. Every game that can be realized on the 360 and PS3 can be realized on the Wii, albeit scaled down.

So how exactly how did Nintendo make a brilliant move by not focusing on graphical capabilities? It's quite simple. They are able to sell the Wii for cheap and even make a profit off every console sold because it doesn't have all the super duper chips that the 360 and PS3 has. And that is why Microsoft and PS3 are losing tons of money this round. They are catering to the hardcore gaming market which only makes up a small fraction of the mass market by giving them super duper graphics. That wasn't a smart move economically.

Rageanitus3436d ago

The main reason why ds is selling better than psp is the price.

Im pretty sure if the psp was priced at 150~ the same as the ds, the psp will be selling like hotcakes.

Show all comments (25)
The story is too old to be commented.