Most important, no - but to say a videogame console is "not about graphics" really leaves me wondering just what the fuck said console is for.
Now I'm going to attempt a dive into Analogy Pond here, which is probably my funeral because all of you people will just want to pick this pointless bullshit apart instead of hear what I'm saying:
If Chevy released a new Indy Stock Car today that only went to 4th Gear under the pretense of "Our Racing Car isn't about getting the highest top speed", nobody would accept it. If Apple rerelased the IIGs today under the pretense of "Apple's focus isn't on computing power", nobody would accept it.
A company "shouldn't" make a product that's outright inferior to the competition and justify it by attempting to redefine what market their product is in, or how their product is used. I would use "can't" instead of "shouldn't" there, but Nintendo is proving that as long as you have the fanbase to support it, you actually can.
Cyrax Wins
False, go to any target or walmart and watch people gawk at the ps3. Same thing when the 360 came out I heard nothing about how amazing the graphics were, even when they weren't. For better or worse people care, a lot.Gameplay means more to the average consumer than visuals
People stacking a potential purchase against the competition affects who'll be the market leader. You're indirectly addressing that point. They do care, and graphics are only a part of what fuels their decision. I understand that you're saying that it shouldn't be discarded, but it doesn't necessarily make or break a console in the eyes of the masses. That's all I'm saying.Originally Posted by dog$
Good thing I never said anything about pissing your money away.I'm not a big fan of just blindly pissing my money away.
Generally, no they don't. Just look at the leading consoles since the early '80s. Having the most powerful hardware with the best visuals means shit when it comes to being successful.
metal = rude
dog$ is just arguing semantics based on the 'video' in videogames. Please stop dragging out this inane conversation.
i drink it up!
He ignored my post altogether. Usually it's a good rule of thumb strategy but I actually posted seriously this time.
My posting isn't about inanity.
What part of your post needed to be addressed?
What's the PS3's flagship title? The PS3.
The Wii's focal point is its controller? No shit - it doesn't have the horsepower so what else could it be.
Future Wii titles might not be pure gimmickry? No shit - that doesn't make the video portion of videogames less important.
Last edited by dog$; 20 Nov 2006 at 09:16 PM.
"Nintendo has instead STRESSED the important of interface and accessibility over graphical prowess"
So why does Zelda's interface suck balls? It takes up the right 4th of the entire screen (and looks stupid doing it).
And this whole "Nintendo not caring about graphics" is bull. First of all, why does the game look better than Ocarina of Time then? Because people would laugh at it. Why doesn't it look as good as it can? Because they're lazy. Secondly, it's funny how some you have this mindset "this game looks great, it must play assy" or "EH, crap graphics, MUST BE ALL ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY". Have you thought for once that Nintendo just doesn't give a shit? I mean most of their GBA stuff was fricking SNES PORTS! I mean, they must have really cared about bringing the goods! Let's release the FAMICOM COLLETCION FOR TWENTY DOLLARS A POP! There are countless games on the PS2 that look better than Zelda.
Last edited by Joust Williams; 20 Nov 2006 at 09:18 PM.
Cute and spicy.
lol. chill out. they're games. have fun.
i drink it up!
Even if it had fancy graphics it'd still be the controller, because nobody else has it. Your other answers weren't even answers. You've invented and mastered some kind of tricky non-answer skill. A skill I give you full credit for, however.
My posting isn't about having fun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks