jbanes Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I'm not even sure what that last bit is supposed to mean Anyone have a good link for Sony's "Next Generation" commericals, so sega here can get clued in? (Well, I suppose that would take a LOT more work, but the video would be a start. ) nor did I say those other things were unimportant. No, you said the world wouldn't be "anywhere near as huge or involving" if it weren't for the graphics. WTF? The graphics allow the the developers to really bring their world to life in new and interesting ways. The graphics let the developers make the game look better. Whoo. How neato. So we can now watch Lara bounce more than the original low-poly model would allow. Your own example (Oblivion) is a series that's been around since 1994. Are you saying that all the versions before the current one have sucked because they didn't have Next Generation Graphics?!? Look at bishock, gears of wars, lair, oblivion, mass effect, devil may cry 4, lost planet, the graphics really bring the games to life. Rattling off names of games without explaining how you think the graphics improve the games doesn't make your point very well. All it comes back to is, "they look pretty." I remember being wowed by the graphics in Wing Commander back in 1990. But I'll tell you what, it was NOT the graphics that carried the game. It was the gamplay, story, and incredible interactivity. If it was just graphics, then Corridor 7 would have been the greatest game of its time. Good design is a given I shouldn't even have to mention that. No, you shouldn't have to mention it. Except that you're giving to the graphics, the credit that rightfully belongs to the game design! Would these games be half as immersive on the wii? I highly doubt it. You're right. With the ability to actually aim your gun, feel the force feedback, hear your Wiimote firing, etc., the experience will be FAR more immersive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atari Master Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Don't mention Adrian M! I haven't seen him in years and he still gives me a headache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) Are you saying that all the versions before the current one have sucked because they didn't have Next Generation Graphics?!? I'm kind of getting the feeling you transform what I write to what you want. I never said anything like that, actually I'm frequently impressed with snes/genesis games or any gen really. I love seeing what a system can do when pushed to it's limits. How we jumped from the wii is underpowered to I clearly hate all old games is a bit confusing. The graphics let the developers make the game look better. Whoo. How neato. So we can now watch Lara bounce more than the original low-poly model would allow. Yeah, you got me clearly that's the only thing having better graphics would improve. Rattling off names of games without explaining how you think the graphics improve the games doesn't make your point very well. All it comes back to is, "they look pretty." More enemies, more interactive environments, and quite frankly just more possibilites. satisified? Of course it isn't as deep as waving a wand around. You're right. With the ability to actually aim your gun, feel the force feedback, hear your Wiimote firing, etc., the experience will be FAR more immersive. all those things are neat and all but the wii more is a trade off in and of itself. It will only help with a few genres others it wont really be workable at all with. You will still have to use the classical controller for a lot of games, enough to make me wish they had brought the system up to par. since I won't be able to use the cool wiimote with all genres or games. Edited September 22, 2006 by sega saturn x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Are you saying that all the versions before the current one have sucked because they didn't have Next Generation Graphics?!? I'm kind of getting the feeling you transform what I write to what you want. I never said anything like that, actually I'm frequently impressed with snes/genesis games or any gen really. I love seeing what a system can do when pushed to it's limits. How we jumped from the wii is underpowered to I clearly hate all old games is a bit confusing. Transforming nothing. It's simple logic that you surprisingly fail to follow. Oblivion hasn't been released yet. Therefore, you must make at least some of your judgements about gameplay from the previous versions. (Unless you're trying to convince us based on screencaps alone?) Now either the previous versions were capable of the huge and involving worlds without the graphics, or you're claiming that all they were missing was more graphical power. Which is it? More enemies Games already saturate the playfield with enemies. (e.g. Kingdom Under Fire comes to mind.) What makes you think that the graphics are the limiting factor? This isn't the early ages of 3D graphics. Modern 3D renderers give developers much of the same freedom that framebuffers brought 2D game developers who were frustrated by upper limits on the numbers of sprites. All that graphical improvement means is that each of those enemies will individually look better. more interactive environments More interactive, how? You're still not explaining yourself. quite frankly just more possibilites. What sort of possibilites? How do improved graphics open those possibilities? satisified? About as satisfied as an algebra teacher who asked his students to show their work. (In terms you can understand: No.) It will only help with a few genres others it wont really be workable at all with. As with Oblivion, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 Oblivion hasn't been released yet LOL http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/702/702493.html And graphics was kind of a lousy term for what I meant. I'm really just talking about the power of a system, graphics are only a piece of the puzzle. In it's day the game cube was a very strong piece of hardware no doubt. But we have evolved and by all accounts the wii is about as strong as the x box. Which means it just doesn't have the power to keep up, nintendo would have been much better off packing in more tech in my opinion. I know you'll never agree, and clearly don't know anything about the other consoles if you thought obivion hadn't come out yet. About as satisfied as an algebra teacher who asked his students to show their work. (In terms you can understand: No.) Ha, some one is on their high horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masschamber Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 But we have evolved ... so are you an individual member of the royal order of techno-philes or the collective conciousness of the royal order of techno-philes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Oblivion hasn't been released yet LOL http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/702/702493.html Shows how much I pay attention to the XBox. And graphics was kind of a lousy term for what I meant. I'm really just talking about the power of a system, graphics are only a piece of the puzzle. Now THAT we can sink out teeth into. Graphics is entirely the wrong term, but at least we're getting somewhere. Yes, both the PS3 and the XBox 360 have more raw horsepower than the Wii. Which, in theory, would make them more useful for highly realistic simulations. If you're a fan of realisitic Flight Sims or Racing Sims then one of those systems may be what you're looking for. However, games have traditionally had their own physics. Usually that physics is a simplified model of real life, tweaked to allow impossible things to happen for the purpose of "fun". These artificial physics systems are a lot less computationally intensive than a full-up simulation. So for most games, the Wii should not be underpowered computationally. There are certain areas where it will have to cede to the 360 or PS3, but that's about like the SNES had to cede certain things to the Neo-Geo. The SNES still held a larger market share and had a lot more impressive library. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 ... so are you an individual member of the royal order of techno-philes or the collective conciousness of the royal order of techno-philes This wasn't funny the first time. but that's about like the SNES had to cede certain things to the Neo-Geo. The SNES still held a larger market share and had a lot more impressive library. You can't comapre them, nintendo was the merket leader at the time and that just isn't the case anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 You can't comapre them, nintendo was the merket leader at the time and that just isn't the case anymore. No they weren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 You can't comapre them, nintendo was the merket leader at the time and that just isn't the case anymore. No they weren't. Didn't the neo geo come out in 91 (at first I thought it was 89)? If so they were still market leader sega was just gaining on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 You can't comapre them, nintendo was the merket leader at the time and that just isn't the case anymore. No they weren't. Didn't the neo geo come out in 91 (at first I thought it was 89)? If so they were still market leader sega was just gaining on them. 1990, if I'm not mistaken. However, the SNES didn't come out until the end of '91, right around the time when Sega was gaining the largest market segment. The Neo Geo was still a strong contender at the time, but no one was really interested in paying premium prices for a "superior" console. (Sounds oddly familiar.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. This isn't 1990 and the comparison doesn't work, because no matter how you look at it nintendo went from leading to losing what 40% market share that gen. It's hard for them to go anywhere but up at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. This isn't 1990 and the comparison doesn't work, because no matter how you look at it nintendo went from leading to losing what 40% market share that gen. It's hard for them to go anywhere but up at this point. That only happened in a single generation (the last one), and that's because Nintendo shot themselves in the foot. I wouldn't take that as reliable data. Remember, Atari killed an entire market once. It's incredibly easy to lose out in this business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPUWIZ Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. This isn't 1990 and the comparison doesn't work, because no matter how you look at it nintendo went from leading to losing what 40% market share that gen. It's hard for them to go anywhere but up at this point. I thought you weren't even born in 1990. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbanes Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I thought you weren't even born in 1990. Well, that would explain a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 No, I indeed was alive in 1990. And what exactly Jbanes does that explain? the fact I don't think the wii will be the second coming of jesus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atari Master Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Eh, as long as the graphics are good, I don't think there will be a problem. The X-Box and Gamecube were both more powerfull than the PS2, but the PS2 creamed both of them. It's going to come down to what appeals the most. From what I've seen, people seem to like "different." The DS is different and has games that are branching out to non-gamers. Hell, they even have recipie DS carts coming up to teach people how to cook, I believe! The "different" factor will be the Wii's biggest attraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPUWIZ Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 No, I indeed was alive in 1990. How alive? As in breathing, or still a blob, swimming in liquid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 No, I indeed was alive in 1990. How alive? As in breathing, or still a blob, swimming in liquid? Alive, not really sure how any of this matters though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inky Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. THen explain the console wars of the early 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 How about they are two different wars with two different set of variables? And aside from that I meant right now, not in general sorry if that was unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgler Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. It's funny because the opposite is almost always the case from where I sit. The 2600 was quickly overshadowed by better machines with better graphics and more tech, but it was still on top. Ditto for the NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, Playstation, PS2, Nintendo DS, and I am sure there are many more on that list I am just not thinking of right now (I'm tired) If what you are saying were totally true, we'd all be playing PSPs and Xboxes (360 or otherwise), but those systems don't have the biggest followings by a long shot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sega saturn x Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 The psp and DS aren't consoles, they are handhelds. Which is a different market alltogther and isn't really aplicable here. Plus the DS wasn't just a repackaged GBA there was a large and noticable jump. And I've already covered the other half of what you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n8littlefield Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 But the most powerful consoles on the market are also the ones with the biggest followings. This isn't 1990 and the comparison doesn't work, because no matter how you look at it nintendo went from leading to losing what 40% market share that gen. It's hard for them to go anywhere but up at this point. But...that's completely false... The 2600 was weaker than its competitors. The NES was weaker than the SMS The Genesis/SNES battle was about equal in terms of sales so that's hard to say The PS1 was weaker than the N64 The PS2 is weaker than the Xbox and the Cube The console with the best library win every time - gamers generally aren't stupid enough to buy a system based solely on system specs. You can have the most powerful system ever, sell it for $100 and if the games aren't there, it will not sell. Your post is utterly and completely incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPUWIZ Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 The PS2 is weaker than the Cube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.