Hmm do people really think that Graphics are a factor in console wars?

I mean we all see people arguing about how Wii isn't next gen and won't win because of graphics, PS3 is better then 360 because of graphics, 360 is better then PS3 because of graphics (yeah I know how can they each be better then eachother lol)

But when I look at the sales charts the PS2 and Wii are still the best selling consoles and by a wide margin. Maybe graphics just aren't that important to the average consumer. I mean the best technical system has never won a console war after all. 

Most people expect better graphics than their last gen system.

Obviously you have to look at the platform as a whole and not just at graphics to determine success (the PS2 with its game library/price/first to market and the Wii with its controller/casual accessibility/price) but when EB has Halo 3 running on one TV and Wii sports running on another it definitely doesn't hurt the 360's sales or help the Wiis.

graphics help sell games. It's the most easily recognizable thing about a game. Even if someone has never played a game (which can often times be the case) they can see if it has good graphics or not.MikeE21286

graphics help sell games.  It's the most easily recognizable thing about a game.  Even if someone has never played a game (which can often times be the case) they can see if it has good graphics or not.MikeE21286

That why the Neo Geo and the 3do all won

Most people expect better graphics than their last gen system.

 

Nike_Air

Well of course they do. But you can't deny the fact that the best selling pieces of hardware including the DS are all inferior graphically. 

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]graphics help sell games. It's the most easily recognizable thing about a game. Even if someone has never played a game (which can often times be the case) they can see if it has good graphics or not.HarlockJC

That why the Neo Geo and the 3do all won

To say graphics aren't a factor is false. I never said once in there it was the main factor.  But what I said was true. 

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

Marka1700

not in the US....Sega sold a small amount better in the US than the SNES....but the SNES did sell better over all

I mean we all see people arguing about how Wii isn't next gen and won't win because of graphics, PS3 is better then 360 because of graphics, 360 is better then PS3 because of graphics (yeah I know how can they each be better then eachother lol)

 

But when I look at the sales charts the PS2 and Wii are still the best selling consoles and by a wide margin. Maybe graphics just aren't that important to the average consumer. I mean the best technical system has never won a console war after all.

Blackbond

I do think it has some effect, but power isnt just about graphics.  Its about animations, AI, size/ammount that can be done at once, physics, ect.

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

HarlockJC

not in the US....Sega sold a small amount better in the US than the SNES....but the SNES did sell better over all

I'm pretty sure the SNES outsold the Genesis in the US too. 

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"][QUOTE="Marka1700"]

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

Teufelhuhn

not in the US....Sega sold a small amount better in the US than the SNES....but the SNES did sell better over all

I'm pretty sure the SNES outsold the Genesis in the US too.

Yeah, I second that. 

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

Marka1700

Really? Here I thought the Neo Geo was competing with the NES or maybe it was the PS1 and N64. 

Of course graphics are a factor. But they're not as large a factor as past gens.
Why? Because the inter-generational difference isn't as large. And this isn't just comparing GCN to Wii, it's Xbox to Xbox 360, it's PS2 to PS3. The differences aren't as pronounced, it's more subtle and harder to notice, meaning fewer WILL notice it. And you'll notice an even less pronounced difference if you're not playing on a HDTV.

So, yes they're a factor. But as big of a factor as things such as price, accessibility, image, software, etc... no. Not this time.

Of course graphics are a factor. But they're not as large a factor as past gens.
Why? Because the inter-generational difference isn't as large. And this isn't just comparing GCN to Wii, it's Xbox to Xbox 360, it's PS2 to PS3. The differences aren't as pronounced, it's more subtle and harder to notice, meaning fewer WILL notice it. And you'll notice an even less pronounced difference if you're not playing on a HDTV.

So, yes they're a factor. But as big of a factor as things such as price, accessibility, image, software, etc... no. Not this time.

Hoffgod

I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.   

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="HarlockJC"][QUOTE="Marka1700"]

Snes had the best graphics and it won.

TrueReligion_

not in the US....Sega sold a small amount better in the US than the SNES....but the SNES did sell better over all

I'm pretty sure the SNES outsold the Genesis in the US too.

Yeah, I second that. 

No I could scan in my text book but it would not scan well, I had to take gaming history in school...

By 1992, Sega was enjoying a strong hold on the market, holding a 55% market share in North America. Faced with a slight recession in sales and a brief loss of market share to the SNES, Sega again looked to Sonic to rejuvenate sales. The release of the highly anticipated Sonic the Hedgehog 2, coinciding with an aggressive ad campaign that took shots at Nintendo, fueled Mega Drive sales a while longer and boosted Sega's market share percentage back up, to an astounding 65%.

The SNES did overcome the Gensis in the US but untill all most the end of that gen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Mega_Drive

here something from somewheres else

Most people expect better graphics than their last gen system.

 

Nike_Air

Good point. This also includes Wii owners. Everyone expects games to look better over time.

graphics help sell games. It's the most easily recognizable thing about a game. Even if someone has never played a game (which can often times be the case) they can see if it has good graphics or not.MikeE21286

Graphics have and never will be the determining factor...

TG-16 - NES

Gen - SNES

N64 - PS1

PS2 - GC, Xbox

Of course graphics are a factor. Do you think the Wii would be selling as well if the PS3 and 360 were the same price?Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Of course graphics are a factor. Do you think the Wii would be selling as well if the PS3 and 360 were the same price?m_machine024

I'm saying if all 3 consoles were $250. 

[QUOTE="m_machine024"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Of course graphics are a factor. Do you think the Wii would be selling as well if the PS3 and 360 were the same price?Teufelhuhn

I'm saying if all 3 consoles were $250.

I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.Hoffgod

Yeah I agree with you.  The difference is not "as big" per se even though it is more noticeable probably.  Because.....well.....to use FFVII as a simple example, you're not trying to figure out if those "blocks" are actually intended to be hands, but now we know they're hands, and we're checking to see if they're individual fingers or wrinkles on the fingers.  That fact is helping the Wii out a lot as their graphics have a reasonable level where it doesn't have all the finer details like you said, but they have a semblance of detail that people are accepting.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.Hoffgod

What about realistic and dynamic lighting, motion blur, complex animations, depth of field, anti-aliasing, and dynamic shadows? 

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.Teufelhuhn

What about realistic and dynamic lighting, motion blur, complex animations, depth of field, anti-aliasing, and dynamic shadows?

I think you do have to keep in mind 2 things: First, a decent amount of that detail is lost if not on some kind of HDTV or monitor. And second, a lot of people arent very good at noticing some of those things. I can pin point and appreciate when a game is using a parallex map instead of just a normal map with a quick glance. Most people cant.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Hoffgod"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I don't see how the difference in graphics is any less pronounced this gen.XaosII

What about realistic and dynamic lighting, motion blur, complex animations, depth of field, anti-aliasing, and dynamic shadows?

I think you do have to keep in mind 2 things: First, a decent amount of that detail is lost if not on some kind of HDTV or monitor. And second, a lot of people arent very good at noticing some of those things. I can pin point and appreciate when a game is using a parallex map instead of just a normal map. Most people cant.

I guess not.  To me something like parallax mapping or motion blur jumps right out at me, and goes a long way in making current-gen games look good.  

I mean we all see people arguing about how Wii isn't next gen and won't win because of graphics, PS3 is better then 360 because of graphics, 360 is better then PS3 because of graphics (yeah I know how can they each be better then eachother lol)

 

But when I look at the sales charts the PS2 and Wii are still the best selling consoles and by a wide margin. Maybe graphics just aren't that important to the average consumer. I mean the best technical system has never won a console war after all.

Blackbond

Most people expect better graphics than their last gen system.

 

Nike_Air

And the Wii delevers.  /thread 

who cares

for ppl who care they say it's the factor

for Wii kids, they deny it

what's the point asking this question?

Yeah I agree with you.  The difference is not "as big" per se even though it is more noticeable probably.  Because.....well.....to use FFVII as a simple example, you're not trying to figure out if those "blocks" are actually intended to be hands, but now we know they're hands, and we're checking to see if they're individual fingers or wrinkles on the fingers.  That fact is helping the Wii out a lot as their graphics have a reasonable level where it doesn't have all the finer details like you said, but they have a semblance of detail that people are accepting. MikeE21286

Quite a bigger difference between 1 & 2 than 2 & 4, wouldn't you agree?

Of course it's a factor.  Look at your own topic.  It's a factor but not the only thing that will win it.

Self-owned. 

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

For another example, look at MGS. Lets look at Otacon.
The difference between 2 and 4 is noticable. In 4 he looks more realistic. The clothing, the facial textures, the hair, the glasses, they all look more realistic.
Now compare 1 and 2. The difference is one of being able to make out facial characteristics such as eyes, a nose, a mouth, instead of a pixelated blob vaguely resembling a face. The difference is between clothes and hair being very polygonal and completely static and clothes that resemble actual clothes and hair that moves as Otacon moves. It's the difference between opaque glasses and glasses you can actually see through.

Quite a bigger difference between 1 & 2 than 2 & 4, wouldn't you agree?

Hoffgod

I guess not. To me something like parallax mapping or motion blur jumps right out at me, and goes a long way in making current-gen games look good. Teufelhuhn

Agreed. One reason I think some people believe otherwise is that we've reached a point where even crappy examples of what current and/or next-gen hardware is capable of will stand up well over time. Looking at most current-gen games, developers have been able to pull out enough detail in most instances that nobody has to guess at what something is.

Slowly but surely, games are moving in a direction where things that have largely been considered semantic can be brought out. More realistic lighting and texture, larger color palettes, crowd AI, facial ticks - all those little things that sound simple and unnecessary, but can make a world of difference in terms of how immersive the experience can be.

Graphics are also becoming more important in light of the spread of HD. Some people have stated that it hasn't caught on yet, but I would have to disagree. I only paid $700 for mine - that isn't unreasonable for a lot of people, especially considering how high prices were just 2 years ago. It may not be common in every household right now, but in a year or two, when every console has hit it's stride and gotten past those first-year hiccups? I expect we'll see a much greater emphasis on 1080p, 5.1/DTS, and yes, better graphics. Bad graphics look especially poor on a good HDTV - good graphics look amazing. That matters to a lot of people.

All that babbling said, it's true that people will buy the system(s) that have the games they want to play, but graphics are a contributor to what games people want to play. If i'm looking at previews/reviews and see a game that gets great scores but looks awful, and a game that gets average scores but looks amazing, i'm probably going to spend more time looking into the one that looks more visually appealing. This is, afterall, a visual medium.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]Yeah I agree with you. The difference is not "as big" per se even though it is more noticeable probably. Because.....well.....to use FFVII as a simple example, you're not trying to figure out if those "blocks" are actually intended to be hands, but now we know they're hands, and we're checking to see if they're individual fingers or wrinkles on the fingers. That fact is helping the Wii out a lot as their graphics have a reasonable level where it doesn't have all the finer details like you said, but they have a semblance of detail that people are accepting. Hoffgod

Quite a bigger difference between 1 & 2 than 2 & 4, wouldn't you agree?

OH totally, it goes back to my thinking that videogaming graphics might be at a point of dimishing marginal return (which is basically what you just proposed yourself). I mean it's getting harder and harder to push that ceiling up, and to get the types of improvements in graphics like we got before it's gonna take a lot longer than before to make the same type of leaps (graphics wise)

Actuly alot of casuls think Graphics=gamplsy