Why is anyone comparing the Wii to the 360/PS3?

Is anyone else confused by people comparing/contrasting the Wii to the 360/PS3? The Wii is not directly competing with the PS3/360. Heck even Nintendo said that they are not next gen, they are new gen and that they are going in a different direction than PS3/360. They have admitted to not be directly competing with the PS3/360.

So why is anyone comparing them at all? I am so tired of people comparing the Wii's graphics to the PS3/360, and saying how the Wii sucks. When it is not targeted or going after the same market. It is innovative, not HD, not a multimedia device, not a conventional video game system in regards to how games are played, and not priced close to the PS3/360.

To compare the Wii to the PS3/360, makes no sense at all. Why complain and say the graphics suck, when it is going after a different market and is a completely different system. The PS3/360 is like the mustang/camero and the Wii is like the Prius. All three are cars--but the prius is going after a different market--and therefore would be unfair to compare. The mustang/camero is going after the muscle market--where the prius is innovative and going after the market of people that wants good gas milage and concerned about the enviornment.

Now this also ties into sales. Why are Wii sales even brought up and compared to the PS3/360? I am tired of hearing about these sad arguments as well. Again it is going after aDIFFERENT market and is far cheaper than the PS3/360. Wow, what a shocker, the cheaper system is selling more! No kidding! Civics sell more than mustangs, mustangs sell more than BMWs, BMWs sell more than Porsche, Porsche sells more than Ferrari, etc.

It would be highly unfair to compare the Civics sales to the Ferraris sales. They are completely different cars going after completly different markets. The Civic is priced cheap and is a fuel friendly car. The Ferrari is uber expensive and is a car enthusiasts dream. Last time I checked--I have yet to stroll through a ferrari forum and hear from a Civic owner how it crushed Ferrari in sales and therefore Ferraris suck. It is beyond archaic to compare the two--just like the Wii with the PS3/360.

It is obvious that the Wii should not be compared in terms of graphic bashing threads or Sales posting threads. It is a DIFFERENT system going after a DIFFERENT market--and therefore should not be compared. I understand that this is the first time in gaming history where a console maker has gone into a different direction--and most are used to the SNES/Genisis, PS/64/Saturn, PS2/Dreamcast/xbox/gamecube days of comparing consoles, but things have changed.

So I ask us to use a little common sense (and I know this is a rareity in systems wars), but all I am asking for is a little common sense and stop with these graphics bashing or sales promoting threads. What do you guys think?

Too bad fanboys wont read thisHaziqonfire

Hopefully some do and actually stop these retarded Wii PS3/360 comparisons. I like debating things in system wars, but this topic is not even remotely debateable. People just need to stop with the lame comparisons.

I do believe the title of this topic is grammatically incorrect. Just a pet hate.. But I agree with some of your points as to why it is stupid to compare the Wii's specifications to the 360/Ps3 ectetc

I do believe the title of this topic is grammatically incorrect. Just a pet hate.. But I agree with some of your points as to why it is stupid to compare the Wii's specifications to the 360/Ps3 ectetc

Driftwood111

It is also stupid to compare sales figures--as explained in my post.

probably because its the system that is the successor to the gamecube. and the fact that it caters to not just the non gamer market, but the hardcore so when you compare wii games like metriod prime 3, mario galaxy and ssbb to 360 and ps3 games, they can compete and end up being better than them. next gen isn't just about power, just because the wii is weaker it doesn't mean it cant compete. And the wii hasn't taken in a large ammount of non gamers yet. most wii buyers are already gamers and gamers is the market that the 360 and PS3 is trying to take. so they are competing.Silenthps

Did you read the whole post? I think the Wii will be a success, but they should not be compared to the PS3/360 as it is not directly competing with them.

And I agree that you can compare games--as saying which ones turn out good and which ones suck, but from hardware standpoint--they really have nothing in common and should not be compared.

Too bad fanboys wont read thisHaziqonfire

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

Its a gaming console, in the same generation as the 360 and PS3.

Having relic hardware and a new controller doesn't exclude the Wii from anything.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]probably because its the system that is the successor to the gamecube. and the fact that it caters to not just the non gamer market, but the hardcore so when you compare wii games like metriod prime 3, mario galaxy and ssbb to 360 and ps3 games, they can compete and end up being better than them. next gen isn't just about power, just because the wii is weaker it doesn't mean it cant compete. And the wii hasn't taken in a large ammount of non gamers yet. most wii buyers are already gamers and gamers is the market that the 360 and PS3 is trying to take. so they are competing.HuhJustaBox

Did you read the whole post? I think the Wii will be a success, but they should not be compared to the PS3/360 as it is not directly competing with them.

And I agree that you can compare games--as saying which ones turn out good and which ones suck, but from hardware standpoint--they really have nothing in common and should not be compared.

Its a gaming console, in the same generation as the 360 and PS3.

Having relic hardware and a new controller doesn't exclude the Wii from anything.

KirbyFan10101

I am not asking to exclude it.I am asking to end the stupid comparisons of graphic bashing and bragging about sales.

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

XaosII

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

HuhJustaBox

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

Very well. Its third party support is abysmal and despite a few rehashes and, right now, has very little to offer the gaming enthusiast.

Nothing to do with graphics, see? Not that graphics are the only thing that change with better hardware.

Why do all these media sources continue to do so? Riddle me this, riddle me that.LINKloco

I would like to know. Why do they? The systems are so different and yet the media compares them as well. It is unfair to compare the Wii to the others and say look how crappy the graphics are--because the system is not going after HD eye popping graphics. The same can be said with sales--why would you ever brag and compare the sales of something that have almost nothing in common.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

KirbyFan10101

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

Very well. Its third party support is abysmal and despite a few rehashes and, right now, has very little to offer the gaming enthusiast.

Nothing to do with graphics, see? Not that graphics are the only thing that change with better hardware.

I don't see a problem comparing libraries like you just did. And I agree that right now the Wii has the worst library--for my tastes it does.

And graphics are not the only thing, just like you put. My point is that the hardware should not be compared--as they are so different and even the companies have commented that they are not directly competing. I am just tired of graphic bashing threads and the threads that brag on how well the Wii is selling.

[QUOTE="KirbyFan10101"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

HuhJustaBox

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

Very well. Its third party support is abysmal and despite a few rehashes and, right now, has very little to offer the gaming enthusiast.

Nothing to do with graphics, see? Not that graphics are the only thing that change with better hardware.

I don't see a problem comparing libraries like you just did. And I agree that right now the Wii has the worst library--for my tastes it does.

And graphics are not the only thing, just like you put. My point is that the hardware should not be compared--as they are so different and even the companies have commented that they are not directly competing. I am just tired of graphic bashing threads and the threads that brag on how well the Wii is selling.

There is much more to a game than looking pretty. Unfortunately both Sony and Microsoft are bring forward games with better gameplay as well. The Wii claims to have a more 'back to basics' focused strategy, but i'm not seeing any benefits in doing the same old things in a new way. None of their 2007/2008 as of yet has "wowed" me.

Microsoft "wowed" me with its 2007 lineup and Sony's 2008 lineup is mind boggling. Either of those consoles is the better choice on every level that counts for a gaming enthusiast.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="KirbyFan10101"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

KirbyFan10101

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

Very well. Its third party support is abysmal and despite a few rehashes and, right now, has very little to offer the gaming enthusiast.

Nothing to do with graphics, see? Not that graphics are the only thing that change with better hardware.

I don't see a problem comparing libraries like you just did. And I agree that right now the Wii has the worst library--for my tastes it does.

And graphics are not the only thing, just like you put. My point is that the hardware should not be compared--as they are so different and even the companies have commented that they are not directly competing. I am just tired of graphic bashing threads and the threads that brag on how well the Wii is selling.

There is much more to a game than looking pretty. Unfortunately both Sony and Microsoft are bring forward games with better gameplay as well. The Wii claims to have a more 'back to basics' focused strategy, but i'm not seeing any benefits in doing the same old things in a new way. None of their 2007/2008 as of yet has "wowed" me.

Microsoft "wowed" me with its 2007 lineup and Sony's 2008 lineup is mind boggling. Either of those consoles is the better choice on every level that counts for a gaming enthusiast.

I agree with you 100%. From a game enthusiasts standpoint--I would much rather have a PS3/360 over a Wii. That is why I have a PS3.

However, I disagree on the gameplay part. The motion sensing has altered the gameplay. Now whether it has helped or hindered depends on who you talk to and peoples' overall tastes. But it has changed the gameplay nonetheless.

I honestly find it reasonable to compare the graphics. Afterall, the Wii is cheaper because its graphics capability is no where near its competitors.

The Wii is also competing for the same gamer segment, and you can take me for example. I prefer the Zelda series over any games created thus far (i.e., different people have different preferences, and the RPG or RPG-like genre appeals to a large player segment).

*Note: I do not own a Wii, however, I am debating between getting a Wii or PS3 because while the Wii has Zelda, the PS3 has more games that are enjoyable. The Wii just has many crappy third-party games unfortunately. (Please be aware that I find the PC to have better FPS games, so I am not considerating any FPS games on the consoles)

i totally agree with you! when are people gonna see that nintendo has gone another way! even the hardcore nintendo fans have to realise nintendo has given up on you and went to the casual people who like gameing but are not adicted to it!

i love the wii and i love the things that they are doing! and if you dont like it buy a 360 or a ps3 but dont whine that the wii has no harcore games! your right and you have to accept that!

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="KirbyFan10101"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Because it plays games.

What does the hardware have to do with its library of software? Most people here tend to compare the software, not the hardware. The Wii isnt running some kind of magical code thats not running on the other systems.

KirbyFan10101

Again, you can compare the greatness or suckiness of the gaming library. But the comparisons for the sake of graphic bashing and bragging about sales is archaic and should stop.

You should not complain about the Wiis graphics--as it is going in a different direction--and the same can be said with bragging about sales.

Very well. Its third party support is abysmal and despite a few rehashes and, right now, has very little to offer the gaming enthusiast.

Nothing to do with graphics, see? Not that graphics are the only thing that change with better hardware.

I don't see a problem comparing libraries like you just did. And I agree that right now the Wii has the worst library--for my tastes it does.

And graphics are not the only thing, just like you put. My point is that the hardware should not be compared--as they are so different and even the companies have commented that they are not directly competing. I am just tired of graphic bashing threads and the threads that brag on how well the Wii is selling.

There is much more to a game than looking pretty. Unfortunately both Sony and Microsoft are bring forward games with better gameplay as well. The Wii claims to have a more 'back to basics' focused strategy, but i'm not seeing any benefits in doing the same old things in a new way. None of their 2007/2008 as of yet has "wowed" me.

Microsoft "wowed" me with its 2007 lineup and Sony's 2008 lineup is mind boggling. Either of those consoles is the better choice on every level that counts for a gaming enthusiast.

As for back to the basics gameplay... When i first heard about wii tennis, i hated the idea of not being able to move your character around. But after i started playing it, i realized the game was alot more advanced than it looks. Not being able to control your character actually made it so you can focus more on the timing of your swing. It has also made it more fun to be able to control 2 players at once and those close to the net battles are extremely fun and a huge test of your reflexes. Basically what im trying to say is, going back to the basics can benifit by trading off one thing to help you focus on things you never would have thought of before.

OMG I am tired of car similies. first off they are wrong similies. consoles aren't comparable to cars. and even then what does the connotation of mustang or ferrari mean in the context on gaming consoles. does it just imply price or power? for that matter attempting the same kinda of simile to last gen confounds the need to place that similie in the first place. we have a GC which is not only cheaper but also more powerful yet sold less but in the car world. the game cube would be an equivilent of mustang in a civic price range. if we follow your simile the GC should have won by a land slide. and people wouldn't be hounding at the xbox being the ferrari of its time. If the simile doesn't work in past console generation how the heck does it suddenly become relavant to this generation.

Wii is part of this generation. it is and always will be. It will stay in competition with xbox360 and ps3 for year to come. The only thing that has changed is that it 's circle in the vendiagram decided to get bigger into the space of the non gamers. Nintendo is still incontention with the "hardcore" and "casual"crowd. This is evidenced by the release of their star franchises that were the same that dominated the GC of previous gen. and the sheer fact that their are people in this gaming site, which caters to the "hardcore" are talking about it as a console they are currently or want to play shows that it is indeed fighting for market share in the same area as xbox360 and PS3.

all comparision should be taken in consideration to console as a whole. sure wii graphics suck but do the games or control make it worth the price? these would be better. sales tend to tell how popular a console or game is. The fact that the wii and its software is so high proves that more people believe it has more value (aka in economics oppurtunity cost ) than the ps3 or xbox 360.

finally please don't use ferrari ever in car similes. It is a car of exclusivity. there were only 399 ferrari enzo made. they make money by not working as much and having higher prices becaue of the rarity of their cars. The PS3 or any console being alluded to being a ferrari is stupid. you can't make a sucessful console by placing it extremely expensive and extremely limited in number. It isn't how consoles work. They need a large audience so that developers will produce for them. so it need to be avaliable and afordable

[QUOTE="Driftwood111"]

I do believe the title of this topic is grammatically incorrect. Just a pet hate.. But I agree with some of your points as to why it is stupid to compare the Wii's specifications to the 360/Ps3 ectetc

HuhJustaBox

It is also stupid to compare sales figures--as explained in my post.

I disagree. They are in the same market, and competing for the same consumers.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"][QUOTE="Driftwood111"]

I do believe the title of this topic is grammatically incorrect. Just a pet hate.. But I agree with some of your points as to why it is stupid to compare the Wii's specifications to the 360/Ps3 ectetc

Tylendal

It is also stupid to compare sales figures--as explained in my post.

I disagree. They are in the same market, and competing for the same consumers.

According to the companies themselves--they are not. Nintendo said that they are new gen and that they are not direcetly competing with the HD multimedia devices that the 360/PS3 are giving to the public.

I could also argue that the NFL, Fishing tackle, movies, etc are all competing for the same consumers. They are all competing for your entertainment. I think it would be nuts to claim ownage that the NFL is far outselling video games.

OMG I am tired of car similies. first off they are wrong similies. consoles aren't comparable to cars. and even then what does the connotation of mustang or ferrari mean in the context on gaming consoles. does it just imply price or power? for that matter attempting the same kinda of simile to last gen confounds the need to place that similie in the first place. we have a GC which is not only cheaper but also more powerful yet sold less but in the car world. the game cube would be an equivilent of mustang in a civic price range. if we follow your simile the GC should have won by a land slide. and people wouldn't be hounding at the xbox being the ferrari of its time. If the simile doesn't work in past console generation how the heck does it suddenly become relavant to this generation.

Wii is part of this generation. it is and always will be. It will stay in competition with xbox360 and ps3 for year to come. The only thing that has changed is that it 's circle in the vendiagram decided to get bigger into the space of the non gamers. Nintendo is still incontention with the "hardcore" and "casual"crowd. This is evidenced by the release of their star franchises that were the same that dominated the GC of previous gen. and the sheer fact that their are people in this gaming site, which caters to the "hardcore" are talking about it as a console they are currently or want to play shows that it is indeed fighting for market share in the same area as xbox360 and PS3.

all comparision should be taken in consideration to console as a whole. sure wii graphics suck but do the games or control make it worth the price? these would be better. sales tend to tell how popular a console or game is. The fact that the wii and its software is so high proves that more people believe it has more value (aka in economics oppurtunity cost ) than the ps3 or xbox 360.

finally please don't use ferrari ever in car similes. It is a car of exclusivity. there were only 399 ferrari enzo made. they make money by not working as much and having higher prices becaue of the rarity of their cars. The PS3 or any console being alluded to being a ferrari is stupid. you can't make a sucessful console by placing it extremely expensive and extremely limited in number. It isn't how consoles work. They need a large audience so that developers will produce for them. so it need to be avaliable and afordable

ballistic3188

I can agree with your car argument--it may not be the best analogy, but I felt that it gets the job done. The fact is, any analogy can be dissected and shown to have holes--just like you have done with the cars.

I still stand by my graphics and sales argument. It is stupid to compare the graphics of the Wii to the PS3/360. The fact is, Nintendo is not going in the same direction as the other consoles. I think the problem here is that everyone is used to comparing video game consoles in the context that they are nearly one in the same. It turns out in reality that this gen has changed that. I would go as far to say that comparing the graphics like everyone is doing is no different than comparing cell phone game graphics. Sure they suck when compared to the PS3/360--but they are not designed to compete in that market.

I would further argue that they are not going after the same market share, as N confirmed this when they released the Wii. Personally, I think they are slowly peeling back from the hardcore. I realize that many hardcores still frequent these hardcore sites to talk about the Wii. However, I think that most will be gone in about a year or a year and a half. There are not that many hardcore games coming for the Wii. It still has a few-but the vast majority are of a very casual or non-gamer nature.

Again, the sales are going to be higher as it is so freaking cheap. That was another point to my car analogy. Sure it did not work perfectly for last gen--as in video games you have software that drives hardware--this differs to cars and is why the gamecube did not sell well.

Combine the uber cheap price point of the Wii with the "newness" and innovative design--people will bite and buy on more of an impulse because it is so cheap and something that looks really cool (whether it turns out to be or not still remains to be seen). The fact is--most gamers want a 360 or a PS3 (heck look at PS3 sales since the price drop). The reason why most won't jump on board right away is that they are very very expensive to the average Joe. The average Joe is not going to spend $400-500 on a video game system. The Wii is a cheap alternative, and many people have tried it out, because they want something NOW but can't afford the more pricey systems. I still find it stupid to compare the Wii sales. It is still very much like comparing the Civic sales to the BMW sales, or the sdtv sales to HDTV sales, or fillet mignot to ground meat. Usually, in almost every case--something that is far cheaper than the rest sells the most.

The Wii has inferior graphics and games.And wiimote is blown up way to much.And yes you can compare the 3.Because they are all videogame consoles.Also graphics do matter if they didnt we would all be playing sega genesis and snes right now and thread wouldnt be oh my god look at this game.jasospai

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

It is also stupid to compare sales figures--as explained in my post.

HuhJustaBox

I disagree. They are in the same market, and competing for the sae consumers.

According to the companies themselves--they are not. Nintendo said that they are new gen and that they are not direcetly competing with the HD multimedia devices that the 360/PS3 are giving to the public.

I could also argue that the NFL, Fishing tackle, movies, etc are all competing for the same consumers. They are all competing for your entertainment. I think it would be nuts to claim ownage that the NFL is far outselling video games.

E3 housed all three. Game stores house all three. They are products whose venue is shared, and while they may in part appeal to different consumers, there areother consumers who walk into the store and have to make a choice where to invest their gaming dollar.

Nintendo may have SAID that they aren't competing with the HD devices, but they are vying for the money of those rail rider consumers AND lest we forget, for third party developer resources to be invested on their product. Like it or not, the consoles DO effect one another financially.

I agree that the Wii shouldn't be held to the same technical standards as the others, but it isn't meant for an entire different market. The 360/PS3 offer the trend you'd expect from gaming; better graphics, new technology, features, etc. Instead, the Wii offers something unique & fun.

The car analogy doesn't really fit. If you own just one console this gen you'd be depriving yourself of certain aspects, whereas you really only need one car to drive. It isn't always a simple singular preference in this case. This being said, I think it is fair to compare how well they compete with each other. Although the means they use to get there vary quite markedly (and therefore shouldn't be directly compared), they're all striving to acheive the same result; sales.