just to be clear.... the topic is "who thinks the wii has good graphics" not "who thinks the wii has better graphics than ps3/360" so fanboys, stop comparing... and yes, i do think they're good.... HOMIE_G64

The Wii's graphics would look great so long as everyone wasn't comparing them to the PS3 and 360. A concept that too many morons are incapable of comprehending is that just because another system's graphics are better doesn't mean that the first system's graphics are bad.

That is a completely blank statement. The Atari 2600 didn't have "bad" graphics... I mean, as long as you aren't comparing it to anything... right? First of all, whether or not graphics are "good" or "bad" is wholly subjective. It is totally within logic and reason for a 360 fan to say that the Wii has "bad" graphics. It is not, however, within logic or reason for someone to call anybody a moron just because they did not agree subjectively with them. Second of all, the issue of graphics is often used in comparison. You can't determine whether or not the graphics are good or bad without comparing them to something. It makes no sense. The graphics are good. Well, what is bad? Often times, we make up a comparison in our heads. When the 360 fanboys say that the Wii has horrible graphics, they are comparing it to the 360 even though they don't say it. When we say that the Wii has "okay" graphics, we are comparing it to the 360/PS3 or even the PS2/GC/XBox, and have determined for ourselves that the difference between the Wii and the graphics that we have previously enjoyed is insignificant. It's like food critics, they can't say such food is "good" or such food is "bad" until they have eaten a lot and can compare what they have previously tasted to the food they are tasting right now. Someone who has never eaten, lets say, fries, cannot say it is good or bad, unless they compare it to the food they have previously eaten. Try it yourself. Do you think pencil sharpeners are good? Well, you can lie and say yes or no, or you can waggle your way out of it by saying "Yes, I think pencil sharpeners are good for the economy" (which then, you would be comparing pencil sharpeners to whatever object that is worst for the economy), but you cannot form an opinion without misunderstanding the question because pencil sharpeners is not being compared to anything, implied or expressly stated. Bottom line is, there is no "good" or "bad" without comparison, and even when there is it is all subjective. Don't call another person a moron just because they disagree with you. People who do that are the reason for the degradation of online forums. And yes, the Wii graphics are okay. I don't notice the difference between Crysis and any Wii game when I'm playing, so I'm happy with the Wii's capability.

Let me just point out the flaw in your argument right that (that you yourself illustrated for me, in fact).

"Compared to the Atari 2600, NES, and PSX, the Wii's graphics are AWESOME!!!!"

Anyone who can't make the distinction between something being inferior in a legitimate comparison vs something being flat-out "bad" is, like I said, dense. That's like me saying that, because ice cream taste better than a rib eye steak, the steak automatically sucks.

[QUOTE="Mr_Matthews"]

Anyone who bashes the core Mario games is deliberately being dense.

cowgriller

wow. way to flame me without mentioning my name. how about adding something constructive to the argument or even the topic instead of trolling and flaming?

Actually, that had nothing to do with you. I just read the thread title and the opening post and then made my comment.

But, if you want me to elaborate a little, I will.

The Mario series is so well-made that it's encroaching on "fact" territory rather than "opinion." Lately it's become excruciatingly trendy to just go "pssh . . . Mario sucks," which is IMO so ridiculous and unfounded that only the most pigheaded Sony/MS fanboys can actually claim to believe that.

Edit: now that I've gone back and read a few of your posts, I can see why you thought I was talking about you (and to be honest you are exactly the kind of person I was referring to).

Just because a game has sequels doesn't mean it has bad sequels. Just about every single Mario game (and again, I'm talking about the core series here) has become one of the best of it's generation: Super Mario 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, Mario Galaxy.

I honestly cannot see what was such a big deal about this game but what really caught me was the story.

The combat felt unbalanced, gets repetitive, and boring while you progress through the game. One thing I hated was once you got a new weapeon I felt like it made your past weapon useless. Like the pistol, It barley does any damage and has such a low ammo capacity that its such a waste. And really out of all the stockpile of weapeons I used the most it was the wrench. Really the wrench does insane amounts of damage to regular enemys and since the game is so linear it just makes the game kinda easy. SO I saved up all those weapons and ammo for boss fights and big daddys who become push overs when you get to the middle of the game.

I hated the short frequent hacking sessions you had to do. They really broke the pace of the game and REALLY became repetitve to do. I actually skiped alot of them near the end because I was just so fed up with them.

One thing that really seems overpraised is the story. I must be like the only person on earth who found NOTHING special about this story. It was "decent" but really had nothing going for it. the Twist near the end was just insanely predictable. When the game showed me the twist all I could do was just roll my eyes. learning that the twist was just so weak because how insanely predictable it is and not to mention not surprising in the slightest.

Their were no RPG elements at all or none at least that I can think of. i think the game was great but I just think that it gets way to much priase for so little it did.

JangoWuzHere

I agree with many of these points, but for me at least, they never detracted from my overall enjoyment of the game. I've yet to find a game that matches the quality of Bioshock's setting, art direction, and atmosphere (maybe the Resident Evil Remake), and that's what I love about it most.

The RPG elements come in as you slowlybuild upyour character with plasmids, tonics, and weapon upgrades. The weapons you complained about are pretty secondary to the plasmids themselves, and the fact that you can't actually equip all of the plasmids (and must therefore pick and choose for yourself) adds a ton of customization to the game. On the surface, the combat seems pretty cut-and-dry, but when you consider all the options the game gives you for offense/defense, it is actually pretty deep.

As for the game being linear, I partially disagree. It's true that the game itself deliberately funnels you through the story on a specific route, but part of the fun of the game is exploring. You'll miss a TON of stuff if you just follow the arrow from beginning to end.

Anyway, I don't think Bioshock is "teh bEsT gAeM EVAR!!!!!" but I thought it was quite good, and definitely deserving of the praise it received.

I've been getting a lot of my retro games from here:

www.collectorscardsandgames.com

The prices are actually quite reasonable.

The Wii's graphics would look great so long as everyone wasn't comparing them to the PS3 and 360.

A concept that too many morons are incapable of comprehending is that just because another system's graphics are better doesn't mean that the first system's graphics are bad.

Only during games that constantly require me to switch back and forth between the D-pad and stylus, like Dawn of Sorrow and Chinatown Wars

dang i also had no idea there was a starfox game... guess ive been out of the ds loop for too long

ThronedFlame21

Just know that it isn't nearly as good as StarFox 64. ;)

only one thing wrong with this

we cant have donkey kong 64 cause Rare made it and now there with microsoft

nintendo still owns donkey kong but they dont own that game

its_a_username

Do you honestly think Nintendo would let an outside party deveop one of their franchises if it meant giving up the rights to the game?

By your logic we shouldn't have ports of Donkey Kong Country on the GBC, GBA, or VC.

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]There was an n64 game that was brought to the DS called Super Mario 64 DS.ThronedFlame21

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding what you mean, but I have a few more suggestions:

Animal Crossing: Wild World
Chibi Robo: Park Patrol
Brothers in Arms DS
Moon
Metroid Prime Hunters
Glory Days 2
StarFox Command
Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble