People have said since the beginning of time Sony is better than Nintendo because they've always had better graphics.
Here's my rant and truths:
1. The Nintendo 64 had far better graphics than the PSOne, simply because it was 64 bits.
2. The PS2 and GameCube were on par with graphics; the GameCube had good water and particle effects and great draw distance, but it had bad textures and art. The PS2 had bad animation, average particle effects, and great textures.
3. The PS3 crushes the Wii with graphics and nothing else. That's all you hear people say; "The PS3 is better because it's HD and nah nah nah and blah blah blah". I think HD looks terrible. Here's how Snake feels in HD:
"Hey look, I'm last generation!
Oh, no I have details! So exciting.
Why's everything tanned?
And now it's dark. It's sunny out, yet I can't even see my shadow. Nice design.
And now everyone's bright... Too bright. Really bright! PLEASE STOP THE BRIGHTNESS! (explosion)."
...Get the idea?
4. The only way the PS3 can show off it's graphics is with first-person shooters. You take one game and hack it to include slightly different characters.
*rant ended*
Here's what I think:
If it has colour, it's pro. If it doesn't, I hate it.
Seriously, I think graphics is a pathetic way to claim your gaming system is "better". If you want graphics, go outside and view the thing called "real life" - I hear it has excellent graphics!
However if you want to play video games, then do so and STFU about graphics.
There's my rant :3
Quote from: Nintendoguy1 on January 09, 2011, 03:53:33 AM
Here's what I think:
If it has colour, it's pro. If it doesn't, I hate it.
Seriously, I think graphics is a pathetic way to claim your gaming system is "better". If you want graphics, go outside and view the thing called "real life" - I hear it has excellent graphics!
However if you want to play video games, then do so and STFU about graphics.
There's my rant :3
Exactly.
Each console has their own strengths and weaknesses. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of eye candy, I prefer actual content (good storyline, good gameplay, and good characters).
I have more of a problem with people who think that realistic graphics are better than anything else.
It's kind of like saying that only "realistic" paintings are good, and anything else is terrible. Because it's not! While some people might actually prefer realism over more stylistic things, ok, that's your preference. But artistically it's not "better". And a lot of people fling that around when examining the graphics of a game. "IT'S NOT REALISTIC SO IT'S CRAPPY!"
It gets under my skin, to say the least.
Think of it this way: if a console has 'limited' graphics, if a game still manages to look great by working around that, that's awesome. It's like when artists use a limited color palette, or use a limited medium (I can't think of anything off the top of my head). Like how the DS has kind of crappy 3D graphics, but say... Professor Layton was like "who cares about 3D, WOO ANIMATED CEL-SHADING." Or Wind Waker and the Gamecube.
But nope, all people pay attention to is getting things to look "realistic". Granted not everyone's an artsy person (cough), but... gjkdffdk.
Art in a game is something that I can step back and appreciate, and it is one of the reasons why I love certain games. Although, I won't turn my nose up if a game's main weak spot is its graphics. That would be stupid, unless it really crippled gameplay or something.
Personally, i think graphics shouldn't be the whole thing, but it shouldn't be completely ignored.
Game-wise, it's like this:
I've played games that focus mostly on looks, and ended up getting bored of it after a while. However, If a game doesn't take looks into consideration, then it may not even take an interest with me.
As for "realism", how it affects my opinion on graphics is pretty much how it effects my opinion on all-things gaming related: I play games to escape reality. Sure a little reality is needed for the sense of immersion; but being completely realistic will be uninteresting for me.
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 09, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
1. The Nintendo 64 had far better graphics than the PSOne, simply because it was 64 bits.
Technically, until HD graphics came into play, being over 32 bit didn't actually mean anything, so the 64 in Nintendo 64 was just for advertising. :P
And the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2 and what are you talking about with the textures? From the GameCube games I played, the textures were a buttload better than the PS2.
Quote from: Aiko-chan on January 09, 2011, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 09, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
1. The Nintendo 64 had far better graphics than the PSOne, simply because it was 64 bits.
Technically, until HD graphics came into play, being over 32 bit didn't actually mean anything, so the 64 in Nintendo 64 was just for advertising. :P
And the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2 and what are you talking about with the textures? From the GameCube games I played, the textures were a buttload better than the PS2.
Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker have terrible textures, though I couldn't care less.
And as for very bad graphics, I'd consider Zelda's Adventure and Superman 64 are ruined by them.
EDIT: I've heard people say the Wii had worse graphics than the Atari 2600. Ya, I'm serious.
Hold on.
I have to laugh.
Wii had decent enough graphics. Not "WOW! that's amazing", but enough to impress me when i first saw Brawl.
With me, I don't give a shit about how detailed something is, just as long as it looks like what it's supposed to.
(And remember - the best looking game I've played is GoldenEye 007)
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 09, 2011, 03:39:26 AM1. The Nintendo 64 had far better graphics than the PSOne, simply because it was 64 bits.
Wait, what does the word size of the N64's CPU have (directly) to do with graphics?
Firstly, I think it's fairly obvious that beyond some boundary we've long passed, the
technical capabilities of the system with regard to graphics need have little to no effect on the aesthetics of the game. Aesthetics
can be important for a game, but don't have to be - I think it's easier to get into a game if it's particularly nice to look at (in motion too).
Something to consider, though, is different types of games. For 3D games that aim to evoke a particular mood, for example, I think realistic lighting is important; this isn't a situation in which you could just go for a different appearance to that of the real world. I won't say that these capabilities are necessary, but they make it all the easier for the final product to be more immersive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QcwcXZTFGE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QcwcXZTFGE)
Example at how graphics don't matter.
If you look closely, you'll see the Wii version runs much smoother.
^What do you mean, 'smoother'? The framerate? (I don't see any dropped frames in either, and it's a 30FPS video anyway, making it hard to tell.) Or the controls? (It looks like they've done a terrible job there on the Wii - look at how slowly the screen rotates, and how near the edge you have to point to get it to start rotating. I hope there's an option to make it better, like in Metroid Prime 3.) Or the textures? (Is that a good thing? Could you hope to tell in a 312*360 video anyway?)
Quote from: Greenpickle on January 09, 2011, 11:09:17 PM
^What do you mean, 'smoother'? The framerate? (I don't see any dropped frames in either, and it's a 30FPS video anyway, making it hard to tell.) Or the controls? (It looks like they've done a terrible job there on the Wii - look at how slowly the screen rotates, and how near the edge you have to point to get it to start rotating. I hope there's an option to make it better, like in Metroid Prime 3.) Or the textures? (Is that a good thing? Could you hope to tell in a 312*360 video anyway?)
The framerate. And it's much lighter and easier to see.
That's something that bugs me, how come every one of these "realistic" games on the PS3 and 360 is just varying shades of brown. >.<
Personally, I think PS3 games look ugly.
Quote from: Super Wario Bros on January 10, 2011, 04:06:46 AM
Personally, I think PS3 games look ugly.
THANK YOU!!! *hugs and kisses*
Quote from: Aiko-chan on January 10, 2011, 03:23:32 AM
That's something that bugs me, how come every one of these "realistic" games on the PS3 and 360 is just varying shades of brown. >.<
Exactly!!!
Realism is not what all true warriors strive for!
Because when I go outside, I love looking at the brown sky, and the brown grass, and the brown cars, and the brown trees, and the brown plants, and the brown white cat.
Quote from: Aiko-chan on January 10, 2011, 05:32:01 AM
Because when I go outside, I love looking at the brown sky, and the brown grass, and the brown cars, and the brown trees, and the brown plants, and the brown white cat.
Lol to the power of five.
Really? I think maybe you've only seen war games, and only the brown parts. Or you've been getting your opinions from YouTube.
Quote from: Aiko-chan on January 10, 2011, 05:32:01 AM
Because when I go outside, I love looking at the brown sky, and the brown grass, and the brown cars, and the brown trees, and the brown plants, and the brown white cat.
Yo listen up here's a story about a little guy that lives in a blue world... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc)
Yes, it is rather odd that a lot of games are focusing on "realism", and yet have the palette of a prison toilet. Granted, those games seem to be selling rather nicely at the moment. We can only hope it's just a fad.
(http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/070119.jpg)
Quote from: Greenpickle on January 10, 2011, 08:48:53 AM
Really? I think maybe you've only seen war games, and only the brown parts. Or you've been getting your opinions from YouTube.
You have a way to correct everything, don't you? [/slightly insulting smartaleckness]
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 10, 2011, 09:27:21 PM
Quote from: Greenpickle on January 10, 2011, 08:48:53 AM
Really? I think maybe you've only seen war games, and only the brown parts. Or you've been getting your opinions from YouTube.
You have a way to correct everything, don't you? [/slightly insulting smartaleckness]
If he does, i have this problem with my attic staircase for him to look at ;).
icwutudidthar
3D Dot Game Heroes is one of the few games that isn't even lightly browned in HD. But it's still gray.
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 12, 2011, 10:25:06 PM
3D Dot Game Heroes is one of the few games that isn't even lightly browned in HD. But it's still gray.
3D Dot Game Heros? this is a new one for me......what is it?
Never heard of it.
I really hate XBOX 360 plain fact
I'm okay with PS3 (only for MGS4 and LittleBigPlanet) but i like the Wii the most it the only game i really like
3D Dot Game Heroes is like the original LoZ.
Quote from: RamblinEvilMushroomDS on January 14, 2011, 04:28:54 AM
3D Dot Game Heroes is like the original LoZ.
So, 8-Bit graphics, an overworld, hidden dungeons and a lot of gameplay-focus on items?
According to Wikipedia, it has retro-style 2D graphics in a 3D world.
Quote from: Aiko-chan on January 15, 2011, 02:24:39 AM
According to Wikipedia, it has retro-style 2D graphics in a 3D world.
ah, that's cool.
points 1 and 2 are irrelevant because ps3 is better than gamecube and n64. if you wanna have that conversation with the ps2 and psone, then time travel to 2002 and 1996 respectively and have that converstation. point 3 is wrong too. if you think HD is worse than SD, you're wrong because HD is capable of displaying SD graphics. HD looks terrible? HD is about pixel count not colors. point 4, wrong too. you're just a nintendo fanboy. little big planet makes use of the HD. you jsut never play these games because you're a fanboy.