Uncle Rupee said:
The thing is, Nintendo fans care more about fun in games than graphics.
Wii and DS proved that already. Even the N64 sort of proved that, since it didn't have FMVs.
Every time some post this I want to punch a baby.
Fun and
technical achievement/graphics, are NOT mutually exclusive.
Reading comprehension problems FTW!
Where did he say those are mutually exclusive? All he's saying is that generally speaking, while probably loving magnificent gfx as much as everyone else out there, Nintendo fans are generally more prone to be forgiving of a game's technical shortcomings if the fun is there: they're willing to play it and to put down money for that game. Nothing wrong with that and it's true for many, while many others won't touch a game regardless of how good its gameplay might be if the visuals are ass... there's nothing wrong with that either, to each their own right?
I'm a graphic whore, I'm a PC gamer, been gaming for more than 30 years but I'm willing to try a game and able to LOVE it even if the graphics sucks as long as the art is good. I've loved many Wii games and dug their visuals thanks to top notch art direction, even if they were missing the technical flair found on the HD twins and pc. Plenty of gamers I know could never get past how "bad" Wii games looked and that was enough to leave them with ZERO interest for anything the console was going to put out in its lifetime: they might've tried a game or two, maybe the Galaxy games, but could never look past the graphics and fully enjoy those games.
Me. I had a blast. Sure, I was floored with my ps3 outputting Uncharted 2, KZ2 or Crysis 3 on my PC, and I would've loved to get more visual flair with many Wii games, but for me artistic direction trumps everything else and I still regard Mario Galaxy 2 as the best looking game of this generation: point is tho, that even without EAD's delicious rim lighting or with Sunshine's way lower res textures and lower poly models, it'd still be my favorite game of the past 6 years.