• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Graphic King hasn't won since SNES

There is nothing wrong with that label for people who value graphics as the most important factor of a videogame.

I'm a self proclaimed gameplay whore and proud.

what i do not understand why a self proclaimed graphics whore ever plays on a console at all when PC's are the true 'graphics king'.
Because most accused of being graphics whores don't actually value graphics over gameplay. They realize that great graphics combined with great gameplay delivers a better experience. It's no different than how great music helps elevate the experience to a whole other level. Games like Metroid Prime show how the combination of great gameplay, graphics and music can give incredible results that would be a far lesser experience with the absence of one of the three.
 
Wrong PC won every generation since the beginning.

No it hasn't. Certainly not in the beginning. Just because PC is clearly better graphically and power-wise doesn't mean it is the winner in terms of game play and games. Less people play games on PC than on consoles and imo consoles will always be more attractive to the general public than PC for gaming.
 
There is nothing wrong with that label for people who value graphics as the most important factor of a videogame.

I'm a self proclaimed gameplay whore and proud.

what i do not understand why a self proclaimed graphics whore ever plays on a console at all when PC's are the true 'graphics king'.

Sigh I'm so sick of this mentality, this notion that everything is "either or", here mate I made this easy picture for ya.

untitledaekj5.png


If it ain't painfully obvious what I'm trying to get across it's that graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you have someone who "values graphics as the most important factor of a videogame" doesn't mean that this person wants a broken ass, unplayable mess of a non-interactive game.

Same goes for someone who loves the gameplay, nothing wrong with having some standards. Believe it or not, but there are mythical tales of legend of games that not only have great gameplay but also astounding visuals!!! HOLD ME I'M SCARED!
 
Graphics have never mattered more than games in the end.

Graphics never mattered as long as you could remain competitive with the other players. We'll see how that helps the Wii U - on the hardcore side it might not be in the same league as Orbis/Durango and on the casual side it faces stiff competitive from stuff like iPads.
 
I said it once and I'll say to again, the console with the most third party support wins. Wii was the only time a console "won" a gen with shit third party support but Wii had a revolutionary gimmick. WiiU does not have a revolutionary gimmick, it has damn touchscreen on a standard controller. It's essentially a giant ds. It's underpowered and has a non traditional controller so most third parties will once again not go near it. WiiU is GameCube 2.0 imo(I know op made this thread because of the WiiU hate).
 
I'd have to disagree. PS2 was king because of the hype surrounding its graphics compared to the Dreamcast. It wasn't the graphics king, but it was perceived as such.

I think it had more to do with Playstation being the successor to the hottest selling console of all time, with far more publisher support than any competing console.

Anyways I don't understand the point of this topic.
 
This mentality is stupid and needs to go away. Graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive and can help enhance the game. Does anyone think Uncharted 2 would have gotten the same amount of praise if the game didn't look as phenomenal as it did? This thread comes across as someone trying go, "It doesn't matter about graphics! The console with the worst graphics will win! You'll see!"
 
Won what? Because a ton of people impulse bought Wii's that immediately sat on shelves and collected dust while the other two consoles continued to release quality game after quality game, the Wii wins the generation? I have never got more enjoyment out of a game from sales numbers,however, better graphics have enhanced countless game play experiences across ever gen of hardware.
 
If the stats that people were mentioning a couple of pages ago are true about software ratios of ~7 per 360 and ~6 per Wii, that means that the Wii sold roughly 100 million more games than the 360 did. This is with an entire extra year on the market for the 360. The only metric by which the 360 "won" this generation is either by adding PS3 sales to 360 sales (wtf?), or by only taking the last two years into account.

Also, are some of you seriously suggesting that Wii Sports isn't fun, or isn't a game? Why do Wii sales that resulted from Wii Sports not count, but 360 sales that resulted from Kinect do? The gymnastics going on in this thread are a sight to behold.
 
No it hasn't. Certainly not in the beginning. Just because PC is clearly better graphically and power-wise doesn't mean it is the winner in terms of game play and games. Less people play games on PC than on consoles and imo consoles will always be more attractive to the general public than PC for gaming.
Should gamers care? Best games are on PC, good games last almost forever and get mods, community developments and it looks/plays better.

Why should people care less people buy PC games? On the contrary it allows for more niche markets and higher expectations compared to what console centric publishers and devs release on consoles.
 
Need to update this topic after the Super Bowl:
The 49'ers haven't lost a Super Bowl.
Until yesterday...
You see why stuff like "The Graphics King has not won since the SNES" doesn't really work.
 
Loving the revisionist history guys. Do you also believe Germany won WW2?

Personally, I'd take the beautiful, yet static prerendered backgrounds popular in the PS1 era (SaGa Frontier 2, Valkyrie Profile, Chrono Cross, FF) over blurry muddy fully-3D N64 graphics any day of the week.
 
Better graphics means better graphics hardware. The N64 has better graphics hardware than the PS1 thanks to a twice as fast CPU, hardware perspective correction, a hardware Z-buffer, hardware triple buffering, and more. The PS1 or Saturn can't do those things, while the N64 can. People saying that any system other htan the N64 is the most powerful one of that generation ignore all facts and technical deteails and instead go entirely with their personal opinions of which graphics they like more. Needless to say, that's got absolutely nothing to do with better graphics hardware.

Personally, I'd take the beautiful, yet static prerendered backgrounds popular in the PS1 era (SaGa Frontier 2, Valkyrie Profile, Chrono Cross, FF) over blurry muddy fully-3D N64 graphics any day of the week.

The horrendously ugly polygon models in FRONT of those prerendered backdrops, in games like the FF games, should say all you need to know about which one has better graphics... and anyway, as games like Ogre Battle 64 and RE2 show that the N64 can do quite nice prerendered backdrops as well.

N64 games on sudoku watch

r4night6zelc.gif
r4night2ixc42.gif

Meh, most good-looking N64 racing games look better.
 
Top Bottom