Were the graphics for this console overstimated?

#121_Candice_Posted 12/20/2012 7:13:30 PM
tastethecourage posted...
I think it's ironic that console gamers are constantly firing back at PC gamers saying things like, "It's not the graphics that count! It's the experience! I don't need super fancy graphics!" (And that's a fair argument, I won't dispute that).

But whenever a new console is released, you guys start a mud-flinging contest amongst yourselves. "No, MY console is the most powerful and has the best graphics!", "Wtf, shut up, my console has a better GPU and more RAM and therefore can rush Crysis 3 blah blah blah".

Observation. :P


This.

I wish I had the comic of the MS and Sony fanboys arguing about power then the PC guy comes in and theyre like GRAFIX DUN MATTER .

Except this time its nintenyearolds of all people.
---
It's not about graphics vs gameplay, it's about profits vs gameplay. Profits are more important than gameplay in this forum. -lgi on the Wii U messageboard
#122Golden MavenPosted 12/20/2012 7:25:01 PM(edited)
Enigma149 posted...
ech breakdowns (the same tech breakdowns which revealed the CPU clock speed) revealed a GPU based on the Radeon HD 4730, a GPU about 4x as powerful as the one found in the Xbox 360, and a little over 2x as powerful as the one found in the PS3.


That doesn't make sense. The 360's GPU is supposedly slightly superior to the PS3's. According to your BS, The PS3's GPU is 2X the power of the 360's.

And if the Wii-U's GPU was 4X the 360's, Nintendo games and 3rd party ports would be running at 60FPS with 1080p native, no problem. You just posted a lot of drivel, and I fear the Kool-Aid drinkers will believe it because they want to.