Since when has console power been so important?

#1jbhensPosted 3/21/2013 5:45:38 AM
If you want to go back to the NES period, the Master System was clearly more powerful yet the NES dominated. The Genesis and SNES were very close in terms of power and it took some timed exlcusives like Street Fighter 2 to propel the SNES ahead in the states. The Playstation was graphically less effective than the N64 but it dominated. The PS2 was a huge success but it was clearly inferior to the Gamcube and Xbox. The Wii was incredibly underpowered compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360 yet it dominated. The PS3 and XBOX 360 are very similar in power and they have pretty much run neck and neck. The Gameboy was less powerful then the Gamegear. The GBC was less powerful then the Wonderswan. The DS is less powerful then the PSP. The 3DS is less powerful then the Vita.

I keep seeing things that Nintendo needs to do something drastic to compete with the power of the PS4. First of all, how many console unveils have we seen with eye catching visuals and are told that yes these are games and this is how good they will look. Every console unveil actually. Then what happens? We get dissapointed at launch because those games don't look as good and aren't as smooth playing as we were told they would be then we are left waiting a few years before we really start seeing the huge jump in graphics.

I see people drooling over Capcoms Down Under, and I have to ask why? Besides the detail in the faces what in that video makes you excited about next gen gameplay? All I see is another drab, lacking color, game that looks like it wants to be a poor mans God of War. Are people that blinded by pretty graphics that gameplay doesn't even matter anymore? Im thankful for games like NintendoLand, Mario Galaxy, BioShock, BioShock Infinite, Red Steel 2, Journey, and others that are not afraid to have an excellent art style but also add something eye catching graphical wise that doesn't rely on some of the most boring plain colors and hoping it comes off as realistic when real life isn't that devoid of color.

I would say nowadays, in the home console industry, you are better off being the niche product that ends up being a good complimentary system or a system that is wanted by people that don't usually buy consoles. The PS3 and Xbox 360 competed for the exact same market share and had virtually the same gaming library and they fought to a draw for the most part. Both consoles were not as profitable as everyone likes to think. The Wii went in it's own direction and became a secondary console where you could only play certain games but also became a hit among a much larger audience. To me, I would rather have a Wii Sports type of hit on my hand if I were any company instead of a game like Down Under where only fanboys drool over it's graphics.

To early to say if Nintendo went in the right direction with the Wii U, but I get what they try to do nowadays. You can be like MS and Sony and fight for one demographic and lose loads of money, or you can offer something different and get in more homes and keep your costs down so you can constantly turn a profit
#2digiblasterPosted 3/21/2013 5:48:08 AM
In a nutshell, a generation of gamers raised to believe graphics are more important than fun; that a cinematic experience is better than an immersive one; that a game can't be enjoyed unless it has near realistic graphics.
---
Yeah, that's a problem games had back then. You actually had to get good at them. - Mctias
#3shaunmePosted 3/21/2013 5:50:28 AM
in a nutshell poor people buy the cheapest , weakest console then try to convince themselves and everbody else that games can't look amazing and be fun
/topic
---
i72600k @4.6 // ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution // 8gb ram // 3x MSI GTX 680 sli // 1tb HD//W8pro//NNID shaunme1//PSN poselecta//XBL CursiveA//STEAM shaunmelwell//
#4sanas_thirituPosted 3/21/2013 5:52:21 AM
digiblaster posted...
In a nutshell, a generation of gamers raised to believe graphics are more important than fun; that a cinematic experience is better than an immersive one; that a game can't be enjoyed unless it has near realistic graphics.


What is wrong with that thinking?
Graphics increases immersion = fact.
Besides some eye candy doesnt hurt either.
---
The purpose of my life is to play games. Its the reason I even work.
#5jbhens(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2013 5:52:46 AM
shaunme posted...
in a nutshell poor people buy the cheapest , weakest console then try to convince themselves and everbody else that games can't look amazing and be fun
/topic


That explains for the NES, SNES, Playstation 1, Playstation 2, Wii, and since the PS3 beat the XBOX 360 then the PS3 too. Im glad you have finally shed light on how each console generation was won. Sony, MS, or Nintendo should hire you....asap.
#6Ghost-inZeShellPosted 3/21/2013 5:54:17 AM
Go buy a SNES.
#7EternalDividePosted 3/21/2013 5:56:20 AM
It never mattered.

Right now the only ones whining about it are EA and their filthy ilk. And it's just a thinly veiled excuse by petty devs/publishers such as EA who are mad about Nintendo telling them to **** off regarding their desire to see used games blocking in the U and Origin.
---
SquareEnix: Crushing dreams since 2003
#8jbhens(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2013 5:58:50 AM
Ghost-inZeShell posted...
Go buy a SNES.



Lol, here comes the trolls. I guess I've gotten to a point where the graphics in Mario Galaxy 2 impress me still, but more importantly the gameplay is fantastic on top of it. Does a game like Down Under look amazing? Sure. Do I see anything that makes me want to play it more then Bioshock Infinite, Galaxy 2 or countless other games? Not at all. Pretty images do not equal great gameplay. And nowadays, low end graphics on these consoles still look impressive. This isn't like some low end looking games during the PS1 era
#9greatone101Posted 3/21/2013 6:01:41 AM
Ghost-inZeShell posted...
Go buy a SNES.


Go buy a NES instead.

Power can mean everything. It can mean smart AI, more on enemies on screen, more things going on at the same time on screen, better physics etc.

I find it funny its always the Nintendo fanboys saying "Power means nothing"
#10CitizenCraigPosted 3/21/2013 6:01:45 AM
You're wrong about the SNES and Genesis being close. The SNES was better in every single aspect except for processing power.

As for power's importance nowadays, developers want to make games on the system with the most power. This is why 3rd party sales for Nintendo are so bad.
---
For PS3 trophy stats, submit your PSN to:
psnprofiles.com & psntrophyleaders.com