Kenkaku

"This is filled with absolutely nothing but opinions and assumptions, not to mention lackluster arguements caused by the everyday fanboy. Sure, graphics USED to matter, but not anymore. We don't need to see every blade of grass, tree leaf, arm hair, mole, bead of sweat, etc. just to get into a game, because, in all honesty, if you can manage to focus on these graphics throughout the duration of a game, it probably has terrible gameplay to begin with. I have played GRAW before, and let me tell you, the last thing I noticed while playing was the graphics because it was so much fun. It's such a waste that we should have to pay extra for better graphics if we're probably not even going to notice them in fun games. Household consoles appeal to women a whole lot more than you think, so drop that whole sexism theory of yours. I can list several girls from my school that have owned consoles from each company and had more than enough time to play them (so stop trying to act like you know how women are). Sure, there isn't a 'need' for a revolution, but there sure is a want. Take the PS3 for example: it has the graphics of today, but the exact same control interface (as well as the controller itself) since 1996. Why should we have to pay $600+ dollars just to play a game that has nothing innovative or compelling? Sure, the PS2 had a massive gaming library, but that links up to one factor: It's DVD player. When the PS2 launched, DVD players were incredibly expensive. However, the PS2 offered a free DVD player for an extra $100 compared to its competitor, the Gamecube, for a total of $300. It was a good deal. In the end, tons and tons of this system sold to the average household, whether it be for gaming or just watching movies. This didn't matter to gaming companies, however, because they wanted to target gamers and sell their merchandise, so they went for the best-selling console, period. This isn't going to happen this gen, however, because the player Sony is trying to sell is hardly getting a good footing in the marketplace and is already receiving terrible reviews. The PS3 is hardly, if at all, going to be a souped up PS2. The Wii, however, is offering a new control interface that just might make gaming better. A journalist that got the chance to play a mock level of Red Steel just PRAISED the aiming system; he said it was just as good, if not better, than a PC's mouse when it came to the shooter (It was a mock demo not seen at E3 and GC, so the controls were obviously different). It just goes to show that focusing on upgrading graphics over and over is just not going to cut it, especially when it uses the same control interface for ten years. To say that the Wii can't handle certain graphics is a pretty big statement, since nobody knows what the graphics processing unit of the Wii is yet, and just the dev kits were being utilized up until a few days ago. But like I said; the graphics are the last thing you'll notice in a fun game. Whatever game it was you were talking about with the mist and the night club or whatever must've been one hell of a boring game (I used this logic for the game Oblivion, and wound up returning that piece of crap game the next day. Graphics won't make up for the lack of gameplay a game has, mark my words). In short, enjoy your uber duber high frequency ultra destructo power pwnage graphics while they last (which probably won't be a few years, since graphics cards are updated very frequently), because the control interface won't be all that different. Cheers. " more