Let me offer some thoughts unto the silly idea that Resident Evil 5 was created racist. In Africa, there's alot of Africans. I hear the sun is pretty demanding over there, causing most of the natives to inherit darker skin. Yes, there are a lot of Africans in Africa-- especially north of South Africa. So, you know, given Capcom's history of setting their more current resident evil games in exotic places-- you know, America in the first three games, an isolated island in Code Veronica, a coastal Spanish village in RE4...

They decided to hold the next game in Africa because they wanted to pick a place where the means of the virus surprisingly originated, and to uphold the tendency to get a new local theme for their sequels. As I mentioned before, Africa has alot of Africans, and you know-- many of them happen to have dark skin. I think it's be rather bizzare if There were alot of Japanese people in Africa, wouldn't you? I feel the only racists here are people who look at a game that happens to be set in Africa and immediately calls racism.

The Wii needs playable software released as regularly as the PS2. **** it, the rate of playable software has gone down considerably on all consoles each frigen' generation. With how much they spend to make a game, sequels are the only sure thing investment, so we've had so many I am sick and ****ing tired of them. Video Games will never be seen as an art form if it continues down this nauseating path of sequel and me-too.

This E3? Game RELEASES and announcements only of new IPs, please.

You cannot assume Nintendo wouldn't have been pushed to change if it were not for Sony. One of the bigger reasons Nintendo continued with carteridge was affordability. If you haven't noticed, nintendo likes to sell higher numbers of cheap, lower end products for profit. Once CD had become the standard medium as it did, and it was time for a new Sega console or the next-gen of whoever may have replaced Sony at the time, Nintendo would have naturally progressed in a similar fashion.

You really can't assume anything about this dream scenario because it doesn't exist. Discussing it is sort of useless.

First of all, this topic is appropriate for general games discussion, not system WARS

secondly, if Sony never entered gaming, there'd be that much more market share from the handful of other consoles that couldn't quite. I feel that Microsoft would have entered the industry earlier if Sony's slice of the pie had been left up for grabs. I also do believe we'd still have a Sega console, because Sega's downfall was it's direct technological comparisons to the Playstations one and two. The competition was too direct, producing a clear winner.

Wii motion+ will live and die simply as just another peripheal.

1. No piece of hardware sold separately from the console can become the new standard especially if it's only sold with one piece of software (wii sports: resort) and in a standalone package.

2. Developers would have to choose to develope their games to be motion+ compatible or not. Nintendo hasn't been treating their third party devs well at all, obviously preferring it if there was less competition to go against their first party money milking efforts. From this, don't expect many third parties to go ahead and try to help Nintendo move motion+ units.

3.Motion+ is pretty much selling a function the console was initially promised to preform but instead of providing a free fix for their consumers they're advertising it as a hot new product. It won't cause waves, it'll only be overlooked as starving Wii owners look for actual substance from their purchase.

I know it's an old argument, but I just want to refresh myself on the consensus of this forum on this particular issue. I know that there has always been a certain crowd here that is quick to call others overly dependent and obsessed with the graphics of their favourite games, even to say that they are fond of these said games solely because of their graphical prowess. But any gameplay implications aside, isn't what we see more than half of the experience? I mean, graphics are all we look at in games, and therefore they have to be more than just eye candy. They are the only thing that we can deduce relative to the gameplay itself. They help create a world, which has implications on nearly every aspect of a game.

I'm not talking about graphics that are purely for show, like in earlier graphic powerhouses like Doom 3. But I'm talking graphics that can actually make the whole experience a little bit brighter, a little bit more immersive, and more beautiful. If art is supposed to imitate life, and games are art, aren't graphics that are artisitcally beautiful and technically sound just as important as gameplay? What anyone really find much enjoyment in playing the best games today if they had not progressed anything beyond the boxed flat rooms in Wolfenstein, or the pixelized blocks of tetris. All too often I feel as though people neglect the power graphics and striking sights in general can have on themselves. Do people appreciate the Grand Canyon, tropic waters, or the Northern Lights for the thrills that they offer? Most often they do not, they appreciate them because they look and feel beautiful. I cannot say that I get the same feeling when I play Half-life 2 (yes it still as great graphics as far as I'm concerned) on the lowest settings and resolution than I do on the highest setting and resolution (and yes I've done both). There's just something missing, some final and very significant touch, something that almost literally turn night into day.

I'm just talking for sure, but I wanted to know if this notion has ever crossed anyone's mind, and what they have to think about that. I know there will be undoubtedly some who will deny that graphics have any significance at all for games, but I thought I could give what I was thinking. It is a colorful world out there after all.

jetpower3

Um, you pretty much reiterated the truth: Amazing graphics does not an amazing game make-- overall fun an amazing game makes, and beautiful graphics add to the visual enjoyment section of TEH fun factor.

[QUOTE="SSCyborg"]Wow say bye to all the fun of SW. =\CaseyWegner

spam is what made sw fun?

No, summoning captain planet was what made system wars fun back in the day. But you'd probably like to forget those days, eh Casey ;P

Please Please PLEASE make it a topic-lockable and even point deducting offense to post topics along the lines of "why can't we all be friends??" and "Why don't you just get all systems, lol??"... These topics would be like going onto a gardening forum and asking "WHY DUN U JUS LET THA WEEDS GROW??" or going on a car comparison forum and asking "WHY NAWT GET ALL NEW MODLS AND STOP COMPARIN'??".

These topics aren't original, they add no substance to a board that's made to provide a space to compare console value-- they're topics made solely to go against the point of the board!

We're asking for quality software. We're asking for better 3rd party relations. We're asking for the company to actually LOOK and SEEK OUT oppurtunities for quality EXCLUSIVES, ambitious projects, and quality assurance. Nintendo should take a gander at shovelware software sales and say "oh hey, maybe we should be a bit more like Playstation 2 era Sony and use alot of our incoming revenue to assure a steady inflow of QUALITY titles and exclusives".

Nintendo's response to the general dismay over their rediculous E3 showing was "we're sorry we can't show our core audiance Mario and Zelda, but they're in development"... Do we want more quality first party titles from those tried and true dev teams? Why yes, Mr. Iwata, we do. but we would also like games to play until then.

But hey, they're making off like bandits, so it's all good, right? Console sales are still through the roof and their new casual targets are providing for them a base that their core gamers I guess never could. So Nintendo really is saying so long. It really has decided to move on, and these small incentives and throwbacks are not enough to keep me in the game.

Anybody in the market to buy a used Wii?