PS3/XBox 360/Wii--help a newbie decide

[drothgery]

No, not really. The GameCube already had better graphics than the PS2 or Xbox,

No, it didn't. At least, it didn't have better capabilities (the Xbox was the most powerful console of its generation by a large margin, with a better CPU, GPU, more memory, a hard drive, and a programming model that PC game developers were familiar with); there was a reason why the overwhelming majority of cross-platform games looked best on the Xbox (games often looked better on the Cube than the PS2 despite somewhat similar capabilities, because the Cube was easier to program for).

so anyone can naturally understand that the more-powerful Wii will have far better graphics still.

The Wii is pretty much an overclocked GameCube with a funky controller. Sorry, but it's true.

 

[Alzrius]

No, it didn't.

It really did. As you yourself noted, GC games were still better, visually, than PS2 games (a la RE4).

The Wii is pretty much an overclocked GameCube with a funky controller. Sorry, but it's true.

Seriously, so what? I don't see why it not having been rebuilt from the ground up is a strike against it. It's twice as strong as the Gamecube, with great new play control, and it looks amazing in every regard.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I have to say...I'm buying a Wii. Its the only next gen system that I just have to have.

BUT, the graphics ARE worse than the current generation. The thing about the Wii, though, is the focus isn't on the graphics. Nintendo themselves have admitted to the fact that the graphics aren't top notch. But, again, that was not the aim. So focusing on that when talking about the Wii pretty much misses the point...and if you're focus is really on graphics, the Wii most likely isn't for you.

 

[trancejeremy]

By the way, taking screenshots from Far Cry proves nothing, as the developers have already been drawing fire for having "debateable" visuals. Now, post a screenshot of Zelda: Twilight Princess running in 480p, to any Xbox game, and that'll pretty well crush the ridiculous notion that Wii games look no different than current-gen games. Nice try though.

Unless you compare the same basic game on different platforms, you can't make a direct comparison. And it's not just Far Cry - the Wii is getting some WW2 FPSes which look similar to their Xbox counterparts.

Zelda looks pretty because of art direction, not graphics. And Twilight Princess for the Wii looks pretty much exactly like Twilight Princess for the Gamecube - which is current generation.

Anyway, here are some pictures of Zelda: TP for the Wii, Oblivion for the PS3, FF13 for the PS3, Stranglehold for the PS3, and just for the heck of it, VCS for the PSP. As far as I call tell, all are gameplay shots (TP and Oblivion are, anyway)

Notice how the PS3 games (and this applies to the 360 as well) have much more detailed textures than the Wii or PSP games. You can see leaves of grass in Oblivion. And the lighting is more complex, with reflections off the water and such.

 

[John Crichton]

The original poster also said he's a casual gamer, which means (as I've said before) that there's more to consider than just graphics - there's actual gameplay. So even without the graphics issue (re: Wii titles still look better than current-gen titles), the more-important issue of gameplay still leaves Wii as the winner.

The casual gamers choice: You mean the PS2? Gotcha.

It has the GC & Wii beat (as well at the rest of the systems available in '06) for both gameplay & selection of games if we are tossing graphics out for comparison. Not to mention price which is the only bugaboo of the PS3 right now.

 

[Vigilance]

The casual gamers choice: You mean the PS2? Gotcha.

It has the GC & Wii beat (as well at the rest of the systems available in '06) for both gameplay & selection of games if we are tossing graphics out for comparison. Not to mention price which is the only bugaboo of the PS3 right now.

Yep, agreed. John and I have gone round and round on the relative merits of the various next-gen consoles, but the ability to get a PS2 and 2-3 games for about 200 bucks counts for a lot to me. So here I have to agree 100%.

I realize it's not the new and shiny.

Heck, there have been mentions recently of FF XII looking "good for a PS2 game", so the snobbery of the next gen has already begun, but PS2 games look damn good and there's a lot of bargains out there for that console.

 

[Mystery Man]

I have the 360 with Xbox Live networked to my XP MCE 2005 PC that has a tv tuner in it as well. I can pretty much do anything I want. Watch TV, downloaded "content" , recorded shows, view pictures all from the 360 to my PC. Not to mention that the 360 will be having movies and tv shows available for download next week. And the HDDVD attachment is fairly affordable.

 

[Arnwyn]

Which console(s) will have a NWN II version?

None.

Really, now - I have no idea why you're looking at consoles. Based on the preferences you've given throughout this thread, the PC is your best option. If you like shooters, CRPGs, and strategy games, pretty much your only option is the PC.

Further, almost all the suggested games for the 360 in this thread are all also PC games (Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc).

I hear you about hte advice of sticking to a PC. As one might guess I've been mostly a PC gamer over the years.

And it's the best advice in this thread, given your preferences. I think if you get a console, you will be quite disappointed (assuming your tastes don't suddenly change, of course).

Your decision is clear: upgrade your PC.

Now, if you do want to expand your horizons, and you're a casual gamer, then (as others have suggested), the PS2 is a very good option - loads of J-RPGs, unique games like Guitar Hero, and the entire PS1 library as well... and it's nice and cheap. As John Crichton and Vigilance say - it's the casual gamer's choice.

(And, as an aside, even the PS3 isn't as pricey as some people think, if one is interested in online gaming. If you're not, then yeah - it is pricey.)

 

[Rackhir]

None.

Really, now - I have no idea why you're looking at consoles. Based on the preferences you've given throughout this thread, the PC is your best option. If you like shooters, CRPGs, and strategy games, pretty much your only option is the PC.

Further, almost all the suggested games for the 360 in this thread are all also PC games (Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc).


And it's the best advice in this thread, given your preferences. I think if you get a console, you will be quite disappointed (assuming your tastes don't suddenly change, of course).

Your decision is clear: upgrade your PC.

Well there is the small fact that even the high spec PS3 model is only about the price of a single high end graphics card, never mind the costs of an SLI setup and the processor and memory you need to keep an SLI set up "fed". Also you can use a console for say a minimum of 5 yrs without needing to spend money to "upgrade" it.

 

[Arnwyn]

Well there is the small fact that even the high spec PS3 model is only about the price of a single high end graphics card, never mind the costs of an SLI setup and the processor and memory you need to keep an SLI set up "fed". Also you can use a console for say a minimum of 5 yrs without needing to spend money to "upgrade" it.

Oh, no question! I totally agree. (And is certainly one of the reasons why I abhore PC gaming and stick with consoles - I'll have all 3 next-gen ones eventually.)

But in the end, when purchasing a game system, it's all about the games. If your preferences don't fit with what the console offers, the "cheaper" choice will still likely be the poorest choice.