Quote from Steelia
The point was that I haven't really liked it to begin with, and seeing how most people are always talking about it that "it's so great" when it comes to graphics (that I believe), but what's the point if there's not any good gameplay?
This is a very common argument that is not valid. When it comes to graphics, they're becoming advanced to the point of photo-realistic. These are visually appealing things that games should have, but of course that's not the ONLY reason why a game should be good, I agree with that. However, when was the last time you saw a game with amazing graphics but very little to offer in gameplay? Because graphics are a visual aspect of games, people can witness them on a video or screenshots and say "OH YEH BUT DA GAEMPLAI MUST BE GUD 2".
My point here is that people can see good graphics on a game without actually being there, but when it comes to gameplay, you must experience it yourself. Therefore, no one can judge any of the games without playing them. Making assumptions that just because a game has good graphics means it automatically has bad gameplay is ludicrous and unfair, which is what the majority of people appear to do.
Oh, I should also mention this: People seem to be saying the PS3 sucks because it only focuses on graphics. No it doesn't. It simply has the ability to render much better graphics, but they're still from the game itself, not the console. The same thing goes for the gameplay. This is a step forward towards realism.
I hope you guys understand what I'm saying now.
If only the Wii and PS3 could be combined into one super 1337 machine... The Wiimote with PS3's graphics, plus the blu-ray and hard drive, plus the combination of all the features like Miis or etc. would be absolute ownage. It would be called... the Wiistation.
(Oh, and I personally think Wii is a silly name. The Revolution was a much better name for it, but I can see why Nintendo didn't decide to use it; it doesn't quite fit.)