Here is the description i found:

It is a dark time for the Wii60. Although the Playstation 3 has been destroyed, Sony troops have driven the Nintendo and Microsoft forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy.

Evading the dreaded Blue-Ray technology, a group of freedom fighters led by Mario and Master Chief have established a new secret alliance on a remote ice world.

The evil lord Helghast, obsessed with finding Mario and Master Chief, has dispatched thousands of remote duck-probes into the far reaches of gaming space.... ... (more)

Link

Enjoy.

That's a pretty funny video, but ultimately it doesn't really matter which console wins; they're all evil. Console gaming is the Dark Side that leads to corporate control, mindless conformism, and empty consumerism, while PC gaming is the Resistance which uses the Modding Force to spread freedom, individualism, and creativity throughout cyberspace. Game on!

Very true. Though you don't get the awesomeness of Gears of War on PC... yet.

That makes the consoles even more evil in my eyes.

True, But headshoting a guy in GoW and having that guys head blow up is just way to rewarding.

hmm.. perhaps BW gore will bring you back into the light that is how our room got coffee everywhere

Hmm... is that how you got reference for the splatter marks or did you just throw coffee everywhere for the fun of it?

from Sb's above post, i think it was both the fun and the need for it.

Definitely both.

ps3 has lost the console war...the stupid machines are now sitting on shelves unsold, Wii on the otherhand is hot hot hot, even the controllers are difficult to obtain, but the ps3....just the opposite.

Could be, but the Wii is more like a gimmick than a serious gaming system, imho. Once the novelty wears off, sales could collapse. Then again, maybe people want silly gimmicks... But if I were to buy a console, it would definitely be an Xbox. Tight graphics, good titles. But it's still Evil.

Why an XBox, and why not a XBox360? Heh, I know what you mean.

In all seriousness, my X360 is better than my compy at graphics and smoothness. I dunno, but my compy can barely play certain levels in UT2004, like Sarigono with only 8 people.

SuxBox 360, PoS3 and Wiigotaproblem.
The PC rulz!!1!1

I personally like the idea of the Wii. Its something entirely new and innovative, a step closer to more immersive games.
Personally, I could care less about better graphics, and as far as I'm concerned, thats all the 360 and PS3 are offering, since I have no way of acessing Xbox Live or any of the other internet required thingies for the two systems.



Heh, heh, yeah, I find that very amusing, especially considering that there were over twice as many Wiis shipped than PS3s.

But in the end, Bjossi is right, PCs are bestest.

Graphics play a big role in making games immersive.

They don't for Nintendo. They've seemed to survived every console cycle with worse graphics than there competitors.

Not true, UP, the GameCube outclassed the PS2 in graphics and speed.

Also, I feel more immersed in classic Doom than any other game, I have to look up every once in a while to make sure my head isn't hitting the ceiling, and I have often tried to dodge those imps' fireballs in real life...

It did! Are you sure? I have one and I'm very sure my friend who had a PS2 could play better looking games than my gamecube.

Remember that the TV matters when it comes to displaying graphics, plus the game itself.

Maybe it was just for one game in that case then, but I played Soul Calibur 2 on all three systems, have it for GameCube and Xbox, actually...

But anyways, I played SC2 On my cousin's GameCube and PS2 using the same tv and everything. GameCube ended up being a bit more grainy than Xbox, but PS2 looked worse and played a lot slower. Load times were a lot longer than GameCube, too.

So from that conclusion I think PS2 sucks compared to GameCube, but I could be wrong (although I doubt it ).

out of the older systems though i think the Xbox and the gamecube were the best the Ps2 was just plain suck. And with the nextgen systems it looks like xbox360 and the wii are the best. Though one game looks decent on the PS3 (not graphics wise) Resistance fall of man, but you give me GoW over resistance any day.

And for the Computer VS. console I think computers are the best gaming platforms but in order to play some of these new games you Either have to Have a super beefy computer or a nextgen console.

PS2's graphics weren't THAT bad. Apparently none of you guys ever saw the stuff for Gran Turismo 4. People still compare next-gen games to that game. Of course, it's Polyphony Digital, the best company for not caring about release dates and only making the most high-quality cars and physics ever for their times of each game's release. Of course, then you consider that GT1 had about 100-200 cars, then GT2 with over 200, GT3 with 300+ and GT4 at a whopping 746 cars. That includes cars such as the Ford Model T 1915, Mazda 787B 1991, BMW M3 GTR (E46) 2003, Subaru IMPREZA WRX STi (GD, Type-II) 2002, and hundreds of others.

gran turismo 4 doesnt count...car games are the easiest to make look good, ask any game developer and they'll tell you that

No, look at EA's NFS series, all those cars are horrible in physics, even for arcade. Carbon... why the hell did they put the Corvette C6 as a muscle and not an exotic or tuner? Either of those would work better than muscle. The muscle 'Vette's were the C1, C2, C3, and C4 generations. C5 and C6 are more exotic or tuner. Actually C5 = tuner, C6 = exotic.

And you ever try modelling a car before that looked near exact (as in 99% in GT4) the same to the real deal, and with open top vehicles, had the driver's shifting animations look like real life? Then done 700+ of them? Don't tell me that is easy. Vehicles easily take the most polygons to make look good since they are much larger than people or most buildings, since buildings are large, but very angular, while cars are smooth and refined. Poeple are smooth and refined also, but... size difference more than makes up for poly counts.

PS2's graphics were bad, making a car game look good is easier than with any other genre. The small maps and good room for optimization guarantees more room for graphics. This isn't possible with games like realtime strategy, RPGs or shooters because of the way they are played.

Its EA Games, they'd make a game about people landing on the moon in 1850 if it would sell.

... you really never knew a thing about GT4 then, did you? I'm not defending the PS2, but rather GT4 BTW, just so you know.

The Nurburgring (can't do the little double dot on them, keyboard doesn't have that) Nordscliefe is 12.94 miles long, and it was in GT4, down to the exact look of it on the graffiti on the road in the exact position it was supposed to. I don't think that level was small, eh? While GT4 may only have 6 cars, then you take into account for ToCA Race Driver 3 on PS2, which had up to 21 other cars on track, including you, and it was a full out racing simulator. It had some larger tracks, while not as high in graphics as GT4, it had damage modelling for all its cars, and then it had the pro-simulation modes to make the physics exact to real life, and damage to real-life. Real drivers test these physics, and end up getting times as close as thousandths of a second to their actual times with their same exact cars with the same setup.

I know these may be car games, which you can all say that it is easier to make that kind of game, until you actually attempt to make a high detail of which that Polyphony Digital did for GT4 (both cars, drivers, and tracks), and what TRD3 had (not by PD FYI) by physics. Oh, and they had drivers in them at the same times, all doing gear shifts at the correct times.

You aren't understanding the difference between graphics, content design and space.

First of all, car games require less rendering job than other games because not as much graphics are needed to be rendered.

Textures, models, meshes; all that stuff can be high-poly/high-res as long as the processor that handles them has enough clock speed and memory. The PS2 has a 700 Mhz processor (or was that the XBox?), that has to tell you that the rest ain't good either.

I don't have to play a PS2 game to tell you that the graphics are crap, it's just a natural law.

I offical am calling this thread "Crap on Sony hardware thread"!

PS2, PS3 they suck!

I wouldn't call it a natural law exactly, but you are right in that area. Reason why it's not natural is simple: we made these things, not nature. Hehe, ca't really argue that one, but I do say you are correct in the stuff you said before the law of nature part, since it's more a law of manmade stuff.