Playstation Move Is Inferior to Wii Motion Controls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pMd2_LXRlI <<<<< Click da link!
I completely agree with him accept about the lag part im sure they will fix that before the Final product watchya guys think?
PS (nothing against move) This is more or less toward the Ps3 fanboys.

From what I've seen, PS Move is looking very impressive and way more advanced than the Wii.

P.S I did'nt watch all the vid, so I dont know whether he was joking.

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

From what I've seen, PS Move is looking very impressive and way more advanced than the Wii.

P.S I did'nt watch all the vid, so I dont know whether he was joking.

Na this guys ii all Nintendo hes not joking at all.

Move won't outsell the Wii, but the quality of games (especially 3rd party) will be a whole lot better.

How can you be excited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

well even though the move is a ripoff it's it's better than the wii

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

Better graphics, better AI, better environments, better options and everything else that comes with a current gen console. Move won't be limited by lack of processing power. The Wii's Achilles' heel

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

Better graphics, better AI, better environments, better options and everything else that comes with a current gen console. Move won't be limited by lack of processing power. The Wii's Achilles' heel

Processing power? Really? lol that's too good. How will better graphics make games more fun?

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

Better graphics, better AI, better environments, better options and everything else that comes with a current gen console. Move won't be limited by lack of processing power. The Wii's Achilles' heel

Processing power? Really? lol that's too good. How will better graphics make games more fun?

Glad to know you have no standards then. How many fat chicks have you hit on recently?

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

Better graphics, better AI, better environments, better options and everything else that comes with a current gen console. Move won't be limited by lack of processing power. The Wii's Achilles' heel

Processing power? Really? lol that's too good. How will better graphics make games more fun?

are u that much of a blinded fanboy to say how much better graphics can make the game more fun? really wow dude just that statement alone kills your whole arguement u had.

I think you should be more worried about Natal and the Lack of hardcore games that will be coming out too and also the lag it will have also. just saying.

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

"PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par"
They weren't even close! Playstation was 32 bit, N64 was 64bit.
Take a look at Final Fantasy VIII for example. Final Fantasy games have always been graphically powerful. Then compare that game to Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bro's, or Perfect Dark, hell anything on the N64! Playstation graphics were utter crap compared to N64 graphics. Yet Playstation still won that gen. Graphics have very little impact on the games enjoyment themselves. Otherwise everyone would have been getting an N64 instead of a playstation.

And what does disk format have to do with this? Even on CD and DVD playstation graphics were still vastly inferior. Yet it still won.

VISUAL APPEAL - IN GAMES...DOESN'T MATTER!!!

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

yes graphics are nice but their not as important as all the little graphics whores make out gameplay>graphics if you dont like it then gtfo because thats how it is.

I hope you're joking. Disc format has A LOT to do with THAT generation of gaming.

The Nintendo 64 utilized a CARTRIDGE-based system which meant that developers were forced to utilize very LOW RES textures in their games. A lot of N64 games were left looking "blurry" to an extent because of the low amount of textures a Cartridge's memory size was capable of holding. That's why A LOT of the N64's games all looked similar in regards to how the character models looked. All of the character models were very "rounded" and limited in how they were designed.... Look at the WWE games, Golden Eye, Perfect Dark and Mario 64...

ALL of those characters featured "rounded" features instead of actual detail.

Then look at the PlayStation. Because of its extra storage capabilities, developers were able to use much sharper textures. It also allowed for more technical difficulties in movement that games on the N64 were absolutely incapable of utilizing. If you look at titles like Tekken 3 and the FF series on the original PlayStation, you'll know exactly what type of technology that I'm talking about.

The PlayStation was capable of creating much better detail in characters than the N64 by quite the large margin, which makes up for the lack of bit differential.



You see how Joanna Dark is all rounded and what not? There are no edges...not even on her clothes or guns, lol.



Now look at the detail in FFVIII. While there are jaggies (and jaggies suck ass).... Developers were capable of making games look like this DESPITE the bit size that the PSX was utilizing. Look at the texture detail on the ground and the detail in the clothing itself... It is far superior to what the N64 was offering.

It helped bring the "visual appeal" of both to a "tie/par." It's just they both had their strengths/weaknesses which is why they're able to be considered on even playing field or close to par.

-----

The Wii in comparison to the 360 and PS3 CAN'T do that. It's not even close.

If visuals in a game didn't matter, 100% of reviewers wouldn't have a category for graphics.

arnt god of war wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

yes graphics are nice but their not as important as all the little graphics whores make out gameplay>graphics if you dont like it then gtfo because thats how it is.

Do you know why MOST gamers can't go back and play older consoles after picking up new ones? It's because the visual appeal takes over. It's part of HUMAN NATURE.

Prime Example....

Backbreaker's tackling engine is absolutely phenomenal... But will the game be better than Madden and will more people buy it? Of course not -- why? Because it looks atrocious. The Player models are terrible...

Gameplay is important (the most important), but nobody is going to play a game that ISN'T visually appealing to them.

DaveSGE wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

yes graphics are nice but their not as important as all the little graphics whores make out gameplay>graphics if you dont like it then gtfo because thats how it is.

Do you know why MOST gamers can't go back and play older consoles after picking up new ones? It's because the visual appeal takes over. It's part of HUMAN NATURE.

Prime Example....

Backbreaker's tackling engine is absolutely phenomenal... But will the game be better than Madden and will more people buy it? Of course not -- why? Because it looks atrocious. The Player models are terrible...

Gameplay is important (the most important), but nobody is going to play a game that ISN'T visually appealing to them.

I got Final Fantasy VIII a few months ago for my PS1. People have a 360, yet they bought Perfect Dark XBLA, thus negating your point.

DaveSGE wrote:

Nice pic of Perfect Dark, now look at this one

Need I really explain the visual difference? lol

BlackStigma wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

Nice pic of Perfect Dark, now look at this one

Need I really explain the visual difference? lol

Yes, now look at all of the very blurry, low quality textures there are in that screenshot. Look at all of the MISTAKES they can't cover up, because of the low memory of the cartridge being used... Here, I've circled them all for you...some things are INCOMPLETE and some things don't make any sense.



----

Now -- I'll further prove the point of human nature...

Who would you rather date?

Gabourey Sidibe?


OR

her?


Remember...both are capable of the same functionality to reproduce... And let's imagine both can cook, clean, hold a conversation, make a sandwich, etc....

Which one would you choose?

Remember. Visuals don't matter.

Exactly.

DaveSGE wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Real PBone wrote:

how much better graphics can make the game more fun?

That's it, graphics don't mean much. Every wonder why the PS1 beat the N64? Or why the PS2 beat the Xbox? Etc. Graphics flat out don't matter too much.

Lol You can tell how old you are when those systems were at their peaks. You obviously can't comprehend the conversation that is taking place right now.

1. The original PlayStation was the first console to successfully deliver gaming on a CD-based medium. That mean developers paid less to develop and distribute their product. It also made the console the #1 choice for developers due to those positives.

As for "graphics." The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were nearly on par with one another in terms of actual capabilities. This is a terrible example.

2. The PlayStation 2 beat the Xbox because...re-read #1 and add DVD instead of CD to the discussion.

3. The PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii aren't even close to being on the same level of power. Just like the Xbox 360 and Wii aren't close to one another either. The Wii isn't even capable of delivering true HD gaming, lol.

VISUAL APPEAL -- EVERYWHERE in life, means EVERYTHING.

You'll learn that as you grow up. Your age has no relevance in an argument unless your age is a key element to why you obviously don't understand why things took place the way they did.

yes graphics are nice but their not as important as all the little graphics whores make out gameplay>graphics if you dont like it then gtfo because thats how it is.

Do you know why MOST gamers can't go back and play older consoles after picking up new ones? It's because the visual appeal takes over. It's part of HUMAN NATURE.

Prime Example....

Backbreaker's tackling engine is absolutely phenomenal... But will the game be better than Madden and will more people buy it? Of course not -- why? Because it looks atrocious. The Player models are terrible...

Gameplay is important (the most important), but nobody is going to play a game that ISN'T visually appealing to them.

really i play a game called oblivion which is ugly as hell by today standards and i play numerous others graphics will always just be the icing on the cake.

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

Nice pic of Perfect Dark, now look at this one

Need I really explain the visual difference? lol

Yes, now look at all of the very blurry, low quality textures there are in that screenshot. Look at all of the MISTAKES they can't cover up, because of the low memory of the cartridge being used... Here, I've circled them all for you...some things are INCOMPLETE and some things don't make any sense.



----

Now -- I'll further prove the point of human nature...

Who would you rather date?

Gabourey Sidibe?


OR

her?


Remember...both are capable of the same functionality to reproduce... And let's imagine both can cook, clean, hold a conversation, make a sandwich, etc....

Which one would you choose?

Remember. Visuals don't matter.

Exactly.

thats the stupidest comparison.

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

Invincible wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

How can you be exited for the Move? It's just Wii Motion Plus with a Sony label on it.

Because it's Motion Plus on a HD console rather then Gamecube slim. Maybe we'll finally get to see what the tech is really capable of.

What does HD have to do with this? It justs means that it has better graphics. And the lag will definitely kill it either way.

Better graphics, better AI, better environments, better options and everything else that comes with a current gen console. Move won't be limited by lack of processing power. The Wii's Achilles' heel

Processing power? Really? lol that's too good. How will better graphics make games more fun?

The same way they made 360 games more fun then xbox games. You can make better games with more powerful consoles. Look at World at War on Wii compared to the 360 version. The graphics are so blurry its hard to see whos shooting at you. The controls are nice, but its not worth trading for the superior HD version. Wii is severely limited in what it can do next to PS3 and Xbox.

arnt god of war wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

DaveSGE wrote:

Nice pic of Perfect Dark, now look at this one

Need I really explain the visual difference? lol

Yes, now look at all of the very blurry, low quality textures there are in that screenshot. Look at all of the MISTAKES they can't cover up, because of the low memory of the cartridge being used... Here, I've circled them all for you...some things are INCOMPLETE and some things don't make any sense.



----

Now -- I'll further prove the point of human nature...

Who would you rather date?

Gabourey Sidibe?


OR

her?


Remember...both are capable of the same functionality to reproduce... And let's imagine both can cook, clean, hold a conversation, make a sandwich, etc....

Which one would you choose?

Remember. Visuals don't matter.

Exactly.

thats the stupidest comparison.

No, it isn't. Because VISUAL APPEAL is HUMAN NATURE. It's something we CAN'T control. No matter how great a video game's gameplay is, if the visual appeal of it isn't at a height enough to appeal to your human nature, it is impossible to enjoy it.

It's amateur psychology.