Sony failed to capitalized on this sector. Simply put, the system looks like sh*t. 90% of the launch games on the GC and Xbox already looks better than 60% of the games on the PS2.
95% of all statistics are made up on the spot. However, let us assume that your percentages are correct and if graphics are the main reason why people buy games, then for every 1 X-Box game that looks like it\'s worth playing, I can name 2 PS2 games that are worth playing. The problem with this statement is that some people will play certain games while others will not. A Nascar game can be the most stunning visual show piece a console has ever seen, but not everyone likes Nascar so people would rather play GT3 or Project Gotham. The style of the game is just as important as the graphics. If I made a Zelda clone and marketed it towards Nintendo fanboys and made sure it looked 10x\'s better than the Zelda it was in competition with, Zelda would sell better regardless.
So graphics, graphical style, brand name recognition, and company development are all very crucial parts when it comes to game sales.
Many fanboys would point out such gems as Metal Gear Solid 2, GT3, and Devil May Cry as a focal graphical standpoint for the PS2. That is the fanboy viewpoint and it is biased as such. The average mean should be the determining factor and not the select few *top* titles.
You said that 90% of x-box and GC games look better than most PS2 games, which ones? The only ones that I can see that are superior then anything are DOA3, Halo, Rogue Leader, and WaveRace. I almost discluded Wave Race simply because it\'s chief graphical achievement is the water. DOA3\'s chief graphical achievement is its backgrounds, even though the fighters look very similar to DOA2 HC\'s representations. Shall we go through the other launch games?
To expect every game to be an amazing graphical achievement is like expecting every hollywood film to have the best special effects ever. Some movies and some games just don\'t need that luster or that flair. They just need to do what they set out to accomplish: Be Entertaining.
If everyone on this Earth had the mentality such as yourself, then no one would play Grand Theft Auto 3. No one would play Super Monkey Ball. No one would play 2D Street Fighter games anymore. Since these games are still made the way they are, there is obviously an audience for them.
I\'m skipping the rest of your arguement because it is all completely contradictiary in terms... But I won\'t leave this part alone that discredits your entire thread.
How do I know? The industrial leader always sticks to a simple, tried and true, no-risk formula.
If that was the case, then Sony would have made a console that was easy to program for, cheap to build, cheap costing, and offered 0 extras or ideas in terms of innovation.
The PS2 is a DVD\\CD\\PSX\\PS2 game player. The PS2 has the worlds first controller that is entirely pressure sensitive which is being used today in the best games for some of the best reasons allowing 10 simple buttons (4 shoulders, 4 face, R3\\L3) to become 18 buttons thanks to it\'s ideas of pressure sensitivity. It\'s also the first console to incorporate USB controller support\\I.Link support for its games and multiplayer. It\'s also the first console\\DVD movie player and the first console to use the DVD format as its basic game medium.
I suppose that\'s tried and true\\low risk right?
Please, Sony and Sega are the two companies that are taking the most risk this generation. Sega first with the idea behind a console that is designed practically as an online machine and Sony for creating an innovative console in terms of design and functionality. The PS2 may not be the graphical beast that the X-Box is or that the GC is and it is definitely much more difficult to make games for, but it is still considered innovative for what it (the emotion engine) accomplishes.
Microsoft\\Nintendo are taking the safe route on this one. How could they not? The barely sold 1/3 of what the PSX sold and MS is the new kid on the block who can\'t afford to make ANY mistakes or take any huge risks, besides that glaring one of actually entering the business as a hardware manufacturer altogether. Microsoft and Nintendo can\'t afford to do anything that will jeapordize their future in this industry, but since Sony is the leader, they can afford to take the risk and see how things turn out. This "console war" will not be as clear cut as last generations\' but I assure you that there will be many things both companies do wrong that will make them better competitors in the future. Who cares who will win anyways?
It\'s all about having fun and to deny yourself a Playstation 2 is to deny yourself a load of fun. You have fun hating sony Tshirts, I\'ll have fun playing theirs, X-Box\'s and Gamecube\'s great games.
