Topic: Gamers Are So Shallow Nowadays...

Yeah, not as such if you take what critics say into account. XBOX 360 has more than 150 games rated higher than 8/10. PS3 has 115. Wii has...fifty five. It doesn't hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360. So that would be less good games and more bad games, would it not? This is of course, not taking into account what the average Joe says (though everyone has a different opinion so it's pretty impossible to tally games like that). In addition to the Wii's lower specs...
(http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/ , http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/, http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/ )

EDIT: Just remembered you said a good game is 7-10.
Xbox 360=354
PS3=230
Wii=164

I like both 3-d and 2-d games. But I've played more 3-d games. But I hate FPS. Also for me the graphics don't matter too much. They just have to be decent and understandable.

Don't ever, and I mean NEVER, take what critics from Metacritic, IGN, Gamespot, and other such sites say. EVER. Why? Because they're asses, plain and simple. (Especially IGN.)

Wait, Metacritic takes scores from OTHER sites? @@ I thought they just took their OWN scores and compiled them. This proves that I'm _really not thinking straight.

And I probably should have said, "don't constantly take a critic's word for it because it's an OPINION." That's exactly what they are... opinions. You'll never really know if you'll like a game until you play it for yourself.

Aw, just shy of 360.

Yes, Metacritic just compiles various media outlet's review scores.

Did you not just post a thread talking about how poor the graphics are for COD: MW!? You're contradicting yourself!

The difference between what I said in this thread and that other thread is that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has no excuse for it's terrible graphics. There are better examples of Wii visuals then Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare:

Super Mario Galaxy, Sonic Unleashed, Tatsunko Vs. Capcom, The Conduit, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and more. These games don't look like last-gen games.

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard for the 2D vs 3D discussions. You admit your friend only enjoys 3D titles and doesn't enjoy trying new things. You then proceed to transfer his opinions of 2D games onto everyone else, for some strange reason.

As for 2D being dead, that's a bit over the top. There are still some 2D titles being made (although not that many), but the reason they've fallen out of favor is that not that many sell well. The thing is there will always be a niche following for it, no matter how fancy the graphics get.

No. But it's getting to where most of them are.

This is not accusing EVERY gamer on the entire planet. I'm just worried that that mindset will spread. I believe he's only tried a total of 3 2D games EVER: World of Goo (which he skipped most of the levels on), Super Smash Bros. (button masher), and Bomberman (always first to die). t's not that he doesn't enjoy them (well... he doesn't) but that he's never truly tried 2D games. And the friend depicted is prime example of what lots of gamers are today.

Also, I never said 2D is dead. I said it's dying.

Did you not read my review score section? 7-10 is a good score. But many people can just as much enjoy 5-6 scored games. It's a good game if you like it, not if it has a good score. Brawl got 9's across the board. Some people hated it (I love it).

My God, you should see the people I go to school with.

Guys, don't ever move to Long Island. Way too many 360/PS3 fanboys. Too many people who prove SSBF1999's argument right.

Luckily, the people down here in St. Pete where I live are not what I ranted about. Also, most of the people in Houston. They're cool.

I know for a fact that I've read this same exact thing on another forum somewhere...

But I do agree with your points, but I just don't care. I couldn't care less about what other people like, dislike, fight about, or argue about. I like what I like, and don't like what I don't. I check out Nintendo Power reviews to see if a game is absolutely unplayable or horrendous, but otherwise, I buy the games I want, good reviews or bad.

I've posted the 2D vs. 3D part on Destructoid and Nicalis' forums, so you probably read it there XD.

Im a huge fan of 2D games myself growin up in the 2D era. Bionic Commando Rearmed and Mega Man 9 were like litte specs of gaming heaven for me. Get that out of the way first to make a few points. 1. Wii owners really need to get off the graphics are NOT what makes a good game great. All gamers know this and if you own a Wii you have the least powerful current gen system, its just a fact of life. Its never goin to have the power to push HD graphics, no big deal cause Nintendo knew this from the start. 2. All PS3/360 fans do NOT only play Killzone/ Cod/ Halo ONLY. PS3 has the most abundant genre of action/adventure/platformer games on the market where as most sports/shooter fans own 360 generally. 3. Nintendo fans did NOT turn their back on Nintendo, Nintendo current casual/ everyones gaming strategies has pulled the company away from a LOT of is diehard fans and that is not the fans fault its the companies. Fans are the ones who are paying not employed. Nintendos fans did NOT in NO way scar the gaming industry, they simply moved on to a different platform. 4. Nintendo will somehow one day bounce back from all this. Sadly I think it will take Miyamoto retiring but they will bounce back again.

PC wins. It has 1150 games with a score of 7/10 or above.

....granted, it has been out a lot longer. But it still boggles me why no one usually brings the PC into these debates. It has some of the best games. I mean, look at the Orange Box. Not just some mindless, violent, FPS. Portal, mindbending clever puzzles with a surprising amount of humour. TF2, with it's insanely fun focus on multiplayer. Or the Half-Life's, which are some of the greatest games of all time.

But with that being said, I still love 2-D games. They are some of the best out there. Needless to say, I can't wait for Muramasa, TvC, and NSMBWii =D

I always considered graphics to be a good first impression and a luxury to a game. They are important but without content to back them up the game is kinda pointless.
2D I think is better because there are many more game designs that can come from it, and not just side-scrollers.
I look at reviews, but I don't just use Metacritic. I also look at player reviews on Gamespot to help me see if the game is any good. Then again I played some badly reviewed games and loved them, and I played some games that I thought were overrated, like Halo.

I love good fun games. Why do I have to choose between perspectives when I love the Zelda Oracles AND Majoras Mask. They are both good games. Why does it matter if they are 2d or 3d? I think 2d and 3d are too vague to be compared. Maybe genres like 3d platformers or 2d platformers could be compared due to their differences. But why does their have to be a better one. There is no better one. There is the opinion of someone liking more 2d games than 3d, but why is there such a debate of which ones better? If this sounds like gibberish, its because I write to fast.

Iz2009 just took the words right out of my mouth.

But yeah, graphics are great to look and to get good first impressions on the game, like Iz2009 said, though without a great concept, storyline, controls, and replay value, graphics are virtually pointless.

The problem I have with 3D games is that people are always expecting them to look better as time passes. On the other hand, companies like Capcom made games that purposely look outdated (8-bit and 16-bit) for nostalgic purposes, and they were well received. Apparently with 2D you can take steps backwards and still have successful games.