@burgerstein
Sorry, but I didn't answer that particular point because I didn't think it was very relevant at first, then I was away until now. The fact that I say that consoles should be classified as technological objects doesn't imply in any way that I think that the newer the generation, the better the experience of gaming.
One similitude: we can debate about the newest generation of digital cameras. But nobody is saying that their appearance means that the photographers will eclipse the like of Cartier-Bresson, who shot in black and white and with manual focus all his life.
One personal aspect: the console I play most at the time is my PS2, not my PS3 nor my Wii. I still keep looking for PS1 games that I want to keep in my collection, and lately I played all over again MGS and Silent Hill (1). Great games, whenever they came out.
I can't see why we shouldn't be able on one side to consider openly the evolution of the technological means, and on the other side to appreciate what the authors realize with those means.
And let's stop hiding behind the idea that the technology became "good enough" about the time of the N64 or GC and a mystical "gameplay" quality supplies anything from that point on. The NES and super NES had great games, but Ocarina of Time could not be done on them. The N64 had some of the greatest games ever, but for Shadow of the Colossus it wasn't enough technologically - and the game is a piece of art.
If a game author wants to give me a wonderful game where the NPCs react with a great AI, the Wii may be not enough, either.
And so on: technology does not bring us places, that's for the games to do. But it widens the horizon of what is doable, and lets the authors glimpse at faraway kingdoms.
I for one can't wait to play the next Team Ico game, to replay Shadow of the Colossus, and to replay my Magnetic Scrolls adventure games (circa 1986). But I am glad that a console was developed that made Flower possible.
