| davygee said: IMO your theory does hold water...but...and this is a big but!!! Power of the system comes into it. PS1, Nintendo 64 and Saturn were all of a similar power give or take a wee bit. PS2, XBox, Dreamcast and Gamecube again were all of a similar power give or take a wee bit. There is a much bigger gap between the Wii and the 360 and PS3. This could make the difference....we don't know yet.....but at the moment, IMHO it's the cost and Wii remote factor that is making people buy the Wii...things will be different in the longer term IMHO. I do think, that over the course it will be a close between the PS3 and Wii.....but I cannot see an out and out winner by a huge margin this time around. |
If you were to come up with a series of performance benchmarks the difference between the Wii's performance and the PS3/XBox 360's performance would seem huge; in terms of what the performance difference actually means in real world terms I would say the difference between the N64 and Playstation was far greater.
In early 3D games having twice the processing power was huge because every decision you made was mostly determined by hardware limitations; the difference in what was possible on the Saturn/Playstation and the N64 had huge impacts on how games played. As technology improved the number of hardware limitations decreased and thus the impact extra processing power makes is much smaller. To illustrate this point consider the Difference between Doom II (released in 1994) and Half-Life (released in 1998) and compare it to the difference between Half-Life and Half-Life 2 (released 2004). I think that it is safe to say that the difference between Doom II and Half-Life is a much greater "real world" difference even though the processing power difference between what was possible between Half-Life and Half-Life 2 was far greater.
