Aielyn said:
Why should a "next" gen system "out muscle" the current gen? The next generation of consoles needs to be able to do things that the current generation cannot do. Was that true of the Wii? Yes. Is that true of the Wii U? Yes. If your attitude were taken to cars, then all that would be made is cars that have more power, go faster, and have a more "stylish" look. By your reasoning, a hybrid car or an electric car could never be a "next generation" car, because it isn't as powerful as a petrol-based car. Any reasonable person would agree that there are many ways to improve on what came before, and the unhealthy obsession with raw power in the gaming industry is what has been killing it over the last 10 years or so. But hey, some developer commented that the Wii U CPU, specifically, seems to be similar to the PS3/360's CPU in terms of ability (while the GPU is significantly stronger), so it's not at all possible for the Wii U to be "next gen", right? I'd respond to your comment by noting that anti-fanboys like yourself seem insistent on claiming that Nintendo is doomed on the basis of such absurd logic, and have been doing so since before the Wii launched (indeed, most of you said that it would be Nintendo's last console, fewer than 10 million sold, etc, etc)... but then, that wouldn't exactly be news, either, would it? |
What you're asking me to do is suspend more than 30 years of gaming hardware trends and redefine what it means to be "next" gen. See, I've been gaming since the 2600 and every generation meant better hardware. Even Nintendo did this from the NES>SNES>N64 and then Gamecube. Every console doubled itself in power. They were into making core gaming machines until the Wii. So now that they decided to change and do a 180, I'm suppose to redefine what I believe next gen means simply because they said so?
Next gen has always meant getting more powerful hardware capable of rendering physics/graphics/AI unachieveable in the prior gen.
