| GhaudePhaede010 said:
I will keep this one shorter. Nintendo showed that interface is as viable an option for generational leaps as graphics and processing. They nailed this point home even further by releasing, "old" hardware with technological innovation expressly on interface. That is a generational leap. It is NOT a traditional generational leap, but it ABSOLUTELY is a generational leap. You are arguing it is not a generational leap despite them proving so to both Sony, Microsoft, themselves, and every one of the 95+ million buyers. What they put on display was that you can add all the power you want, but a generational leap can now be defined distinctly in TWO SEPERATE ways (if necessary). That is where we differ on opinion. You see generational as something tied to graphics, but as I put on display, new ways to interact (even with those new graphics) are just as much generational leaps. Nintendo took this to thee extreme, but they nailed that point home this console generation. |
I understand all your points. The concepts you're discussing are not related to anything that was bound by technological limitations. The ideas are all that was missing. But as we know from the motion controls of the Wii, a new console was not required for them, since Nintendo was going to tack them onto the gamecube, and Sony and MS have both successfully tacked them on to their consoles.
Once again, at the root, gens find their purpose in the need to upgrade a piece of tech due to advancements that were not possible before, for more reasons than "we haven't started R&D yet", if you know what I mean. Not a complex topic, to be sure.
