By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
blackbird3216 on 30 March 2008
Edit Thread
LordTheNightKnight said:
ironmanDX said:
I too, was wrong, i thought it sounded ok when it was called the Revolution (because in a way, it is a gaming revolution) but then they named it the Wii (you have to admit, its quite an "unorthodox" name compared to ps3 and X360), i too thought this is Game Cube all over again..........

I saw the specs and was like wth?? didn't they learn from the last gen?? ppl want a console so powerful it could blow up their TV's!, but the market, yet again has taken an unexpected twist towards innovation more then just straight power. (which is why DS is owning PSP too, because the touch screen is a world first, not to mention i has 2 screens, the same as their good old play and watch).

I just want to comment on how dumb that line of thought is. In order for that to be true, the GC would have to be just 2 or 3 times as powerful as the N64, and lost horribly to the PS2. As the GC was slightly more powerful, and lost horribly to the PS2, it just proves that Nintendo DID learn from last gen (that having higher specs is not a selling point), and all the bashers were deliberately ignoring that.

Or course the bashers still refuse to eat that illogical, completely counter to history, crow, and use it to justify why the Wii will eventually fail (not necessarily you, I mean others).

So you got your comment on that, Mummelmann.

 


 Did i mention that every console that won the generation had the weakest processing power?(including the SNES and the PS). Even "blast processing" can't save them.