Dragon007 said:
Xponent said:
Dragon007 said:
That's actually not true.
The Super Nintendo was more advanced than the Mega Drive/Genesis
The PSX was more powerful than the Saturn and in some ways it was technologically superior to the N64.
The PS2 was more advanced than the Dreamcast.
It's actually always the guy in the middle.
I guess that means the 360 will win this generation? Yeah right... |
It's not always the guy in the middle. NES, Gameboy, and for the current generation the Wii and DS contradict your claim. In any case, the most powerful console has never dominated. The SNES is the only example of the most powerful console winning a generation, but for the most part, it was a in close race with the Genesis. Based on history, it makes more sense to release an underpowered machine. Powerful consoles are generally released later and are more expensive the competition which is always a considerable handicap. In the case of the SNES, Nintendo had the advantage of it's dominance and popularity from the previous generation, and yet it still managed to lose significant marketshare. |
In the examples I gave, yes, it was always the guy in the middle. From the SNES to the PS2. In the SNES era it was between the Genesis and the Jaguar. In the PSX era, it was between the Saturn and the N64. In the PS2 era there wasn't really a middle guy since there were 4 consoles. Basically the PS2 and the Gamcube were in the middle together. With handhelds you may have a point, but not with home consoles. |
No, I think I do have a point with respect to home consoles. The NES was technically inferior to the Master System. Likewise, the Wii is the weakest of the current generation and is likely to dominate. There is no mysterious law by which consoles in the middle are destined to win the race. It is the consequence of a multitude of factors.
I also disagree with your claim that the Jaguar was from the SNES/Genesis genration of consoles.
