Currently Online 
setsunatenshi said:
the inconsistency is: A- better graphics, lighting, frame rate, etc is not important for me, I don't want to buy a new console just because of that B- a new console that plays the exact same games simply with better graphics, lighting, frame rate, i feel forced to buy it
either being on the bleeding edge is important or it's not important, can't be both at the same time |
So, as I wrote earlier, I'm all for advances in technology - just at a slower pace. If graphics and lighting meant nothing to me, I'd still be playing ColecoVision. As far as B goes, I don't recall writing I would feel forced to buy an interative console. I wrote that the act of upgrading mid-cycle would cloud the line between PC and console, and, in the process, destroy the raison d'etre of console gaming.
I think my points comply with and inform each other. I don't want iterative consoles because 1) when I invest in a console I expect a stable, uniform experience for a five or six year period and 2) I object to the principle that mid-cycle refreshes are necessary in the first place.
