I see a lot of replies which state that people would rather want innovative games and new experiences rather than beefier graphics.

I would love that too but from what I see, most game studios are obsessed with making cinematic and liner types of games where gameplay comes a distant second. There are exceptions obviously, but if a game is going to remove gameplay freedom and hold my hand to present a cinematic style approach, I want it to look great. And so do you...

Otherwise I am happy with playing XBL arcade titles as I am more likely to find gameplay innovations there than in the latest retail releases.

I'm sure we'll see a reasonable improvement.

It seems the problem you have is that they put console games on PC. As in, straight port.

I just bought a PC with an i5-2500 and a 560 ti.

I would rather see them wait a couple more years, say to 2014, and put out a more powerful (though not ridiculously cutting edge and therefore extremely expensive) console.

I just bought a PC with an i5-2500 and a 560 ti.

I would rather see them wait a couple more years, say to 2014, and put out a more powerful (though not ridiculously cutting edge and therefore extremely expensive) console.

Not really.

For me 6870 and 560 offer good enough graphics

Of course we want them to look good, everyone wants their games to be nice to look at. But that doesn't mean they have to be technologically demanding, and it shouldn't come at the cost of new kinds of gameplay.

For example, because voice commands are really easy to do with Kinect, we have games like Mass Effect 3 using them, and it's only a matter of time before we start seeing more and more games that use Kinect, the games are already starting to show. So I would personally rather have Microsoft focus on Kinect and new features for the next generation rather than beefing up the NextBox.

agreed, me thinks that 399$ is the perfect launch price.

@topic; THe thing Console's do better than PC's; Symbiosis of the each and every piece of Hardware. look at the results Developers get out of 6 Year old Hardware.

So no, i am sure Sony and MS will be able to steal the PC's lead for a Year or two, while doing it for a good price.

I've never been so confused from one thread.

Even the rumoured "Low End" GPU in the Wii U, after modifications and optimization, will likely be able to play games on a similar level to Crysis 2 at close to its highest levels of detail with a resolution of 1080p @60fps ... While graphics can improve beyond this point, the value in pushing graphics is becomming smaller and smaller over time.

On top of the lower value, until there is a means of managing development costs while producing dramatically higher quality graphics it is unlikely that publishers and developers will push high end hardware that could be released with next generation systems. At a time where developers are going bankrupt if their $20 to $40 Million game doesn't sell as well as expected it isn't likely that these publishers/developers will want to start producing games with an average budget that is approaching $100 Million.

Edit: Please note that I'm not saying the Wii U will be able to match the output of Crysis 2 at its highest settings at launch, but more that the best looking games after 3 or 4 years will probably be very similar to what we see from Crysis 2 on a high end PC today.