Yes well, you understand what I mean, right?

Who talks like that?

This guy (starting at 00:28):

Are you trying to get an objective winner in terms of pleasing the consumer?

Unless we are talking about quantity, where the PS3 or 360 clearly have a much broader library of games, there is no way to prove who won this generation. I'd take Wii's First Party lifetime library over any other current gen library.

Also, it's irrelevant who won in the eyes of the consumer, the numers and the lifetime profit speak for themselves, Wii won this generation.

Edit: I despise double posting.

That sucks BIG TIME.

Objectivity, as Morenoingrato said. You can't deviate from sales because then you wade into the realm of subjective. I mean, look at how radically certain games were reclassed as "core" going into this generation. Last generation, forums would have been flooded with people knocking those damn GTA-playing casuals.

Yeah i agree, what I described definitely lends itself to the subjective side of things. Objectively, Sony has a much broader library of games. At the same time objectively Nintendo dominated sales charts. By nature picking between the two IS subjective, but how do you get around that? Like I said I'm a fan of both and hope both are successful with future endeavors :p

Also I got a laugh from the "those damn GTA-playing casuals". Very true.

Even on paper today's graphics cards wipe the floor the the PS3 and XBox's Graphics chip.

For the sake of it... I'll omit the memory bandwidth numbers because in a console they can pair it up with whatever expensive yet stupidly fast memory they want anyway.

PS3:
24 Pixel Shaders, 8 Vertex Shaders, 24 Texture mapping units, 8 Render output pipelines, 550mhz core clock.

Xbox 360: 48 Unified shaders. (Both Pixel and Vertex use the same pipelines.), 16 Texture mapping units, 8 Render output pipelines, 500mhz core clock.

$100 PC graphics card (Radeon 6750):
720 Stream processors. (VLIW5, comparitively would be 144 SP's.), 36 Texture mapping units, 16 rops, 700mhz core clock.

If you go with the Wii U's rumoured 46xx class graphics chip:
320 Stream processors, (64 SP's.), 32 Texture mapping units, 8 Render output Pipelines, Core clock of 500mhz - 1ghz.

VLIW5 architectures that the WiiU uses is generally rather efficient and allows for more throughput per shader cluster than what the PS3 and Xbox is capable of, so even if it *did* have the same amount of shaders it would be far more efficient at pixel and vertex shading with the additional benefit of being able to do geometry shading amongst other things.
Graphics architectures like Fermi and Southern Islands is more geared towards compute, VLIW4 and to a lesser extent VLIW5 is incredibly efficient at graphics  tasks.

If the Wii U is going to be "minimum" in next gen consoles, that should mean some pretty impressive graphics.

It's pratically impossibile that is like modern consoles, simply for having latest hardware.

hopefully Nintendo does like Sony and limits what can be taken advantage of early because this doesn't sound to promising

but if they do make Wii U exactly the same as a PS3 then it will probably launch at $250 like the Wii did(but it will be at a small loss)