In america Wii games are 50$, PS3 games are 60, and 360 games are 50 or 60.

I think the extra 10$ is worth the graphics. I also hate playing the Wii, as I'm a lazy slouch, and I just cant get confy unless I'm standing. And The othe day I spent 14 hours playing motorstorm. Likely the job I'm gonna get here in the near future, will wear my arms out, so I'm not gonna wanna have to use them at ALL if I decide to play a game. I like the option. I dont like being forced to use it. 

I would agree that $10 is probably worth the extra graphics.  My problem is that I'm not willing to pay the $350 extra up front to get to that $10 per game game level.  I'm actually surprised that your reason for not liking the wii is bc you have to stand up.  I've seen people play every game on Wii sports sitting down very effectively.  In addition, that's one of the things I like about the wii is that I can turn it on from my couch and I only have to get up to change discs.  Not withstanding, most games use very little in the way of arm movements (same amount of effort as a button push). 

 On paper, yes the PS3 is 10x as powerful as the wii.  However, there are several diminishing returns.  I've yet to see a game that truly optimizes multiple core processors.  In addition, how much more power does the wii need?  It's only an SD console.  It's never going to output 1080p, as such I don't know what it would do with the power if it was close to a PS3.  So my question is what would be the optimal console power for an SD console?  Should the wii be twice as powerful?  Is it powerful enough?  Do you truly need a PS3 to optimize SD? 

The second thing is do people really expect future generations of consoles to look better than the PS3 in 1080p?  Let's say their is an infinite amount of power available.  You say that you need 20x a PS3 to optimize 1080p graphics, then you can have it.  The big bugdet games for PS3 are rumored to have up to $500 M budgets.  It's my argument that we are not going to see much better graphics.  I think that you could eventually make a game with "shrek" type graphics.  But you'll never see it because it would take too many resources and be unfeasible from a business prospective.  Which is why the PS3 will never be tapped out in terms on it's ability.  Theoretically the PS3 has more power but I doubt we'll see much of it used. 

Um, isn't this underlining my point? According to you PS2 had one-tenth the power of its direct competitor the XBox 1 and was STILL able to put out a high quality experience.

I saw Tekken 5 on my friend's PS2 a few months ago and I couldn't see the big deal people made about graphics needing to improve so much. The game looked and sounded great to me. All the characters were vivid in color, had detail and the motion was smooth. It had realism. I couldn't see the big deal about this up the graphics argument and that was supposed to be the weakest of the 6th gen systems. The intro screens were wonderful and were as crisp as a TV show or a movie. On the PS2!

What I'm telling you is to stop looking at cold hard specs to decide the power of the systems. XBox 360 & PS3 have negligible differences in output. All that differential is marketing hype. And though Nintendo isn't lauding system power over the others the Wii is not that weak. It's not just a Gamecube in another box. It's how those components WORK TOGETHER that decide how good the output is. And you can't necessarily see that through ~Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor big numbers = more power ARK ARK ARK~ type of mindset. The power is NOT on the paper and going to wikipedia to see all 3 systems written specs side by side will show you that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Technical_specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Technical_specifications

It's not the individual components; it's the components in tandem working together that give a system its output potential. And also there's more than one way to skin a cat. This is not a binary game. The talent lies in the programmers and the artists.

John Lucas

I'm hearing a bit too much "raw specs" buillshit, like "cell is 20x more powerful than C2D". Where are you pulling this crap from? Folding@home results? Sorry to burst your bubble, but GFLOPS don't make a good processor. The ATi client outperforms the PS3 client pound for pound. So why don't we run Windows on our GPU? The Cell processor contains a lot of vector processing units whih are not only a pain to use, but they're VERY specialised. There's a reason why CPUs exist despite the fact that a GPU will have "20x" the power running at 1/4 of the clock speed. The CPU is a general processor and can do a lot more than the Vector Processors of the Cell. If your code is not optimsed for the Cell (and despite what many fanboys think, there are MANY applications which CANNOT be run on the Cell's vector units) then it's just a regular old POWER6 CPU, which is way outperformed by the C2D. The Cell is a completely different architecture and you cannot say it is "20x" more powerful than a C2D, because it depends on what you're using it for. Pure physics calculations with no branching, it will wipe the floor with a C2D. Gaming? Who knows? But I think by the time we find out, PC chips will be well ahead of the PS3.

Why make a new Tekken on the Wii? just release an old one that way you don't take a step back in visuals. Tekken 6 on the Wii wouldn't be a blow to sony ....it would just blow. 

Eh, just take tekken 5, add whatever you can for graphics going from ps2-wii power, and mod all the character stats to match the gameplay of tekken 6, and bingo, tekken 6 wii. not that hard. I'd probably look better than the call of duty3 360 vs Cod3 Wii at any rate. Point is, anything can be downgraded if they wanted too.

Not to mention you may need to spend hundreds on a new TV to even get the full difference.