I agree wholeheartedly.

I've been saying something similar to this for the last month and a half... Still can't wait to see if "Wii U is underpowered" folks will change their tune and suddenly be accepting of an incremental leap if it turns out PS4/720 are just incremental updates as well and not. 

True, but N64 came out over a year (and a half [Japan]) after the PS1 so it was bound to have better specs - although I'm unsure if it was underpowered compared to how it was hyped during the Ultra 64 vaporware days or if the cart format really held it back. 

Sticking with carts certainly cost them the gen and is the reason the PS1 took off like it did.

I don't treally buy this though. Even a middle of the road PC with a 2010-era GPU can display graphics noticably better than PS3/360. And it's pretty damn noticable when you put the games side by side, not one of those "you have to squint to see the difference" type deals.

I would imagine games like Watch Dogs, Star Wars 1313, and Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes will be first wave PS4/720 titles.

It wasn't so much the carts as it was part of the gimped / bottlenecked hardware that Nintendo put in their system to save a few dollars and launch at $199 to undercut the competition while making a profit on the hardware at the same time.  The average game had low quality textures compared to many PS1 or even Saturn games games because of this, but the expansion pack allowed for better visuals in games like Rogue Squadron and Perfect Dark, both of which look better than any PlayStation game that doesn't feature pre-rendered backgrounds or CGI cutscenes.

The storage limitations of the cartridges weren't as big as everyone made them out to be at the time.  The N64 version of RE2 for example contains all the content that the PS1 version had on 2 discs, with the only difference being the highly compressed cut scenes.  The only thing PS1 had over the N64 was uncompressed audio and CG cutscenes.

It wasn't so much the carts as it was part of the gimped / bottlenecked hardware that Nintendo put in their system to save a few dollars and launch at $199 to undercut the competition while making a profit on the hardware at the same time.  The average game had low quality textures compared to many PS1 or even Saturn games games because of this, but the expansion pack allowed for better visuals in games like Rogue Squadron and Perfect Dark, both of which look better than any PlayStation game that doesn't feature pre-rendered backgrounds or CGI cutscenes.

The storage limitations of the cartridges weren't as big as everyone made them out to be at the time.  The N64 version of RE2 for example contains all the content that the PS1 version had on 2 discs, with the only difference being the highly compressed cut scenes.  The only thing PS1 had over the N64 was uncompressed audio and CG cutscenes.

It was though.  I believe the opposite of what you're saying... I think the hardware was fine, but the carts held it back.

For example, the N64 lost out on a ton of software due to the cart format.  Probably the first ever betrayalton occurred due to this - Squaresoft moving Final Fantasy 7 from the N64 to the PS1.  Some devs didn't even touch the system, like Capcpom (save for a Mickey Mouse tetris game a few other ports like Mega Man Legends), even though the system had a controller perfect for their fighting game.  Even Resident Evil 2 got farmed out to Angel Studios.

And I'm not arguing that the PS1 was more powerful than the N64 because that's just not true.  Even with CD-quality music and the use of Redbook audio in some games, the N64 held it's own in terms of sound quality when in the hands of capable devs (no one got the N64 to sing like Rare - just listen to Jet Force Gemini).  And the N64's show pieces shit all over the PS1's - whether they're using pre-rendered CG backgrounds or not. 

The limitations of the cart format, not so much the hardware, hindered games like Killer Instinct Gold.  So many frames of animation cut, CG cut, voices cut.  The N64 was powerful enough to handle a 1 for 1 port of that game.  Same with Resident Evil 2.  The game looked much better on the N64, but the voices were raspy and the CG scenes blurred due to heavy compression.  None of that would've happened had it not been for the cart format.  Resident Evil 2 only existed on the N64 (in form of a 512mb cart - twice the size of Zelda: OoT or Zelda: MM) because by the time it was released, Factor 5 had developed some seriously efficient compression tools.

It wasn't due to superior graphics that the 64 failed NN. It was due to the media format and hardware limitations. Case in point actually a gimped system the N64 was for most 3rd parties, and that ruined it.

The Wii is weaker in all respects, not just an important one like the 64 was (game media). That's worse. However the Wii compensated by catering to a new market, something that was also possible on the N64. So the Wii's success in the new blue market has nothing to do with Nintendo's continued failure in the traditional red market. As a reminder, the success of the unproven Wii in the casual market was a shock to all, believers and non-believers alike. However they won't strike gold twice since users already own the Wii. The U needs to be a significant HW upgrade otherwise there's no incentive to buy. Well, that and alluring SW exclusives.