I beg to differ. We know that the DDR3 combined with the eDRAM and SRAM on die for Latte and the DDR3 and ESRAM on die for the 720's GPU have sacrificed bandwidth for latency. The biggest bottlenecking problem last gen was high latency, Nintendo and Microsoft have addressed that issue and Sony haven't. It's pretty pointless having loads of bandwidth for 'fast' memory if it takes time for the CPU and GPU to handle memory operations once it gets it. Nintendo and Microsoft haven't just done this for a laugh, it's actually a better solution, particularly when you consider the speeds of hard drives and optical drives. The Wii U and the 720 will be more balanced systems, and developers will prefer it.

We also know that over half of the silicon of the GPU is a complete mystery. Some hardware buffs, including my good self, believe that Nintendo have implemented some form of fixed functions into the GPU. Whilst this caused problems with the Wii due to having a nonstandard rendering pipeline you can be sure that Nintendo have been working with engine developers and designers to ensure that these fixed functions can be easily implemented into 3D engines without a problem. What does this mean..? 'Free' use of HDR, depth of field, AA and whatever else they've cooked up.

We also know that Latte uses efficient texture compression, I would hazard a guess that it's based on the same compression algorithm that WiiWare uses which allowed Shin'en to squeeze a Super Mario Galaxy style game into 40MB.

We really don't need to worry about multiplatform titles this gen because all 3 consoles this gen are in a similar position in terms of power as the 6th generation. They're all in the same ballpark. The Wii U is the PS2 equivalent, the 720 is the GameCube equivalent and the PS4 is the Xbox equivalent. The GameCube and Xbox were much more powerful than the PS2 but it could still handle ports, albeit with graphical downgrades. The same will happen this gen, particularly when you consider that the Wii U will have a considerable marketshare advantage. We'll just see Wii U being in 720p, or perhaps even sub-HD like most games last gen, and upscaled by the Wii U to 1080p and the Wii U SKU having less impressive AA, more texture pop-in and less impressive particle effects.

I did and I think you misunderstand the concept somewhat. Memory mapping refers to a technique called bank switching. This gives a console the ability to retrieve data from multiple ROM-banks. It does not magically give a ROM the capacity to store more information, you would still need to cram a 1.8GB ROM inside the cart. Now, I'm not saying this could not be done, but as it was more than 15 years ago, I'll go out on a limb and claim it was practically impossible to do on a normal sized cartridge.

Firstly, if you've played the game, you'll understand that as a whole, the game is NOT 1.8GB. There is a ton of doubling up of resources between the discs in order for the game to run seamlessly (ie. not asking to insert a previous disk if you decide to visit a town no longer relevant to the game's storyline). A few have speculated that without such need, the game would be closer to 1GB. 

If you've looked in cartridges from previous generations, you'd probably see that you do not have to place the entire game on one ROM IC. The page mapper can easily reference more than one ROM should it need to. They could have easily had 4x256MB ROM ICs (keep in mind that there ARE IC forms smaller than the traditional "spider" look, and Nintendo used them frequently in SNES cartridges. There was plenty of PCB space, even on the N64 cart, but once again, it all comes down to cost.

From what I understand it was possible to get them it just cost a fortune hence why most third parties didn't bother with the N64, those who did had to compress and make alterations to get games onto the default carts available. Like he said it would cost developers hundreds just for the cart, this would result in games retailing for prices you could buy several consoles for or selling at a loss even the PS3 pales in comparison to.

15 years ago doesn't exclude the tech from existing it just means it was far less viable like how HD has been around since the 90s.

LOL, a cartridge big enough to store FF7 circa 1997 would cost more than the N64 system itself ... scratch that, it'd probably cost more than the N64 + Playstation consoles combined. 

Hm, I think you're right. I stand corrected. :)

EXACTLY MY POINT!

Thank you for confirming that cartridges were a COST limitation, not a technical one....

There is enough space to do stories now that can be engaging.  What is at issue is GAMES, and the ability to have them stay up to date.  I think posting your original quote would be useful to understand what the heck this is about now.

Also, if you get too oddball with your system, and don't have huge sales, it ends up not mapping to what third-party wants, so they wll shun a console and be less inclined to develop for it.  The next Microsoft console and the PS4 should be real close specwise, so third-party will feel it ok to end up developing both.  Being real short on RAM means that they are really less inclined to do stuff for the Wii U.  That is reality, and really doesn't affect your point of "imagine the story" point.

"The Wii U's GamePad is considered a "natural" fit for Watch Dogs, according to senior producer Dominic Guay."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/393217/wii-u-gamepad-perfect-fit-for-watch-dogs-says-senior-producer/

is WatchDogs a Ubi game? isnt this the same company that said some similar crap about Rayman Legends, didnt they go as far as to say that game would not be possible on another system?