What the hell has been going on in this thread that made it reach 1000+ posts?

The people posting are engaging, but also kind in their responses. Disagreeing does not mean flame war.

You didn't get my point. I will try to address all your points and questions but first let me pick one of your sentences in order to explain you why you didn't understand what I'd said. You said this: "what I'm getting at is FIFA 2001 and FIFA 13 are much more similar to each other than Wii Sports is to a game similarly older than it. Can you think of any examples of games from around 1994 that are very similar to Wii Sports?". Although your sentence is right, the question you make right after shows that you've used a wrong premise. My point was: Wii Sports is a retro-game (closer to games from the past than the 7th gen in the different gaming aspects) and thus a mini-game. When I assess Wii Sports in terms of content (through a comparison with a sports game from the 7th gen, FIFA 13), the difference is so obvious that, in order for me to show how big that is, I need to go backwards 17 years and pick FIFA 96 because I'm afraid FIFA 2001 is too evolved when compared to Wii Sports. Of course this is just about 1 aspect, game content (in which Wii Sports fits in the 5th gen, in my opinion). We can see other aspects too, but I believe none of them will put the game in the 7th gen.

Then, regarding your points and questions:

- I don't ignore any example. Actually, FIFA 2001 works more "in my favor" than FIFA 96. But I needed to be fair.

- I don't imply FIFA 2001 is very similar to FIFA 13. In fact, they are quite different. They're just not different enough from each other when I add Wii Sports to the analysis.

- A game from 1994 similar to Wii Sports...probably a football game from that year. Or, to give you examples of tennis games, I would say that the game is somewhere between Jennifer Capriati Tennis (1992) and Virtua Tennis (2000). It would most probably mean 1996 but then you can consider FIFA 11 instead of FIFA 13 in your analysis (they are both 7th gen and don't differ much in graphics, gameplay and content). Or, to be even fairer, you can consider FIFA 07 (same year as Wii Sports) and then the conclusion is obvious: FIFA 07 (2006) is clearly more evolved than FIFA 2001 (2000) while Wii Sports (2006) is not even as evolved as Virtua Tennis (2000).

- Due to what I've said already, your last 2 paragraphs don't even need to be answered.

CPU: PS3 - 8 x 3.2GHz vs Wii - 0.729GHz --> PS3 around 35 times more powerful

Video RAM: PS3 - 256MB vs Wii - 27MB --> PS3 around 9.5 times more powerful

Video Memory Bandwidth: PS3 - 22.4GBps vs Wii - 3.9GBps --> PS3 5.7 times more powerful

Main System RAM: PS3 - 256MB vs Wii - 64MB --> PS3 4 times more powerful

Memory Bandwidth: PS3 - 25.6GBps vs Wii - 1.9GBps --> PS3 13.5 times more powerful

Minimum Storage: PS3 - 20GB vs Wii - 0.5GB --> PS3 at least 40 times more powerful

I know that some values can be challenged (for example, 8 x 32GHz may not be equivalent to 25.6GHz) but, ignoring some small deviations due to rough calcs, the point is that PS3 and Wii are in different orders of magnitude. It's not about 20%, 50% or 100% difference. It's about many times 100% (5, 10, 20 times). It's like comparing a city with an entire country, while in SNES and Mega Drive you are comparing 2 cities and saying one is bigger than the other...and I say: well, they are still cities, they can be viewed in the same scale...PS3 and Wii can't.

First, I had admitted that N64 had some games that contributed to the gaming evolution (read my post again before saying I'm not qualified to comment) just that they were few. Second, I spoke about Sonic Adventure, not Sonic Adventure 2. Third, I tell you in what aspects Mario 64 did not demolish the games before it:

- Speed / adrenalin: Sonic 3 & Knucles was far better on this than a RPG platformer as Mario 64. Sonic Adventure not only brought speed to full 3D levels in an amazing style and through state-of-the-art graphics but also presented some RPG gameplay. You had a world of options and top-notch gaming experiences with Sonic Adventure. Mario 64 wasn't able to make such difference to Sonic and Crash Bandicoot.

- Size: Mario 64 levels were tiny when compared to most of platform games at that time. I know the RPG style reduces the need for size but yet Sonic Adventure 1 has shown both things can coexist and Sonic Adventure 2 has brilliantly revealed it's possible to have RPG gameplay inside of a fast-pace level experience.

- Music: Mario 64 couldn't even surpass the instrumental music created for platform games like Sonic 3 & Knucles and some other side scrolling platformers. Sonic Adventure brought a vast and amazing soundtrack, with both instrumental and vocal music.

- Game modes: Mario 64 was just about catching star coins, like the other platformers had only 1 game mode too (Sonic 3 was reaching checkpoints, Sonic 3D blast was collecting birds, Halloween Harry was saving girls, etc.). But Sonic Adventure brought the multi-gaming experience to platformers: reaching checkpoints with Sonic, winning races with Tails, catching emeralds with Knuckles, surviving pursuits with Amy, accomplishing destructive missions with Gamma and fishing with Big The Cat + extra gaming experiences like karting, fighting Robotnic's and Chaos' bosses, taking care of chaos, finding emblems in the open world, etc.

- Graphics: Although Mario 64 presented full 3D levels, the level design was poor when compared to games like Crash Bandicoot (N64 couldn't do miracles against PS1), Mario made a choice and that had pros and cons. Sonic Adventure presented the same level of full 3D areas but with an action-style camera (full 3D gameplay), big and highly detailed levels and a much higher resolution. There were no pros and cons, only pros.

So, it's like I said: Mario 64 did a great job but only in some aspects.

In regards to the 6a point, I just have 1 thing to say: like I told you before, it's as if you were comparing 2 cities...not a city against a country (like it is with Wii and PS3).

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=171091&page=1#

6% agree with your prediction John!

2. 
2a.  Game content? 
FIFA 96 is one sport; Wii Sports is many sports. 
Wii Sports also has many features FIFA 96 lacks, including but not limited to 3D gameplay, avatar creation, motion controls, etc.  I bet you didn't consider any of this. 
The FIFA series has many games in the same series over time, so it's easy to see the evolution of the games over time (to see the "generations" of games).  In this way we can call it a benchmark of sorts for the type of thing you want to measure.  Wii Sports is a fundamentally different type of game.  First, you need to identify examples of the same type of game from the generation you think Wii Sports belongs in.  Then, you need to show me the evidence that they are similar enough to say that Wii Sports belongs in that gen. 

2b.  In what ways is FIFA 2001 different from FIFA 2013? 

2c.  To suggest that Wii Sports is anywhere near Jennifer Capriati Tennis is a joke.  As for Virtua Tennis, I don't see why it would be considered superior to Wii Sports instead of inferior. 

3.  I could point out cities that have that kind of difference in magnitude.  I could also point out that a city from 1800 of 500,000 people is very different from a city of the same population from 1900, and ditto 2000.  Also, I agree with your comment that these numbers are not to be taken just at face value, but I still would like to comment on a couple of them. 

3.1  CPU:  I already said that the PS3 and Wii architectures are so different that it's hard to say what the difference in numbers actually means.  Is the PS3's CPU 8/3s as good as the 360's which has the same clock speed but only 3 cores?  I would gladly accept saying that the PS3's CPU is (3.2/.73) as good as the Wii's, or 4.4x. 

3.2  I should also note that the "quality" of these components changes over time, i.e. 256MB of RAM in 2000 probably wouldn't be as good as 256MB of RAM in 2010.  The Wii's stuff is much more contemporary with its contemporaries than with its predecessors.  For instance the Xbox 360 and the Wii both use GDDR3 type system RAM.  (Although the Wii also uses a significant amount of RAM of another type that I believe is faster, but I have not confirmed this.) 

3.3  Bandwidth:  Giving this as fact without context beyond both of our expertise is meaningless IMO; unless I'm mistaken, bandwidth only really matters if it's a bottleneck; having 999GB/s won't matter if all the rest of the system can push through it is 20GB/s—it would be like using a 10 foot diameter pipe to transport water that would fit inside a 2 foot diameter pipe. 

3.3  Really?  You're using the hard drive to measure power?  You are being silly beyond words, especially when both of them are designed to handle additional storage at the user's discretion. 

4.  When you say "few" N64 games contributed to innovation I say you are wrong.  Fewer, maybe; I would argue that there was overall at least as much innovation from N64 games as from PS1 games.  But in any case, "few" implies a much lower level of innovation that is false. 
—Speed, ok.  Sonic is "faster" than Mario and 3D platformers also have a hard time feeling as fast as 2D.  I'm sure SM64 demolished any 3D platformers that came before it in this area but not if we extend the comparison to 2D ones. 
—Size, no.  Give me sources about how small SM64 was please.  I don't believe your assertion. 
—Music, bullshit!  I went and listened to some Sonic & Knuckles music on youtube and to suggest it is superior to SM64 music is mind-boggling.  Your bias, or nostalgia, is showing.  As for Sonic Adventure, the music quality is superior technically, but inferior aesthetically.  (By this I mean it's not composed as well; the music is not as good, in a similar way to how old Final Fantasy music often blows away music composed for more recent games despite being more technically primitive.  I am not saying that Sonic's music is "blown away", but I am saying it is not as good.)
—Game modes:  In other words, Sonic Adventure had the following game modes:  run to objective type A, run to objective type B, run to objective type C, etc.  Much better than Mario!  It's been a long time since I played Sonic Adventure and I'm not as familiar with it, so I have to ask:  did it have different gameplay elements like Mario's hats, the cannons, extensive swimming levels, etc.?  You mention some stuff but it seems so far like it's just different, not more, than the variation that SM64 had.  Mario had a lot of different types of things you had to do to get stars, like "go beat the enemy", "solve puzzles", "explore and find it", "collect special coins", etc. etc. 
—SM64 had inferior level design compared to Crash Bandicoot?  Are you serious?  This is most likely an opinion that you hold based on no evidence I can imagine other than perhaps your own personal preference for racing-type action.  I doubt there is any respected review that exists comparing Crash Bandicoot level design favorably to Mario 64.  By all means feel free to find me one.  What do you mean by "action full 3D camera", because I thought Mario's camera was fully controllable?  I won't dispute that Sonic Adventure had more "detail" because Mario 64, as a cartridge game, had pretty limited textures on its polygons, a weakness of the N64.  Although the N64 supported 480i resolution, the same as the Dreamcast used, many N64 games including SM64 ran at lower resolutions so I will also concede that.  However if you are implying that the level design in Sonic was also superior to SM64, well again, find some evidence other than rose tinted nostalgia goggles. 

4b.  I stand corrected.  To suggest that Sonic Adventure (not Sonic Adventure 2) had greater impact on gamers, game design, etc. than Super Mario 64 is pure delusion.  (For one thing, although sales are not exactly a sure indicator of quality, SM64 not only sold more than four times as many copies, it also had a better attach rate.)  SM64 regularly places near the top of lists of "greatest games of all time" lists, and also lists of most influential games.  Please provide evidence of Sonic Adventure being even remotely close to in the same regard. 

6.  I reject your attempt to hand-wave this point.  SNES isn't just better, it's dramatically better.  And do you put the Dreamcast and the Xbox in the same generation?  There's a pretty big difference there too.  We can compare specific games if you want, but here's a glance at the hardware: 
CPU:  200 vs. 733, 3.66x as good
GPU:  66? vs. 233,  3.5x if I'm right ... Based on the wikipedia articles DC could push 7 million polygons per second and Xbox could push 29 million, but i do not know whether they were similar enough polygons to say for sure the Xbox's GPU was actually 4x as good. 
Memory:  16MB vs. 64MB, 4x as good
Internal/external storage?:  No/memory cards, yes/memory cards
Internet:  dialup modem, ethernet connection
We can say that a reasonable person would say the Xbox was at least "four times as good" in hardware as the Dreamcast.  Now, of course you can say that it's up to whether the games also reflect that difference, but anyway, there you go.  By the way, this is comparable difference to that which exists between the N64 and PS2. 

CPU:  94MHz, 295 MHz, ~3x
GPU:  62.5MHz, 147.5MHz, ~3x
RAM:  4 to 8 MB (Expansion Pak), 36MB, ~4.5x to 9x
Storage:  Memory cards (HDD optional expansion for use with certain games only on PS2 only)
I'm actually not going to try to use this last comparison to make an argument, I just want to throw it out there as food for thought.  If you'd like to comment on this, feel free but please recall what I've been saying about cartridge limitations affecting the N64 games' appearance. 

I know, it's a mini-game collection

Do you remember Midway Arcade Treasures for PS2? Was it 6th gen just because it was a collection of games from the past? I don't think so.

Either you have a deep game (and then you can consider it a current gen title) or you have a collection of mini-games and that doesn't make it current gen, no matter how many retro-experiences are included.

You're wrong. FIFA 96 has 3D gameplay. It doesn't have avatar creation but it has team customisation tools (which Wii Sports hasn't). It doesn't have motion controls but it has a parameterized gameplay in which hundreds of teams and thousans of players bahave differently according to their skills (which Wii Sports hasn't). It's natural that you find things Wii Sports has and FIFA 96 doesn't...but for each of them I easily find another that FIFA 96 has and Wii Sports doesn't (except for the fact that Wii Sports is a collection of games, but then I've already told you what I think about that).

It's very hard to do the first step, since Wii Sports is a game that has several and different sports. Either you are flexible enough to take the football or tennis examples, or you can just convince yourself that Wii Sports is a 7th gen game.

Everything. Graphics, gameplay, content, sound, etc. Which aspect do you want to choose? Be my guest.

I know Jennifer Capritati is in a lower level than Wii Sports. But let me tell you 3 things in which they are similar and far behind Virtua Tennis: cartoonish graphics, while Virtua Tennis has realistic players and environments and even attempts to simulate them; basic gameplay, while Virtua Tennis takes into account many more parameters to simulate a player's different behavior depending on the position and conditions he/she is in; no career mode, while Virtua Tennis has world map full of tournaments that affect the player's ranking, trainning sessions that affect the player's skills and shops that alter the player's appearence and performance. Of course Wii Sports has several things Jennifer Capriati Tennis doesn't but I don't think to be unfair to put Wii Sports between those 2 games.

This is not the first time you attack me without asking first for me to justify my opinion. Then you get owned with no possible escape.

Hard drive, in this specific case, affects power...and additional storage at the user's discretion can do nothing to change it. How about this, huh?...Let me explain: once every PS3 has at least 20GB memory, the platform can afford to have games with mandatory installation, unlike X360 and Wii. That allows devs to pull even more out of the console. Just because of that, for example to put Uncharted on the X360 (if it was possible) would be a hell of a job.

Wrong. Crash Bandicoot was faster.

The internet is big, but not that big that I can find how many km2 each game has. I've played Mario 64 and many other platformers from different generations. I am my own source on this. If you don't believe me, I can do nothing about it.

If you do believe me, I can tell you that Mario 64's levels are tiny and not that numerous so that one thing could compensate the other. Most of 2D platformers at that time were far bigger. You can tell me that's an unfair comparison once Mario was 3D but then I tell you that, although I agree with you, the fact is that Mario 64's pros have harmed other aspects, which have became their cons, and thus the game hasn't demolished the competition in every aspect as you were saying. On the other hand, Sonic Adventure shines on what where Mario 64's pros...and cons too. Presenting next-gen graphics and full 3D gameplay, Sonic Adventure hasn't jeopardised content or detail. Its levels are much much bigger than the ones of Mario 64 (I would say 10 times bigger, on average).

Now you are being biased, mind-boggling and dominated by nostalgia. First of all, if you find Mario 64's music to be more aesthetically or well composed, that's just your opinion. Mine is that, in terms of music, Sonic 3 is way better than Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure is way better than Sonic 3.

But let's try to be objective. Sonic 3 has lower level sound but much faster and intensive music tracks than Mario 64. As for Sonic Adventure vs Mario 64, the sound quality is higher, the instruments are more sophisticated, the music tracks are faster and more intense (have more notes per second) and there are vocal tracks (first time in a platoformer game, I think).

In the end, everything is about going from point A to B...from Mario getting star coins to Mario Kart races. Are them both about the same thing? If Mario 64 and Mario Kart were in 1 single game, would you say that game had only 1 game mode? I don't think so. Plus, "go beat the enemy" can be "run to objective type A", "solve puzzles" can be "run to objective type B" and "explore and find it" can be "run to objective type C". Is it fair to put things on these terms? Again, I don't think so. Sonic levels were about getting to point A (like Mario 64 getting star coins) but Tails levels were races...and Knucles levels were about finding 3 emeralds in open-worlds and through a proximity radar...and Big The Cat levels were about fishing (this doesn't even fit in "going from point A to B, since the character didn't have to move to catch a fish)...etc. I know that getting a star coin in Mario 64 wasn't always about doing the same thing (one of them was even about a snow race) but that's very different from actually having a character and all his/her levels being about a certain gaming experience with its own rules. Sonic Adventure had 6 + extras. As for the control features, I know Mario 64 allowed a lot of things (even flying) but you seem to forget Sonic Adventure had not 1 but 6 character with different abilities. 2 of them fly (in very different ways), the way they jump, the way they punch, etc. everything is different and, in my opinion, you get even more diversity on this game than in Mario 64 (even considering only the control features).

For games that old, I only find comparisons in forums...and the ones that talk about graphics say Mario 64 had less detail. But see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzb0loaatyQ

By action-style 3D camera I mean that it was a 3rd person camera like in GTA, Uncharted or Assassin's Creed. Mario 64's camera was more oriented to the ground, like a slow or primitive action game is.

Sales don't tell you the quality of a game. The only thing sales objectively tell is how big could have been the impact on gamers. Critic score then don't tell you anything objectively at all, it's 100% subjective. So far, I've already told you many objectively aspects in which Sonic demolishes Mario 64 like Mario 64 hasn't done to the games before it. I will not go get reviews from others because that would be introducing subjectivity in something that is objective yet. Tastes vary from person to person, facts don't.

In regards to point 6, I've said enough already. Now you see what you want to see and you label "dramatically" any difference you want to.

2a1.  It is incredibly disingenuous to equate a collection of past games with a collection of newly created games.  Also I would not term the Midway collection a bunch of "mini-games". 
2a2.  It seems to me that your idea of a "deep" game probably conflicts with certain genres.  For instance, are there any SHMUPs that you would consider "deep games"?  Shoot-em-up games include Contra, R-Type, Panzer Dragoon, Einhander, Ikaruga, etc.  You just fly your ship through millions of enemies shooting them all. 
2a3.  You are correct.  I actually didn't even look up FIFA 96 before making claims about it; I was wrong to do so.  Having watched your video, the graphics are primitive compared to Wii Sports.  You are correct that the soccer teams have depth that Wii Sports doesn't offer, because the game does not require it.  What Wii Sports offers that FIFA 96 doesn't is breadth of the gaming experience, by which I mean the very multiplicity of experiences that causes you to deride it as a "collection of mini-games".  Since I am not familiar with FIFA 96, I have a question:  can you put spin on the ball as you can in the Wii Sports games?  Can your players kick the ball in different ways to achieve different behaviors of the ball after it leaves their foot? 

2a4.  Wii Sports isn't the first game to offer multiple sports.  Ignoring the natural differences between a deep game and a broad game just invalidates your argument IMO.  Also, it seems to me that you're highly valuing all the things that a game like FIFA offers that Wii Sports doesn't, while discounting all the things Wii Sports offers that FIFA doesn't. 

2b.  I don't doubt that FIFA 13 is more advanced in each of those ways than FIFA 2001.  But how dramatically advanced is it?  The graphics, sure.  But has the team management fundamentally changed in that time, or the way you control the players?  How can FIFA 13 be anything other than "retro" by your definition if it doesn't offer a truly different gaming experience? 

2c.  JCT has graphics you call "cartoonish" because that was all that they were capable of doing at the time.  With Wii Sports it was a stylistic choice, with a very different appearance from the forced cartoonishness of earlier generations.  As for career modes etc., Wii Sports is not offering the same experience but a different one. 

3.3.  The mandatory installations were not entirely positive.  Many developers used huge mandatory installs as a crutch, annoying gamers.  Additionally, the installs don't really help the games perform better, per se, AFAIK; rather they can reduce loading time because the system can access data faster from the HDD than from the disc.  This applies especially to cinematic-heavy games like MGS4.  So if you want to call faster loading times a measurement of "power", then fine.  But the Wii's loading times were pretty competitive IMO. 

4a1.  I watched your video.  Crash wasn't faster. 
4a2.  Crash Bandicoot was on rails in that video!  I don't know how you can even argue that it offered a bigger world than SM64.  Your personal opinions are not shared by the majority.  In fact when I was researching my last post (in the areas I bothered to research, sorry about FIFA 96 again) I came across numerous references to Sonic Adventure having poor level design compared to SM64.  If it had larger levels I suspect it was because they were emptier with more room for Sonic to run around really fast, while Mario levels (which were quite numerous) were packed with stuff.  It's been a long time since I played SA so I will have to defer to the many, many expert opinions that specifically refute your allegations. 

4a3.  You say you want to be objective, allowing you to dismiss my claim as "just my opinion" but then immediately try to substitute your own opinion.  (Even if I were to concede that Sonic's music is faster and more "intense", which I'm not prepared to do, I wouldn't concede that it automatically made them better.)  If you want to be more objective, let's go with expert opinion.  How many people think SA's music, let alone Sonic 3's, is better than SM64's? 

4a4.  Look, seriously.  Let me spell it out for you.  Reach checkpoint:  get there.  Win race:  get there before someone else does.  Survive pursuit:  get there before someone else gets to you.  Those are all the same type of thing with a changed incentive for making Sonic go fast.  On the other hand, beating a boss and solving a puzzle are actually different activities.  So is flat out exploring for hidden stars.  I'm not saying SA didn't have any game variety, I am just poking massive holes in your claim that SA's variety was so much superior to SM64's.  I think almost all people agree that SM64 was better in this area as well. 

4a5.  Mario's camera actually revolutionized 3D cameras in video games.  Look it up.  "Super Mario 64 was the first game to have a "free" camera that could be controlled independently of the character."

4b.  You're not being objective.  You're just thinking your own opinion is objective fact.  What did SA do that was remotely as impactful as INVENTING THE NEW STANDARD FOR 3D PLATFORMER CAMERAS?  You are saying "it doesn't matter what everyone else in the world thinks, I know what's right." 

6.  If you really look at Vectorman 2 and DKC3 and don't see and hear a dramatic difference, I really don't know what to say.  But I want to hear you say it.  "DKC3 is not dramatically better in visuals and sound than Vectorman 2."  Do you agree or disagree with that statement?  I don't think I will have anything more to say regardless of which position you take, but I am challenging you to explicitly state your position on this after I showed you the evidence. 

(This is no apples to oranges comparison.  In both cases, people were setting out to push the system's hardware as far as they could to make the best visual effects possible and the most impressive 3D while also making a great game.  And I'm sure they worked hard on the sounds as well.  Not like Wii Sports which was showcasing something entirely unrelated to making the most realistic-looking sports game(s) possible.) 

Now I've heard everything. This is GAF level silliness. On what planet is Sonic 3 supposedly greater than Super Mario 64? Because we need to blow that up. ASAP! That game couldn't even hold a candle to Donkey Kong Country.

Its Zod95 saying this, and only him. Noone shares his views as they go against all conventional wisdom and general consensus. I just read his posts cause I find them entertaining:)