Because i'm not replying to you lol, my argument was meant for him and his line of thinking. I could care less what you think, i mean you can't even bother to spell half your stuff right. His thinking is tha gpu/cpu are the most important things, and probably only from his posts, so i replied to that. Now you're trying to use my arguments against that, against your own line of thinking. Like i said, i'm only replying to him, so why do you keep replying to me?

? because its a discussion about hardware and discussions evolve.... GPU and cpu are importantr as well...Now your trying to brush my arguments aside because you cannot come up with a  rebuttal. hardware matters.

PS: You have been replying to me lol.

The particle effects and object physics makes the game what it is. Look at Knack for example. Thats it's entire identity. An entity made out of hundreds of objects. Take those things away and the game would lose it's unique not to mention the story would be totally out of place.

I dunno what you are doing but you are not replying to my post lol. I never said hardware does not matter but I said hardware (when its sufficient) does NOT limit creativity.  Let me explain it with another example:

Lets say we NOW have hardware power which is 100 (arbitrary number)
Then we have last gens hardware power which is 25 WiiU is 35.
but 99% of the time we dont use enough creativity to even fill up 10.

OR

You have a 4K TV but you expect your 1980's VHS to look infinitely better than the same VHS running on your old fullHD Plasma TV even tho it would even look almost the same on a simple 480p CRT TV.

EDIT: Tbh I even believe that hardware power leads to less creativity since achiving a sufficient result (people expect a bare minimum of visuals for the hardware they have) will cost much more leading to devs/pubs cutting corners.

If they had he rights to them  any decently powered PC could, you kinda arguing software beats hardware with this stance.

But what you say is not necessarily true.  You think it's a BAD thing for a company to want to make money on each console sold vs lose money? 

If hardware mattered more, the first xbox would have been king, not ps2 in the 6th gen. Gamecube also had higher specs but guess what, PS2 dominated due to hardware. Ps2 not having as much power didn't stop devs from producing some amazing games.

My argument isn't that hardware doesn't matter at all, it clearly does. I'm just saying gpu/cpu aren' as big as the OP wants to make them out to be. Was the wii popular because of it's amazing gpu and cpu that blew every other thing out of the water? Hell no, it was motion controls and how games used the motion controls. You're talking much more broader about hardware, my discussion with OP was strictly about gpu/cpu, not about other hardware parts. When i'm replying to OP saying that he's way off the mark for making the gpu and cpu seem like a massive deal, you using the wii as a counter argument is weird; since i completely agree with that and actually supports my point that gpu/cpu aren't as important as he wants it to be.

So please stop replying to me mister iamdeath.

Number of games you get in 6 years for the $300 you paid for the Wii U: 2

Number of games you get in 6 years for the $700 you paid for the PS4: 72

Great point you've made there.

Nintendo hardware in terms of strength does truly not matter we play the games for gameplay

plus if i wanted true power i would play my gaming pc that produces much better framerate/graphics then ps4/x1