I played ff9 on my ps1 for the first time (this year) and was several times impressed how awesome and good it looked, does this answer the question^^

Oh, just out of interest what size TV did you have back in the day? I remember enjoying that era of gaming on a very nice quality Philips 32" but I know a lot of my mates at the time had 21 or even smaller size screens but yeah if you look back at some of the offers side by side I think it was pretty clear which machine had more Umph.... when used correctly of course, there are some really bad ports on the GC

I think I also used to have a 21 inch TV back then. I'm not too sure, my memory is not that great..

Soundwave, I like you. I believe you are pretty smart and I used to like your comments in the past, but something must have happened to you lately. For some unknown reason, your comments aren't what they used to be. You are so much more pessimistic and negative. Hard to explain. I guess I can't find the right words for this.

Which brings me to my response. Most of the games you mentioned wouldn't even be possible on the consoles from the generation behind. Super Metroid on an NES would definitely not be designed the way we know it, simply because the SNES controller has more buttons and the game is designed to use all of them. Super Mario Galaxy uses the pointer of the Wiimote which the Gamecube lacks. Splatoon would be a completely different game on the Wii as well. Only Uncharted 4 could be possible on the PS3 becuase the gameplay and the controls are identical.

I don't play PlayStation because of its power - I do so because I love the franchises it has, and so I can play online with my buddies. But is power important for me, in terms of game performance? Absolutely; because poor performance can ruin immersion and cause frustration. However, the level of importance I put on these aspects depends on the game's genre and premise. For example, I expect a racing simulator like Gran Turismo to have high graphical fidelity and fairly good performance - as it is meant to be realistic. I expect all first-person games (and third person, to an extent) to have a 60fps frame-rate if they have a PvP mode.

I remember my rather large TV (for the time) because I had gotten it from my first Jobs pay, cost me £799 but it lasted me from the N64 era all the way up until the tiny text in Dead Rising 1 on the X360 just made SD impossible to hold onto. My current 42" LCD TV cost under €300 new... how times have changed.

Still though, he was a good TV, kept me company for many years. One of the best things ever was having another TV behind this in my bedroom as a kid, had 2 original Xbox's back to back for Team deathmatch, 4 on each TV was a feeling which is hard to rival even though gaming now has 60+ guys per team and such... still wont ever be the same as 8 people on either side of a block of TV's and Xbox's screaming at each other.

Current TV https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HcP6aJFHeqc/maxresdefault.jpg completely budget model but fantastic screen on it for the price, sound is fucking dire though, using the TV's own speakers it sounds like one of those radios you find on the wasteland in fallout... just have it hooked up to my acostic solutions 200W speakers instead, does the job :)