Right... it seems you have been agreeing with me all along, yet you keep on "countering" what I say with pretty much exactly what I am saying?

yo momma!

I don't think we're even close to see the end of graphics improvement. Simulating light is so insanely complex that current real-time graphics has not even begun to approach the problem in a way that is long-term viable. I.e, we're still rasterizing triangles and this leads to a dead end. However, for the time being it does give the best results for the computational power we have available. Given a 1000 fold increase in power and I think we will still be rasterizing triangles because it would still give the best result for the power available. Not until we stop doing this we will be on track to pursue solutions that give real results, such as monte carlo forward raytracing. We are very far from this. When we can render a crystal vase in a full environment at 8k x 4k, with correct handling of light at different wavelengths to get proper rainbow effects and caustics (and not using situational cheap tricks), without breaking a sweat, maybe then we're close to not seeing any improvements in graphics. I think we're 40-50 years from this level of realism. Will a part of the video game industry pursue the latest and greatest of graphics that is within consumer cost range? I think so.

I think a better way to put this thread is this way: Is this the end of bleeding edge console gaming? Tech will always improve; that's a given. What can be bought for $100 today will be pathetic compared to what will be bought for $100 in 2012.

of the 3 current consoles - wii, 360 and ps3, the next version of the xbox and playstation- graphically- won't improve significantly. the xbox will bump to 1080p. the ps won't improve at all what it can DISPLAY- how it performs is another matter. the Wii, however, will be able to significantly improve "resolution" wise. it does 480p currently, next version most likely will do 1080p if not that, then definately 720p, a huge improvement in the "looks" department. what all 3 will improve on is storage capacity & processors speed. connectivity to the web- check for all 3 currently online gaming- check for all 3 (wii's is coming shortly) so of the 3 imo graphically the most significant upgrade from this gen to next gen will be the nintendo console.

I think we're getting to the point of diminishing returns for graphics. I mean, the leap in graphics between 1996 and 2001 was far bigger then the leap between 2001 and 2007. Graphics have definitely improved, but it's more in adding detail (lighting effects, larger environments, etc). I'm pretty sure the next generation will completely close the gap between pre-rendered and real-time rendering, but after that, then what? I think the next big innovations will have to be in the interface (the wiimote is a start) and AI....

Most of you guys are missing the point.

Nintendo are NOT anti-fancy-graphics... quite the opposite. But they ARE anti-non-consumer price point.

...

Its all about what you can achieve for a given cost. As technology improves, you will be able to create better gfx for the less.

The question is - do you price yourself out of the market, by chasing overly fancy graphics - or set yourself a given price target, and achieve the best you can for that price?

That is really the core difference between Nintendo & MS/Sony - and its also the difference between targetting "gamers" vrs the "mass market".

There is absolutely no question that graphics will continue to improve in future console revisions (but probably with diminshing returns).

This generation is somewhat unusual because it (probably) represents the largest improvement in processing power between generations and the smallest improvement in meaningful usage of that processing power. I will attempt to explain what I mean by explaining the previous generation jumps.

Back in the dawn of the videogame console, most systems could only generate very simple 2D graphics which were not very expressive. The introduction of the NES changed everything because it was the first time the limitations of the system were less important than the capabilities of the system. The SNES and Genesis followed up with the perfection of the 2D gaming console; perfect not because further processing power was unusable (the NEO Geo was pretty impressive, and I'd love to see a sprite based game in 1080p on the PS3) but because further processing power was unimportant towards gameplay.

3D was the next step in games and although the SNES, Genesis, Sega CD and 32x were all capable of primitive 3D graphics it wasn't until the Playstation and Saturn were released that we had a viable 3D platform; once again the Dreamcast, PS2, XBox and Gamecube represent the perfection of 3D gaming. The PS3 and XBox 360 have demonstrated a very large improvement in graphical quality over the PS2 and XBox but have yet to show much of a meaningful improvement in gameplay.

The next generation will have greater processing power than this generation and some developers will choose to take advantage of that processing power to produce amazing graphics; what I think will be interesting is that (because of the success of the Wii) many developers will no longer feel the presure to take full advantage of the available processing power so many of the games' graphics may only be very similar in look to PS2/Gamecube/XBox/Wii games with higher resolution textures and somewhat greater polygonal detail.

... I'm not sure if I want things to look more realistic.

I mean look at Mario and Luigi, which do you prefer?