I think you could be right, if the wii dies down a bit. Nothing in history suggests it, but no generation has seen these differences in the types of consoles, so anything could happen. If wii lose it's momentum, I think it's 50/50 if 360 or PS3 takes that momentum.

My take on why wii may lose momentum: 

One could argue that graphics dont matter because of history. However, the difference in graphics

have never been this great, hence history does not give any indication of the winner.

One could point to the DS winning over PSP, but those are handhelds. People do not want to play God of War

 on the bus, rather something easily digested like Mario. 

What gets me is that gamers always seem to think that it's about graphics, and it just isn't. All the cool graphics in the world won't mean anything if the games aren't good. I'll take an ugly 3D game that plays awesome to a pretty one that doesn't. Not only that, but the mass market is all about buying what they can afford. The Wii wins that war, but also the controller (which people seem to discount) adds a different dimension to its games (for better or worse). Honestly, I don't know who will win this generation, and really, the only thing I want to happen is that the 360 and PS3 fall in price before people start buying. I don't want my hobby pricing me out of it. No console should be $500-600. Sony should have learned something from the 3DO. Consoles costing that much money sets a bad precedent, if that becomes the norm, then we all lose. -Darkness

Wii helping the PS3 in 2009 ? when the PS3 don't start selling soon i don't see a single reason why the PS3 should start selling better in 2009 i think this christmas will tell us much about the future

Come later this year, I can see momentum pick up for the PS3 as long as some AAA titles start to make their presence and create a big buzz. Well it overtake the Wii in monthly sales this year? Probably not, but it will definitely pick up later this year and heading into the Christmas season.

It would have to wouldn't it? Else the execs of SCEI will be looking like Sanjaya on that "ROBBED!" signature of yours right about then.

John Lucas

I have an honest question that I ask whenever these "graphics matter" threads come up.

Do you honestly feel that the PS2 era actually saw a better group of games than, say, the SNES era? The NES era? The N64/PS1 era? Do you really feel you were actually having more fun last generation than you were, say, 10 years ago? 15? For my own sake, my answer is: absolutely not. In fact, if anything, I might say the opposite.

Unless you can honestly answer: "Yes, I think last generation's games were superlatively more fun than all the generations that came before it," this should answer the question -- no, better graphics don't make games more fun.

Or, you can take a different approach to the topic. If you look at "Top 100 Video Games ever made" lists, (or top 10, or what have you) the bests games are generally spread out fairly evenly amongst the generations: there are often about as many NES games as there are Genesis/SNES games as there PS1/N64 games as there PS2/GC/Xbox games. It's obviously never going to be divided perfectly, but you'll find a healthy showing from all the generations. This is powerful evidence that graphics don't matter much, if at all.

Another simple, easy question: if games haven't gotten much more fun -- again, if they have at all -- but graphics are now hundreds of times more complex than they were 20 years ago, does that suggest graphics play an important role in the fun factor?

I think new and better graphics are a way to make games more interesting, likewise is more game complexity in general, developers just have a larger toolset to create the experience they are aiming for. Sure I have nostalgic memories of classic games, but if 20 years ago I would have played GTA: San Andreas, Half-Life 2, Mario 64, Oblivion, etc it would have knocked me off my feet! Dungeon Master from 1987 offered an impressive experience in comparison to the c64 games I played before this.

For example Pirates! for the Amiga and Atari ST was great fun also, but I bought the remake and enjoyed the various improvements upon the original, likewise with regard to the original Civilization vs the latest editions. Galaga was a nice game for its time, but I greatly prefer the more modern looking and more complex feature rich Warblade remake by Edgar M. Vigdal. If I would show the original Galaga, Pong, Space Invaders to youngsters probably they wouldn't be much interested at all.

Quake was a reason for me to get a PC next to my Amiga system, the game offered a new more complex 3D gaming experience than what was available before. Later I upgraded my pentium PC with a 3DFX graphics board and loved the 3DFX patch available for Quake which greatly improved the game's visuals.

BTW with regard to most next gen discussions sound often seems under-appreciated, the PS3 is able to output  superior 7.1 surround sound, Blu-Ray offers enough space and is fast enough to stream the uncompressed data from disc.

 I can honestly say that. Most people prefer HL1 before HL2 for example, but that is because HL1 was much better in relation to all the other games that were out then. HL2 is actually the better game in every way.

 The thing is, people get nostalgic. I, for instance, still think Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Red Alert are among the best games ever made, because I was like 10 years old when I played them.

Most good games out today are much better then the good games of yesterday, but people who have 

experienced several generations can't see this, because they still measure old games by old standards.