Umm, back to the SNES vs the Genesis. You made the statement that the SNES was less powerful. The SNES had far better graphical features, it could simply do things the genesis wasn't capable of. Just off the top of my head this includes a greater color pallete, more onscreen sprites, higher screen resolution, pixel scaling and rotation, and real transparencies. On the technical side of things it also had more video RAM and System RAM, as well as a superior audio chip. I think the only area that the genesis bested it was in raw megahertz, and there the difference was something like 1-2 MHz for the SNES and 6-7 MHZ for the genesis, which is irrelevent considering they have completely different architecture. That aside I agree that the weakest console usually comes out on top for some reason, and seeing as how much weaker the Wii is than the competition it should become the best selling console ever. For the record I love the Wii.

oh god, another new poster who really truly firmly believes that his opinions are facts, this is never good.

Ok lets see what I said in titles and whether or not they are unbiased facts...

Fact 1 :  High Price Consoles never win!

That is an unbiased fact. PS2 was $400 at launch but this price dropped when other consoles were launched. PS1 was cheaper than Saturn at launch and cheaper than N64 when it was launched.

Fact 2 : Sony's Technical Specs are always vastly exaggerated and Claims Never Come True!

Yes this is exactly what happened so far and it is a well known phenomenon. Please read out all the promises made before console launches and compare with the facts.

Fact 3 : Always the Weakest Console wins!

This is a fact (except for SNES thanks to Bundled Graphics Chip)

Fact 4 : Sony is Notorious for the LENGHTY LOADING TIMES.

This is also a fact!

Fact 5 : PS3 has a greater speed as potential.

This is also true as "potential" according to almost every review so far.

Fact 6 : Xbox360 has More Memory and a Better Memory Structure.

This is also confirmed by both parties (Sony and MS) so remains a fact!

Fact 7 : You cant win globally if you fail in either of those two markets, Japan and America.

This is how it always happened and is thus a fact!

Fact 8 : Wii is picking up and gonna take the lead soon.

Okay, the "picking up" part is a fact and "gonna take the lead soon" part is extremely likely and almost a fact.

Fact 9 :  PS3 sales are far from building a momentum.

This is also a fact that everyone knows that its far from building a momentum, at least now, and unless something very unusual happens this year.

So for God's sake, which one is NOT an unbiased fact.

Also...

I live in Europe and Europe is not a small market but bigger than Japan but because its highly fragmented and heteregenous consisting of many small markets, its not very conclusive in the global trends.

1 Euro is about 1.3 Dollars but because of transaction costs, smaller elasticity and some other economical issues, Consoles and their games tend to be more expensive here (600 Euro instead of $600 and usually even more).

 pretty much everything BECAUSE your drawing analogies that stood true for the past yet seem to be under the impression this means they are true for the future....just because something happened with different hardware during a different time period during a different social time period doesnt project linear to the future...thats hwere your whole argument falls apart for most of those.......thena few of them are just assenine "SOny is NOTORIOUS for slow loading times" First of all NOTORIOUS is a subjective adjective thus not being a factual description so its counter productive to your point and secondly SONY is not the developer of all games, thus its irrelevent in the grand scheme of things.

Not to mention the whole post reeks badly of irony as your main point is projecting the future which in and of itself is anything but fact, hence your post fails and so do you.

Id also liek to add with your logic that Sony has dominated Console gaming for 10 years thus they will dominate for the next 10 years and it should trump everything you said....but as we can see a lot can change in 7 months, huh.

1. You know Quaker has two meanings, a creed among American Christians I guess (whom I was surrounded by in America) and Quaker the Gamers :) Well my name is a homage to both actually and I was an incredible Quake 1 and somewhat Quake 2 fan, but couldnt do with Quake 3, lol.

2. There are of course my opinion between the lines but The original titles in bold are the essence and unbiased.

3. You got a point. You know what! I really want Sony to win, but they did everything wrong with the PS3. I absolutely prefer Sony to MS or especially Nintendo (which rarely appeals to me with kiddish games)

I truly wish you were right cos I am a sony fan. But with PS3, they did everything wrong! So lets see who's gonna be right then! I am ready :D

1. You made a really good point about SNES. Well, I am not really into that issue, which was just a small example anyway. But as I remember the better graphics by SNES was due to integrated graphics chips in the latter snes cartridges while the original machine was not superior than Genesis. SNES was more successfull due to more widely recognized franchises and especially rpgs. Anyway, please do not prolong this genesis-snes issue, one can open a new thread about it if he likes cos its not the isse. 

PS : Its been late here, going to bed :)

lol the xbot driven memory fud. From ps3forums, GarnetandBlack post. "Xbox 360: GDDR3: 512 megs GDDR3/ 522 Megs total memory = .981 (rounded for simplicity - I'll call this the memory ratio, again, for simplicity). .981 memory ratio X 22.8 GB/s memory bandwidth = 22.37 GB/s EDRAM: 10 megs EDRAM/ 522 Megs total memory = .019 memory ratio. .019 memory ratio X 32 GB/s bandwidth to GPU = .61 GB/s Total proportional bandwidth: 22.37 + .61 = 22.98 GB/ s proportional bandwidth. PS3: GDDR3: 256 megs GDDR3/ 512 megs total memory = .5 memory ratio .5 memory ratio X 20.8 GB/s bandwidth = 10.4 GB/s XDR: 256 megs XDR/ 512 megs total memory = .5 memory ratio .5 memory ratio X 26.8 GB/s bandwidth = 13.4 GB/s Total proportional bandwidth: 10.4 + 13.4 = 23.8 GB/s proportional bandwidth. Now, the reason I did the calculations like that is because not only must you take into account the bandwidth, but you also must take into account the amount of memory that bandwidth is taking advantage of. Obviously, that 10 megs of EDRAM is not going to contribute to the overall bandwidth as much as the full GDDR3 ram will, especially with the bandwidth between itself and the GPU being reduced to 32 GB/s. In fact, looking at those numbers, effective proportional bandwidth is actually higher in the PS3 than it is in the Xbox, and that's not even taking the FSB into account. With the PS3 possessing a front side bus significantly faster than that of the 360 (by a factor of over 2), these numbers would be even more skewed in favor of the PS3. Take a look: PS3 proportional bandwidth and FSB total: 23.8 GB/s proportional memory bandwidth + 50 GB/s FSB = 73.8 GB/s total bandwidth. Xbox 360 proportional bandwidth and FSB total: 22.98 GB/s proportional memory bandwidth + 21.6 GB/s FSB = 44.58 GB/s total bandwidth. Things are really starting to swing in favor of the PS3 now. So, please, stop with all the FUD about memory bandwidth being low and the amount of ram being low. Bandwidth is almost frighteningly higher in the PS3, and while the Xbox 360 does have 10 more megs of EDRAM, that EDRAM is only used in a very specific way and has a much lower external (IE: to GPU) bandwidth than the internal number that everyone has been throwing around."

Considering how quickly you have proven that you don't know what you're talking about, no.