I doubt visuals would ever plateau.

There is always more sophisticated graphics chipsets coming out every year.

They just get better and better.

I remember in the early 90s my brother said Street Fighter on SNES was arcade perfect. Then we had the PS with its upgraded graphics and sound capabilities then the N64, then the dreamcast, then the PS2, then the Xbox.

Get the drift

@Ail:
For your PS.
Clearly you don't know the ending of this story.
Most of the third parties who stay away from the Wii will either be crippled(rendered niche) or killed off entirely.It happened once before but no one ever made the connection.I wonder if this time will be the same as well.Either way,I'll have many laughs throughout this decade.

 How can any gamer laugh at videogame companies going out of business?

Photo realism will not happen for at least another twenty years. By that time the iPhone will be the most dominate computer on the planet.

@Legend11:
I am no saint.
Also,during ALL paradigm shifts, companies who go out of business are replaced with better ones.If a third party goes out of business fans who bitch and moan initially will end up jumping to the replacements and soon most even go on to declare that this new company was better than the last.It happens.Humans are bitches.

I think both you and Legend11 completely missed the point ...

Its not about whether they do or do not develop for the Wii, its whether they see merit in the approach that Nintendo is taking with the Wii; it is well known that some developers who are producing games for the Wii don't (really) see the merit in it (like Ubisoft), and there are developers with limited exposure to the Wii who don't have much exposure to the Wii who see merit in the approach.

The fact of the matter is that a company like id software, that produces overly generic games that are graphically impressive, is at high risk after we've hit a graphical plateau because the only way they know how to improve games becomes meaningless ...

Anyways, I shouldn't be surprised by your lack of understanding; any time anyone mentions the Wii in any thread you completely ignore what they're saying and insult the poster simply because he doesn't subscribe to your (and many other) posters delusion that somehow every developer can thrive in a market where you have to produce a $40 to $100 Million game.

PS3 has the best graphics than any PC or console ever created. MGS 4 proves that PS3 is the best.

See ya after then ban Rock_on :p

I think it depends on one factor. Software. The PC needs a better OS, and it needs the games.

The huge advantage of a console, is ease of use. If you can put that in a PC, the PC will win.

You can only play games on a console (or watch a movie). A PC is a PC. If for the same price, people could get everything a PC has to offer, and play the same quality games, PC's will win.

The issues is that will never happen. Consoles are not where the money is at. The games are. So consoles will always be cheeper then PC's. (even if they some day become free).

Hmm... graphics now look like fuzzy toys. I think we are 25-30 years away from photo realiztic graphics. Theings still look jagged and blocky, not perfectly smooth. You can see some detail in peoples face aka scars, their nose ect, but it all looks quite fake. I don't see the point in photorealism though. For some games you could make big beautiful worlds, like in BK nuts and bolts... but do you want to be a able to realistically gouge a ladies eye out in GTA8?

Consoles.

They are made jsut for games, more or less and will have motion sensing. The pc will not have motion sensing, i think lol.

Consoles are connected to bigger displays but pc's are conected to higher resolution displays. What do you prefere.