Why bother comapring to PS1/N64 gen? It has the worst graphics (in hindsight) ever, but that was not the importance of that gen. It was the giant leap towards 3D gaming. The step from PS2 - PS3 is very minor in comparisson.

Personally what turns me off this gen is the downright horrible coding. I'm playing Lost Odyssey right now and technically it's horrendous. I love the story/gameplay and the graphics but even installed on the HDD the load times are unexeptable. And there are many games like that. Stable 30fps seems like a real achievement on the HD consoles. EVERY game I played on 360 so far had a patch. And PS3 is the same story. I really don't get why devs are so focussed on the graphics that the technical performance seems like a 2nd or 3rd thought.

yea.. console game devs have become sloppy, but you have to realise that games need to sell 1 million copies to break even, so each company wants to sell atleast 1.5 mil units of each game. That puts huge pressure on developers especially with how different and complex hard ware is becoming:

wii hardware: weaker hardware- different control scheme

360 hardware: hard disk limitation,multiple discs for certain titles

ps3 hardware: complex cell architecture

as opposed to the good ole 16 bit when the mega drive had the advantage of the faster CPU and SNES had the more colorful graphics palette

As games progress from 2D to 3D, games have progressed from a few KB for a level to a few KB for a texture- its bound to get a little murky. The good devs who can afford to develop rich worlds with complex code still make some phenomenal games. But games dont need to be complex to be fun- Braid proves that

e3 2005 ,......nooooooooo

Very true, and I've been complaining about that since I got the 360.

It's rather ironic and stupid that the most technically advanced consoles are the ones whose games have the most technical problems. Most Wii games, especially Nintendo ones run at 60 fps with almost no framerate drops. On the 360 (and the PS3 too it seems) the opposite is to be expected. If a HD game can run at a stable 30 fps it's time to throw a party and break the champagne.

I guess developers think it's better for sales to push polygons and textures in order to get some fancy screenshots, than to have a slightly less visually impressive game with a stable framerate.

I'm not in any hurry to get the next generation consoles, but I know that I will buy them all anyway. I always say that I won't, but I always do, and have done so since I got my first console 26 years ago. I'm a console manufacturers favorite customer... a big sucker.

Yes and no ...

When I'm playing games like Mario Galaxy, de Blob, Boom Blox and Zack and Wiki I don't really notice how "bad" the graphics are because the artwork is solid, the gameplay is good, and there is such a lack of emphasis on graphics that it isn't something I think of. At the same time, when I'm playing games like Gears of War or Fallout 3 which try to be such "Realistic" looking games I constantly notice details which look really bad.

I know that it is a double standard, but it is how humans are wired ... People don't look at how "Bad" Homer Simpson looks because he is a cartoon character and we don't expect him to look realistic, at the same time you will notice how bad a lot of special effects in movies look because they try to make it look realistic.

Nah I'm not that into graphics.I really like the N64 graphics.

The topic is simpy asking if we'll see another huge leap in graphic on the next gen console, why are we discussing art work and gameplay?? less be honest here graphic does make an impact on a console rather you like it or not, even Wii had an graphic upgrade over the gamecube so dont try to talk crap about increasing graphic quality isn't important here. If its not important nintendo should just pack in gamecube with a 2 Wii-mote like controller and you would think that thing can sell? the answer is no. trying to say graphic upgrade is not important is full of shit. back to topic I think we'll see some kind of upgrade on the next gen console but will it be a huge leap or a small leap we'll know when each developer announce it.

I'm with Kasz. That being said, for higher budget games that are bound to make money regardless, I enjoy a bit of eye candy as well.

While graphics will get better, the leap next time will not be as big - due to the lessons learned this time around. As several others have already stated, the focus should be on tweaking hardware enough that 1080p is possible on most every game.

Nintendo will be the only company to show a major boost this time around. The other two will be constrained because the hardware needed to show a significant boost does not even exist yet, and certainly will not inexpensive enough for the next platform.

As for these graphics on their own, I will be plenty satisfied with them. I do disagree with those who say that PS1 graphics are enough - those games look horrid now. It's not about merely the number of polygons, because I don't mind the graphics on Wii Sports. It's more about the filtering and processing of those polygons. Honestly, in terms of overall beauty, the PS1 was a step down from the sprite based graphics of the previous generation. The PS2 simply brought the power needed to get that amount of aesthetic appeal BACK to videogames. This generation is the first generation to actually ADVANCE graphics since we moved to 3D.