By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How many more generations before the tech in the box becomes irrelevant?

NJ5 on 09 January 2009

I would say two generations, assuming people don't start gaming on 150'' inch screens and bigger.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 09 January 2009
Sky Render said:
We hit the point when graphics no longer matter a long, long time ago, actually. It was 1985, and we called it the Nintendo Entertainment System. But PC gamers called it the Death of Gaming. But then some companies got this idea that people wanted bigger, better, more impressive graphics. And we forgot that they were good enough already. The PC gamers had won after all. Or did they? Wii think not.

What? Wouldn't the fact that the newer, more powerful systems were successful mean we didn't hit the point where they no longer mattered? Also why the NES of all platforms? Couldn't you simply have said we reached the point they no longer mattered when Pong came out and that would make the same amount of sense?

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



richardhutnik on 10 January 2009

Well, we appear to be at a place where power of system specs in regards to graphics, don't govern sales any longer. The DS and Wii have shown this to be true.



Sky Render on 10 January 2009

Graphics quality never did determine the winner, really. The 2600 was graphically inferior to the Intellivision and Colecovision, the NES was graphically inferior to the Sega Master System, the SNES was graphically inferior to the many early CD-based consoles, the PS1 was graphically inferior to the N64, the PS2 was graphically inferior to the GameCube and XBOX... I'm really not sure where the myth came from that graphics were a deciding factor in success, actually. It's never been true, save in a very narrow viewpoint that excludes unsuccessful consoles (in which case the SNES was in fact graphically superior to all "competitors of note").



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

JaggedSac on 10 January 2009

Up until developers stop making money on the increasingly more costly content that needs to be created with higher graphical desires.



Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI on 10 January 2009

Consoles will have to innovate, rather than evolve....like the Wii.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Sky Render on 10 January 2009

Consoles have always had to innovate to get things moving. It's just that most of them did not perform disruptive innovations. To wit:

2600: Introduced the concept of a game system with exchangeable games to the masses
NES: Introduced gaming to a younger generation and introduced the sideways controller as a standard
SNES: Introduced shoulder buttons (and thus the concept of a full-hand controller instead of just a face controller), and the potential for visual effects which became more prominent on later systems
PS1: Introduced non-game-specific save memory, semi-ergonomic controller grips
N64: Introduced analog control and haptic feedback rumble (both later used on PS1 as well)

Actually, of all the consoles to do well, the PS2 is the only one that didn't bring anything immediately obvious to the table. Most of its improvements are in fact just upscaling of past features...



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.