Simple question. Do you think graphics in the only thing that a more powerful console can bring? It seems a lot of people who want 'Revolution' ignore things like AI, physics and complex tracking of systems (mini ecologies, human biology like blood loss in areas effecting player performance, real-time macro-shifts in gaming environments etc.) These are just some of the new ideas developers are playing with by using the increased power some of the new consoles are bringing to the table this generation.

I sure hope it has more to offer. So far the only selling point this new generation has is HDTV and graphics.

But I'm still for a revolution. Advanced AI and complexity brings on more concerns of a gaming crash in my mind. The more complex the game with more visuals, the more expensive it'll be to make. The more expensive it is to make games, fewer developers will be able to handle it. All these recent mergers seem to confirm this, because it's more like gaming company cannibalism.

Nintendo's way seems to be the most prudent. Development will be cheaper, allowing more room for innovation without a company risking complete financial ruin in the process.

A little thread revival here ^_^.

I know it's IGN but this discussion was creepily how I felt this thread should have gone. Hopefully this will keep the thread on track.

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p1.html
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p2.html
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p3.html

Does this gaming industry need an evolution or do Wii need a revolution (hooray for Wii and the potential for puns!!!)?

I enjoy video games. If they weren't video games, I'm not sure I would enjoy them. That being said, I don't like the "ultra-realistic" bent many games have nowadays. I want fantasy, sci-fi, etc. in my games, great stories, and great graphics. I think the current generation of graphics is more than enough to convey an artistic style in a game.

So, do I need a $600 PS3 for that? Nope.