[Deano]

Originally Posted by Litrick

Graphics are not the only thing brought to the table by the 360 and ps3. High definition gaming should be considered an innovation as it has not been done before this generation.

PCs, for the past 10 years.

another huge factor is the ability for new physics engine on the multiple CPUs, also much bigger and indepth games with the new storage mediums.

In terms of storage you don't actually gain anything. Yes the new mediums hold far more data, but that's swallowed up by the fact that you need far more detailed and hence large textures to make the game look decent in hi-def. There's no direct correlation between gameworld size and amount of storage - it's the high res textures that take up the majority of the disc.

The extra CPU power provides a multitude of options for game innovation.

How exactly? You've stated that without giving anything to back it up whatsover. More CPU power means you can make things prettier and throw more polygons around. But there's pretty much nothing you can do on the 360 or PS3 that you couldn't do on the PS1 if you were happy to put up with really low res and ugly graphics.

How you interface with a game is really less important than anything when you think about it.

If you consider games on a purely abstract level, every console game is simply a matter of pressing certain buttons in a certain order with certain timing. The interface, in many ways, is the game.

Think of the adventure games you have enjoyed. did they need a motion sensing control? or think of any great game for that matter.

No but a lot of them benefitted from a point and click interface: the jump in quality and playability of adventure games was massive when we went from text parsers to point and click.
Other examples: Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Donkey Konga. They're defined by the control method. It is important. It's not the only thing that counts, but it counts.
Back in the day consoles used to have joysticks with one fire button. Someone invented the joypad with 2 buttons, then 6 buttons. Then someone came up with the concept of an analogue stick mounted on a joypad, then someone came up with two analogue sticks, and a rumber feature. Would any of these console games you love so much be half the game it is if it were limited to a one button joystick? Control matters.

what is really important is having the ability to create innovative GAMES not how you control them.

This is true. Innovative games it was counts. And a new control method doesn't provide innovative games. But nor does extra CPU power. Innovative games are created by the developers, not the hardware manufacturers. The Wii launch line-up is pretty bland, yes. Zelda is ace but it's still just Zelda. But the potential exists for new modes of play and new gaming experiences. We just need to hope the game developers created them. Additional CPU power and storage really does't open up any brand new avenues for developers to explore. They can continue making games bigger and prettier, but it's a simple evolution, it's not a revolution like the leap from 2D to 3D was. The Wii provides potential for a revolution in control. It's not there yet, it needs that killer app to clearly show what it can do. But there is potential.
And yes Sony or Microsoft could release a motion sensitive controller if it were to take off, but the problem is it's an add-on. Console add-ons never work. Reason is developers don't want to develop exclusively for the add-on as it limits thier potential market. Meanwhile consumers don't want to buy the add-on as there's no exclusive software support. Catch 22.

Yes its not fun to use a joypad in a mouse oriented game, but the point is you didnt need some new exciting way to interface with those games, they were great because they were great games, and would be just as good no matter how you chose to control them because of the game content.

And they'd be good games regardless of if they were running in hi-def with multiple CPUs or in 16 colours on a 286.

But at the end of the day, why do you care? It's not like all the console manufacturers are deciding to focus on new controllers instead of prettier graphics. If you want prettier pictures and high def and multiple CPUs, you have two (count 'em!) console manufacturers trying to out-do each other. There would be absolutely no point to Nintendo throwing thier oar in and doing the same thing the 360 and PS3 are already doing quite well. So they're doing something different. If you prefer the different thing, buy a Wii. If you want hi-def so much, buy one of the above.

Me? I'm buying a Wii as I want to play Zelda. If a game I really want to play appears on one of the other systems, I'll buy that then. But so far there's nothing on the 360 or PS3 that does.