This upcoming gen - most pointless gen ever?

Honestly, the PS3 and 360 are doing nothing to improve the experience of this generation, outside of improving the visuals and making systems more powerful.

The early gen created gaming.

NES/SMS revived it, expanded it.

Genesis/SNES expanded it even more.

Saturn/PSX/N64 brought 3D, expanded it.

DC/PS2/XB/GC vastly improved the 3D.

This gen, I wouldn't say vastly improved it, and the only reason I would say it expanded the industry is because of the Revolution.

If these visuals I've seen are the best that these systems can be done, the systems have no reason to exist. Sony and MS would do better to just work on bringing out the best in the PS2 and Xbox instead of demanding $400/$500 for new visuals and better hardware - not a new gaming experience.

>>29
I think this is bullshit.  Developers are still held back by technical limitations, but they're at a point where the time and effort needed to do the bigger stuff is just as big an obsctacle as the tech is.

Those of you who say games can't really benefit from the bigger power aren't thinking big.  Can you have a free-roaming game like GTA and go into every single building into an entire city, and knock every single object off the shelves yet?  Can you have every single person in that city be unique looking? 

I'm not saying GTA is the pinnacle of gaming or anything, i'm just using it because free roaming games take up alot of processing power traditionally.  Another example is can you have a game where every building and thing in the level is destroyable/deformable terrain?  What about realtime enemy mutilation, i.e. slice someone with a lightsaber and they get divided exactly where you sliced?  Of course not.  You probably couldn't even do that shit with the PS3.

Of course, games that huge and detailed would take EVEN MORE time and cost even MORE to make, in addition to being extremely taxing even on the most modern systems.

We're not at a tech threshhold, we're at a cost and time threshhold.