The great console wars continue to grind on as this console generation approaches its mid-life. We've seen blockbuster announcements, great products, and the great eBay wave when the Wii and Playstation 3 finally hit shelves. It has indeed been an exciting and stimulating time to be a gamer. However, despite all of these events, one shall eventually beg the question of whether this has been one of the greatest or worst generations in the history of console video games. I will attempt to maintain a fair and balanced stance while reviewing the evidence.
There are normally two main arguments one for either side when it comes to this question. One side believes that this could possibly be the best generation in console gaming due to the overt power that the systems boast and lush graphics that seem to be second nature to these beasts. However, the other side argues that this could possibly be the worst generation because of a severe lack of originality and innovation which I'm assuming includes Nintendo's Wiimote controller. I believe that both sides are not entirely incorrect in their claims.
The graphic power of the three systems is indeed something to behold. But have the graphics of this current generation stomped the graphics of the previous into the ground? Take a look at the Halo series as an example. It's quite obvious that the graphics in Halo 3 are far more polished than that of Halo 2(especially considering the 360 has a fillrate of 4 gigapixels per second while the original can't even reach one gigapixel per second), but is it so superior that it is awe-inspiring? Is Super Mario Galaxy so far ahead of Super Mario Sunshine that the latter looks archaic in comparison? Does Metal Gear Solid 4 remind the player that they're a generation behind if they dare touch Metal Gear Solid 3 again? My answer is yes and no.
Based on opinion with rational thought, I can clearly see the different between the sixth and seventh generation systems when compared. But the impact doesn't seem to be quite as hard-hitting as if one compared the fifth generation consoles to the sixth. For example, the visible difference is extreme when Super Mario 64 is compared to Super Mario Sunshine. There is also an extreme visible difference when Metal Gear Solid is compared to Metal Gear Solid 2. Comparing the visuals of Goldeneye 007 or Perfect Dark to the first Halo or Doom 3 displays an awe-inspiring if not violent difference in graphic capabilities. But I want to offer more than just my opinion. I want to offer evidence with my case. I will present the polygon counts and pixel pipelines.
Nintendo 64: Fast3D microcode 100k highly accurate polygons per second | Turbo3D microcode 500k to 600k highly accurate polygons(possibly used for games such as Goldeneye 007 or Jet Force Gemeni)
Nintendo Gamecube: 648 megapixels per second
Nintendo Wii: Nintendo won't even tell us
Sony Playstation: 360k flat-shaded polygons per second(180k textured mapped and light sourced)
Sony Playstation 2: 2.3 gigapixels per second
Sony Playstation 3: 9 billion pixels per second(this figure is widely disputed)
Microsoft Xbox: 932 megapixels per second
Microsoft Xbox 360: 4 gigapixels per second
The first thing I want to point out is the pixel count that Sony claims the PS3 is capable of. Nine billion pixels per second demolishes the capabilities of the Playstation 2. Keep in mind that there is more to graphics than a pixels pipeline count, but such a huge gap between the two systems is mind-shattering. I don't understand why Nintendo wants to keep the graphic capabilities of the Wii so badly. They have already admitted that they didn't try for graphic system this go around, but why do they feel the need to hide the specs? That leads me to believe that they're laughable in comparison to the Gamecube. Finally, the Xbox displays a jump in technology between the original and the 360 but not a tremendous one they were only four years apart afterall.
The comparison of the graphic capabilities of the fifth, sixth and seventh generation consoles at this point is left to opinion. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I was extremely impressed when I saw that the shardy, often unpolished graphics of the Playstation and Nintendo 64 were replaced with the smooth, detailed images that the Gamecube and Playstation 2 were offering. Again, comparing the Mario from Super Mario 64 to the Mario of Super Mario Sunshine will show an extreme graphic overhaul. Comparing the Sunshine Mario to Galaxy Mario seems to merely present him as shinier. The same can be said for the Halo 2 Master Chief and the Halo 3 Master Chief.
The argument of originality confuses me to a degree. In a time where consoles are doing things that have never been done before, some feel that we are being treated to unoriginality. Perhaps the originality exists in choice of titles, but the consoles themselves seem to be very original.
The Xbox 360 offers up a wide array of conveniences and perks to add replay value that were absent in the Original era. One small tidbit that gamers take for granted is the achievements. While achievements are by no means must-haves, they certainly add a replay value that makes gamers keep jamming away on their favorite games until they've achieved all of the nerdpoints. There's also the option to go on Xbox Live and show off the amount of achievement points one has on their personal profile something else that was strangely absent from the previous console. One feature that I know I love is the wireless controllers that also act as remote controls for the console and the fact that no adaptor is needed to play DVDs. There's also the ability to purchase tons of kickass older titles via the Xbox Live Arcade. Maybe I don't understand the argument, but the 360 looks to be jam packed with sweet new features to me.
Also, take the Wii for example. It gets major originality points simply for the Wiimote it's like a Power Glove that all of your games are designed for AND it works! Take into account that the system is backward compatible with all Gamecube titles and I'm already sold. But the system also offers the nunchuck add-on, the Virtual Console, and Wiiware. Perhaps it's the most gimmicky of the big three, but it certainly has its share of cool, new features to share with gamers.
As for the Playstation 3
that one I can understand. Aside from a Blu-ray player and a controller that can operate for thirty hours on a full charge, I don't see much innovation. But then again I'll admit to being bias against the Playstation 3. At least it looks like a cool grill, right?
For the most part this argument relies on one's opinion rather than actual facts. It's a fact that the bar on power and graphics has been raised with each generation, but it's more of opinion on whether developers took advantage or not. Personally, I don't see the innovative power and graphics that were present with the last. But, again, the argument is fueled by opinion.
However, the innovation argument relies less on opinion and more on facts. Other consoles haven't offered what the 360 has offered us. That is a fact. No other remote-like controller has worked as smooth and effectively as the Wiimote. That could be categorized as opinion and debated, but the Nintendo supporters are going to have a lot of material to back up their arguments.
This is all opinionated in the end, but it will certainly make for great arguments and opinions to come. Express your gaming indepence, and show your console colors.
