I'm with you right up until you equate expanded hardware capabilities with "the same, but more so." New advances in hardware open up totally new opportunities, not just the ability to do what was done before, but bigger and better.

Granted, that's what often (usually?) happens, but Nintendo is the big counter example. Look no further than side-scrolling 2D Mario and the transition to Mario 64. Yes, the vastly more capable Nintendo 64 could have enabled Nintendo to do "Super Mario World 4" in "side-scrolling 3D" - more detailed characters, more sounds, more enemies on screen simultaneously, more textures, blah blah. But that's not what they did. (Well, until New Super Mario Bros for the DS, anyway ;)

Big hardware advances mean big opportunities for new, different, better gameplay. (And yes, so do big advances in control schemes.) I guess I just want it all ;)

New advances in hardware open up totally new opportunities, not just the ability to do what was done before, but bigger and better

Well that I can understand. The impression I get from your post is that you like the Nintendo games, but the flashy graphics of PS3 and Xbox 360 call to you. I'm here to say I've seen the Xbox 360 graphics, which are quite nice, but don't replace the fun of Zelda.

Sounds like we agree on that, though.

The trouble is, are the graphics advances of the PS3 and XBox 360 being used for advancing game play? So near as I can tell, they're not. I think Nintendo's worry is that if you have all this extra graphical power, you're suddenly obligated to spend 6 months building a "dynamic grass blade physics simulator" and ensuring that each generic enemy has his own particular set of scars and facial features, when what they would rather spend their time is learning how to program interesting new things for the player to do, not just to see.

Oh course, it would be nice if we could have both. But if wishes were horses, eh?

I see the flashy graphics elsewhere and I'm sad that the Wii will have lesser fidelity, yes. But I also think about the hardware that makes those graphics possible (with which I am rather intimately familiar, having followed gory technical details pretty closely), and I'm sad when I think about the potential represented by all that hardware, and how it won't be present on the Wii.

As for my priorities, well, that should be clear from my purchase plans. But I find myself dwelling a bit more on the sacrifices I'm making by choosing Nintendo this time around.

The trouble is, are the graphics advances of the PS3 and XBox 360 being used for advancing game play? So near as I can tell, they're not.

I think there's already some evidence that they are, even in these early/launch titles. Consider the new camera styles and effects (e.g., the over-the-shoulder "shaky cam" in Gears of War) which really does appear to affect the play experience, or the "free-roaming crowd/stealth" gameplay demonstrated in Assasin's Creed, made possible by the large number of realistically reactive NPCs and a complex city with fewer invisible walls and reduced-polygon "dead" areas.

I think Nintendo's worry is that if you have all this extra graphical power, you're suddenly obligated to spend 6 months building a "dynamic grass blade physics simulator" and ensuring that each generic enemy has his own particular set of scars and facial features, when what they would rather spend their time is learning how to program interesting new things for the player to do, not just to see.

Well put, but they say that every generation. Somehow, the best game developers manage to pull off both :)

So these screens of Madden on Wii just showed up on Digg. Encouraging.

(BTW sorry for the super long comment)
I don't know... Maybe I'm being silly, but I don't see the PS3 as such a big hardware advance. Yes, I admit those cell processor are mighty impressive and I'm sure people will figure out ways of doing really impressive things with it. But i don't see a fundamental change. The way I see it, the PS3 has the same components as the PS2, but much more of them... The added parallel processors will no doubt be put to good use (eventually, by team will multi-million dollar development budgets) but really they are throwing more cpus at the same problem(s).
John made a good point, the inovations in hardware of the N64 allowed Mario64 to go in a completely new direction. But that is the point, the N64 did have something novel that previous platforms from Nintendo did not have, it had hardware 3D acceleration. Not only did the N64 have more CPU power than any Nintendo before it, it also had something completely new, something that enabled new areas of game design.
Sure, the PS3 might enable new possibilities, eventually teams of of developers will figure out how to make one processor take care of gameplay, two extra processors do artificial intelligence, maybe another dedicated to cool in game communications with other players on the net, and of course, what ever is left trying to do more physics than ever before. But if you ask me this is just a brute force approach. (It happens to be very brutal!!) and will probably give us some very cool games, personally I want to see the next Gran Turismo. But along the way Sony is taking a big gamble... the PS3 is going to be really expensive and they will still be losing a lot on each unit sold. Will they make up for it later with software licenses? probably... but that will require really smart and well funded teams to figure out how to get all those cell processors to do something useful together without tripping over themselves.
In contrast, Nintendo is saying, let's explore new game design areas... let's make new controller that involve people in new ways. Let's see what we can do with a machine that is always on and connected to the net. let's explore new markets (new demographics) and oh by the ways let's do all this things while being profitable on each new console sold (not having to recoup on software later on) not only that, but let's share the profit with our reseller ANDoh by the way, let's put make it the most inexpensive new console in this generation. Given all those constraints it's a small miracle they managed to get anything out at all! But what they came out with is interesting indeed. Already they have capture pretty good buzz despite being the number 3 console platform out there. They claim they want to focus on new inovative gameplay. That is part of the reason for the new controls. Well developers will not have to worry about gettting strange new architectures to work for them (like the PS3) instead they will get some improvements in CPU (the y are better than the GameCube after all) but can concentrate on using new controllers and networking. I think it is a good move for them in this round.
Now if you really wanted a new platform to enable completly new games... maybe they should have included physics processors.. or I don't hardware ray tracers... Or if they wanted really innovative stuff they could have thrown an FPGA in there and really let developers go wild. Imagine games that included custom hardware designs... maybe even reconfiguring for each level... NAhhh.. that is way too out there... Game development teams would have to include hardware designers... Oh well we can all dream... in the mean time I will keep dreaming of Zelda twilight princess.

New technology is indeed a gateway to the previously impossible. As I think Siracusa says, Half-Life 2 without physics? C'mon. And Doom 3 without true dynamic lightning? No way.

I've been looking at Shader Model 4 and DirectX 10, and man... Talk about enabling the previously impossible. The Geometry Shader opens up for all kinds of previously almost-impossible GPU offloading, like massive ray-tracing (for the sake of graphics, physics or even sound).

And the Wii doesn't even have shaders at all? To me as a game programmer, that's very discouraging...

(Jose: I like the way you think! ;) A console with an FPGA... Maaan! That's close to insane... Insanely cool! Damn it, now I'll spend all day trying to find uses for an FPGA in a console :P)

Joachim: Apple will introduce threaded OpenGL in 10.5 link

The way I see it, the PS3 has the same components as the PS2, but much more of them...

That's not really the case. To name just two example, the PS3 has a "modern" programmable GPU and a hard drive, both of which the PS2 lacked.

Sure, the PS3 might enable new possibilities, eventually teams of of developers will figure out how to make one processor take care of gameplay, two extra processors do artificial intelligence, maybe another dedicated to cool in game communications with other players on the net, and of course, what ever is left trying to do more physics than ever before.

That's already happened, and in launch (or near-launch) titles, no less. For example, in the game Heavenly Sword, one Cell core is dedicated entirely to controlling the heroine's long red hair as she acrobatically flips, kicks, and knifes her way through enemies.

A frill, maybe, but in this genre (basically a high-brow beat-em-up) the look and feel of the main character is half the game. And without technology like this, certain character designs are out of the question because they reveal too many of the hardware's limitations. (Waist-length hair won't look so hot if it stays stiff or jerks through a few preset animations as the character leaps all over the place.) So there you have it: technology enabling artistic expression, albeit on a small scale.

True, but if the net result is that because of the programming complexity inherent, we see fewer and fewer games released (due both to budgetary concerns and also ever-increasing development times), I'd rather pare back from the cutting edge a little bit.

I've got my Wii preordered. I'll end up with one or both of the other systems at some point, but I don't see the rush.

Nintendo's NES, SNES, and Gameboy lasted for years in the face of technically superior competitors. It's all about games.

That's already happened, and in launch (or near-launch) titles, no less. For example, in the game Heavenly Sword, one Cell core is dedicated entirely to controlling the heroine's long red hair as she acrobatically flips, kicks, and knifes her way through enemies.

So rather than spending an evening frantically waving Wii controllers around milking cows, spraying carrot juice and swatting tennis ball, my friends and I can comment for 30 seconds on how good the main character's hair looks. I think that right there is the most compelling reason to get a Wii over a PS3. Give me the mayhem of flailing a controller around in fun new ways over perfectly modeled, physics governed hair anyday.

one Cell core is dedicated entirely to controlling the heroine's long red hair as she acrobatically flips, kicks, and knifes her way through enemies

Sounds like something The Onion came up with. :)

You mock, but just imagine that same technology applied to, say, the whip in a Castlevania game! :)

You mock, but just imagine that same technology applied to, say, the whip in a Castlevania game! :)

Er... does having the whip move realistically really impact gameplay at all?

And does having an extra year of dev time to get the whip physics that extra 10% better make it worth the wait?

Er... does having the whip move realistically really impact gameplay at all?

Not necessarily "realistically," but rather "unscripted." And yes, it most certainly would affect gameplay. It's the difference between, say, looking for "climbing textures" in Zelda:OOT and just being able to climb anything "physically" climbable in a game with more sophisticated modeling of the world.

The same thing with whipping, e.g., being able to wrap the whip around something not because a level designer put a trigger for a canned animation and an "attachment" action on a particular item, but as a natural consequence of the rules that govern whip behavior.