Whenever a new system comes out and people are talking about the graphics quality, there will inevitably be the people who say "and these are just the first round of games! Imagine the kind of graphics we will see in 5 years when developers have learned to get the most out of the system!" Do you think there is any merit to this statement? Looking at games from years ago, we can see how this thought process came to be. There is a HUGE difference between games like Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES, and another huge difference between Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island on SNES. However, the NES and SNES both allowed extra hardware in the cartridge itself to extend the capabilities of the console. When we look at the graphics of Yoshi's Island, we are not seeing the power of the SNES, we are seeing the power of the Super FX 2 chip, which had over 5 times the clock speed of the cpu in the SNES itself! Looking at later systems like the N64, we no longer see such drastic improvement in graphics quality. Super Mario 64, a launch title, is still recognized as being one of the best looking games for the system! Looking at other systems such as the Nintendo DS, Wii, we also saw lots of great looking games early on in the system's lifecycle, and it would be hard to say that there has been a clear and noticeable increase in graphical quality over time. At least that is my viewpoint. It's my opinion that as developers get more familiar with the systems, they might be able to squeeze a BIT of extra eyecandy out of it, but generally, what you see at the beginning is roughly similar to what you will see at the end. Does anyone have a counter-viewpoint to this?