[evilbutterfly]

How much better were the PS2 load times compared to the PS1 load times?

Uhhh, the section you quoted from me was talking about being able to walk in every building you see in a free-roaming game, not load times. I suppose you could make a game where you can walk in every building you see, but you'd have to sacrifice space and CPU useage in other places to such a degree that the game would look like Starfox on the SNES, and who cares if you can go in every building if your character looks and plays like a big box with box arms and a box gun? And yeah, load times can be helped a ton with good coding, but you can't say that more power doesn't decrease load times. Once we get to the point that graphics are as good as they'll get, we'll keep adding power to our systems, so load times will go back down (since they keep getting bigger as it is, seems like).

And Chromer, I wouldn't say it would kill Nintendo. The Rev is so cheap that lots of people (especially the consistent Nintendo fanboys) will buy it just because it's cheap and it's Nintendo. Also, the Rev appeals more to girls and non-gamers in that it's not so complicated and it's easy to use. Nintendo's past failures (Virtual Boy, Power Glove) were complicated and weird, whereas the Rev is very natural. Also, the Rev is getting a lot more publicity than those other things ever got, so it'll have sales because of that alone. Plus, Nintendo always has the Gameboy market to keep some life in them, and if the Rev fails horribly they can fall back on that to a degree.

EDIT after Squeek: Will they even show anything at E3? Silly Nintendo and their silly secrets. XD