I only had the N64, but I didn't really want much from the PS1. They are both good consoles, but I have to disagree that PS1 graphics were better. The PS1 graphics were severely pixelated. I agree that Nintendo made a mistake not giving the N64 a CD drive, but the console was a lot stronger and more advanced than PS1.
I don't understand what people see so great on hyped FPS titles like Halo Reach, Killzone 3, Rage, Crysis 2 and CoD: Black Ops. To me, all these look very boring. Halo Reach looks like Halo on steroids, Killzone 3 like Killzone on steroids, Rage like a sort of cartoony Bioshock/Mad Max/Motorstorm thing, Crysis 2 like "Grand Theft Crysis" (just without the vastness, possibilities and life of GTA) and Black Ops like a typical CoD. I'm waiting for Valve to make Half-Life 3 and show the world how FPS should be like.
I think Nintendo will go with a low-consumption, but powerful IBM CPU coupled with a low-end, but advanced AMD GPU and more ram than the current consoles, a further evolution of the Wiimote, full backwards support with the Wii and 3DTV support. As for MS and Sony, I think their next-gen consoles will sport multi-core CPUs (prefferably from IBM, not the overpriced PC CPUs), GPUs on par with the strongest current PC CPUs (I think the next Xbox will already support DX12) and gigabytes of ram. And of course with full 1080p and 3DTV support and a further evolution of their current gamepads (I don't expect the Move and Kinect to replace the conventional controllers in the future). I think the enxt-gen consoles will come in the next few years, maybe Nintendo making the first move.
I've seen numerous threads claiming Crysis' undisputed graphical superiority. But I have to object that. Technically speaking, Metro 2033 is the more advanced game because it's a DX11 game, not a DX10 game like Crysis. And artistically, there are a lot of games which may look better (for example Okami on the age-old PS2). I give Crysis credit for looking the closest to "photorealism", but even here it has strong competitors (ArmA 2, Gran Turismo 5). So even if it has an insane LOD, lush vegetation, sharp textures and amazing lighting, it still is not the prettiest game in my book.
I have noticed that there is this current trend of claiming how superior the PC is to the consoles. But is it really? Lets say that I'm only interested in console exclusives and am not interested in PC exclusives and the better graphics in multiplatform games don't convince me to buy a powerful gaming PC. Do I then have any reasons why to buy a new gaming PC? I do not. Also, there is a difference if I play only non-demanding indie games on the PC or hardcore hardware killers like Crysis, Metro 2033 and ArmA 2. My point is: I have nothing against PC gaming, but I'm annoyed by those who try to convince others that PC gaming is best for everyone.