It seems there is some confusion here ?

The "bit" aspect of consoles that was so popular back in the days wasn't about the bitrate of Still Images,but a quality of hardware,specifically processors.

NES had an 8bit processor,SNES a 16 bit processor,ps1 a 32bit processor,and N64 a 64bit processor.

...

That basically means that no matter the pixel count of each individual art piece you make,if you want let's say to make a true 16bit game what you should do is to make a game that is limited only to what 16bit processors could do.

Yes and no -- Certainly most of the early consoles were marketted as "bits" of their CPU, but regardless of whether the word-size of the CPU was tied to the graphics capabilities or not (mostly not), there's still a strong correlation to the display chips that were available and innexpensive at the time -- The graphics chip in the NES, Master System, Genesis, and some of the contemporary 8-bit home computers were all relatively similar in capability and some of them were within the same chip family. When people say "8-bit graphics" they don't mean an 8-bit graphics processor necessarily (and really, it doesn't even make much sense to speak of the graphics chips of the day themselves in terms of bit-ness), they mean "graphics typical of consoles with 8-bit CPUs".

Definately, though, 8-bit graphics are about the feel -- the NES color palette is probably the strongest example -- When you see a screenshot of an old NES game, you know its NES because of the somewhat odd palette, look at a Master System game from the same time period and you're not sure -- it could be a master system, or it could be an early EGA/VGA PC game just as easily. Then there are limits on the use of colors -- 4 colors in any 8x8 pixel tile -- which affected the overall aesthetics of the full-screen images.

And 8-bit games are about the feel too -- Take a game that is otherwise faithfully 8-bit, but allow for perfect sprite rotation -- completely breaks the 8-bit illusion. Same for having animation that's too detailed, or having sprites that are too large (that aren't static -- some games had large "sprites" that were part of the background, so had the same limitations as the background).

Do you think we'll get a 128-bit version of Windows 10?

Do you think we'll get a 128-bit version of Windows 10?

Nah, its going to be a very long time before we see 128bit word-size/address-space in a commodity CPU.

While the transition from 8-to-16, and 16-to-32 bit architectures was driven by both address space *and* computation concerns, the transition from 32-to-64 bit was almost entirely driven by address-space. 32bit math is plenty large for most things (except pointer arithmetic on 64 bit machines), and for everything that's left over, a big-number library is probably a practical necessity anyways. There's no push for 128bit integers, and even large clusters are no where near exhausting a 64 bit address space. I bet google, Facebook, the other top-10 internet sites, and the NSA combined aren't near either.

Perhaps in specialized machines or big-iron, but not in the commodity market.

Do you think we'll get a 128-bit version of Windows 10?

We're almost past the point of "CPU bits" being not very meaningful.

Modern CPUs can operate on 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit, 80-bit, 128-bit, and 512-bit datatypes, using different instructions and different registers.

Despite that, we'd just call it a 64-bit CPU.

i would go with 8bit from a purely audience expectation perspective. It 'looks' 8bit....regardless of whether it is or not