I think this whole argument is symptomatic of the Wii/High Definition platforms battle that is raging around the forums, especially surrounding Wii Music.
Some people see advancement as increased graphical detail, and some see it as a change in what games are and how you play. Also known as the BiggerBetterStronger versus New points of view.
If you define advancement in videogames as better graphics, audio and story detail, the Wii will definatly seem like last gen.
If you want new definitions of what games are and how one should play them, the Sony and Microsoft consoles seems like relics from older days bringing nothing new to the table.
What I cannot understand is what is the point of bringing up this discussion here and now? Does it really matter if the Wii should be labeled 'next gen' (actually current gen)? The only point I can decipher is to make a case against the Wii based on the idea that it doesn't matter. I've taken part in some such discussions and seen many more, and they usually lack finesse.
Take a step back and look at why we are originally using the concept of generations. It might not be hard to see that it's easier to group consoles together and talk about this generation rather than trying to look at the lifespan of each individual console in that generation. It makes it easier to see a pattern. The generation goggles are really useful for interpreting some movements in the video game history, but utterly useless for others. For example, I have yet to see a guide to the handheld generations.
I believe that what we call generations in the video game history is nothing more than a pattern arising from the movement of the biggest players in the field. When we just look at the pattern and look at what has happened and not why, we miss out on important details, and arrive at the conclusion that generations are based on clockspeed. And here my post gets too long and I end it.
This is invisible text!
