| Viper1 said:
Sure but the problem is that your stated premise is wrong. Generations are a categorical construct based on the heirarchy of successor/predecessor flagship consoles. And this isn't my point of view, it's an industry accepted concept. You are positing that the direction Nintendo took with Wii based on minimal technology enhancements and a marketing concept of new gen, not next gen thereby relegates the Wii (and DS) to 6th generation status. Even if you accepted the notion of 'new gen, not next gen' as a means to categorize consoles in a generation, that still mean the Wii and DS are not 6th gen because 6th gen would no longer be new. Therefore, if it's not 6th gen, because it's a new gen and 6th gen isn't new, and it's not next gen, which would be 7th gen based on incremental numerical increases, then a category other than the term itself (NEW) is required. Because the term NEW in relation to categorizing of consoles is difficult, it fails to obtain classificational usefulness which brings us back to requiring the use of the original generational heirarchy structure of successor/predecessor numeral generations; meanign Wii and DS are 7th generation. |
I understand what you mean, and I know that marketing-wise the Wii is a gen 7 console. However it's a fact that when it comes to what was at the root of the new construct of console generations was technological advancements. In that more traditionalist and purist perspective, the Wii is technically a gen 6 console, though the market has now adapted and since it's rebranded it is now a gen 7 console. I understand all that.
What I was trying to say is that for Yamauchi, and the Nintendo leadership of the time, it is not something they themselves considered next-gen, for reasons of computing and graphical performance.
That's really all this is about, hearing what one of the 3 leaders of the industry had to say about it was somewhat important in my view.
