| Viper1 said:
And they never considering Wii a new gen because of its lack of high performance ahrdware btu because of its innovative input. |
But you're not being honest, the quote is right there, how can you claim this?
| As I said, it could have had the power of the K uspercomputer and Nintendo would have still looked at it differently. Because they always look at their products differently. |
No, they haven't always done so. The Nintendo difference mainly started with the Gamecube. What is wrong with your Nintendo history? The Super Nintendo wasn't called Super for nothing, it upped the capabilities of the system from a graphical perspective. It was now a 16-bit system. Then came what, the Nintendo what? the Nintendo 64? Actually, they were gonna call it the ultra 64. So traditionally, Nintendo knew that the reason of being of their consoles was improved hardware capabilities. "Now you're playing with Power, Super Power". Remember??
|
You still have it backwards. |
What if you have it backwards, did that occur to you?
|
Generations are not measured by the technology in the box but by the succession of flagship consoles. |
I told you I understood that part, that as it is today, generations are not measured by technology. But traditionally that wasn't the case, let's continue.
|
As I said before, Wii could have had the power of a Magnovox Oddyssey (a 1st gen console) or the K supercomputer in Japan (most powerful computer on Earth) and it still would have been a 7th generation console because it was released after the GC |
Yes, this is all true due to the evolution of the history of video gaming, this is now the state of affairs and I understand it. You also need to couple this with the fact that Nintendo is a primary player in the market. The same can't be said about the Xavix (is it gen 7??? I wouldn't think so).
I understand all this, that it has to do with sequenced launches at this point, and eras of HW releases. But your definition of generations may soon be shattered due to where generations traditionally stem from: ie. Hardware (computational and memory) capabilities. The proof is that once the iPad model inevitably starts to creep into the console market, due to rapid succession of smaller HW incremental improvements, gens will start to fade away. This is all theoretical, but would if true remind us of the importance of the concept of hardware capabilities in the development of the construct known as console gens.
| Nintendo never marketed the Wii as 7th generation but rather as something new and innovative. |
So what does that tell us?
| Even their initial console code name was 'revolution'. But again that's seperate from actual classification. They could have said, "It's not next gen, it's gesture/IR input, low tech of love gen" and it still owuld hae been a 7th generation console. |
According to your definition yes, but when they explicitely say that their next offering, paraphrased of course, is not next-gen because it isn't cutting edge, then why do you circle back to your view of a generation. We're not talking about how you see, we're talking about how Yamauchi saw it. We all understand how you see, we don't all understand how Yamauchi saw it (quite evident from the discussion we're needing to have).
