|
Aielyn said: So what? If we define generation by power or graphics, the N64 is clearly beyond the PS/Saturn, and thus, by the definition you put forward, should be considered next-gen to them. After all, how big a change in graphical power is necessary to make it a new generation? If a console had released that was 4x the power of the Wii, and the 360 was then 5x the power of this new console, would it be grouped with the 360? The Wii? In short, grouping by power is just not going to work. Power doesn't clearly increase in distinct steps, and effective power is debatable even if official raw power is known. As has been pointed out, the Xbox was something like 3x the raw power of the Gamecube, yet the GC was able to sometimes even outperform the Xbox, when used right. Which one is the more powerful console, in that case? |
That's the big problem because the Wii is the first consoles (and now maybe the Wii U) to have a big discrepancy in power to the others consoles... so the industry create sub-divisions in this gen the HD consoles and Wii (the exception) but the gen is yet defined by power.
If you don't have a big change in power then you don't have a new generation because there is no point in create a new generation with the same power than the last generation... the reason to enter in a new generation is to catch the PC in power each 6-8 years.
You can't try to create new definition because the exception (Wii).
Anyway not everybody (even some decelopers) put the Wii in this generation... even Wii U is not the 8th generetation for some guys in the industry... they are exceptions maybe in the middle of the generations.
And now you are locking wrong to the generations... the Xbox had no way 3x more power than GC... in fact they are close enough to say the GC can be a little more power than Xbox.. the Xbox is just 30% more powerful than PS2.
It's like...
PS2: 100
GC: 120
Xbox: 130
Generations are defined by power.
