By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 07 February 2013
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
Mazty said:

Actually it does. The best way to explain this is to think about games. If I released a game with 2D graphics, no one would call it next-gen. Yet if I released one that used UE4 to it's greatest extent, it would be called next-gen. The difference is purely power. Claiming a console has to merely be a successor is logically flawed as every console has to start without a successor. 

Unless Nintendo are using tech that has never been seen anywhere and is decades ahead of known technology, you can work out that 70W is not going to give you performance that massively dwarfs either the PS3 or Xbox 360. 

When a console launches without a successor it's in the same gen as its contemporaries. Power is coincidental. (Or with the Wii and 3DS, not) Anyway, if you want to discuss it, here's the thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=154418&page=1

(That's mah thread =D )

As I stated, everything else is looked at in terms of power. Look at games. Look at even fighter jets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

" Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth generation jet fighter"

Next-gen games are considered to offer many improvements over previous gen games. Why this rule is suddenly scrapped for the consoles makes no sense. Plus the article in the OP of this thread seems to believe that power and gen are linked, as well as the head of EA.