Technology does not define a generation. Time does. Time usually classifies the consoles into a specific generation, especially if done consecutively by the same company.

Every new genration=better graphics

better tech

from ps1 cd(with DS graphics)
to PS2

with amazing graphics(psp graphics) and DVD.

To ps3
bes graphcis known to man, and Blu-ray

 Graphics have nothing to do with it Leo. Until the Playstation era, graphics didnt matter whatsoever. Youre leaving out half of the gaming history with your logic.

@bursche

You do know before the playstation era there was barely a console war..

You call Genesis vs. SNES barely a console war? Just because you werent there, doesnt allow for the ignorance.

If somebody released a console tomorrow with Playstation 1 technology, they would be laughed at and it wouldnt even be considered part of the generation. Time is generation. A console must be in the relatively same time and relatively same technology for that time. I should have clarified that.

 They can argue over graphics? When did I ever say they couldnt? I said graphics doesnt lead to a definition of a generation. Graphics can be argued to an extent, just like it is in today's wars. I dont argue when people gripe that the PS3 has better graphics than Wii. I accept it and really dont care. Id much rather play my DS with worse graphics than a PSP because I like the games more. Graphics can be used in arguments to a point.

What defines a gaming generation? When companies replaces their predecessors with successors. The great thing about this is when one does it, the laws of competition forces them all to do it, which brings about them all doing it around the same thing. Thus we can put a very easy separating line between generations.