I wasn't trying to be funny, that's just me being an a-hole (i am an a-hole).

For the record, I acknowledged it actively, but tried to make it clear that it was besides the point. I must have failed.

I understand. If the gens were based on a specific business era (say the industry as a whole), then it makes sense, but what happens when a console overlaps two industry peaks, what gen is it? That's why I liked your example, because it showcased a lacking in the term. That's why I called it a case in point.

Best counter-argument this far. I have no answer other than the term generation is flawed, as it's relative to context. If it's a Nintendo gen, then it makes sense. But if it's within the norms of the industry, then the WiiU is 9 gens early. Makes sense?

If I'm not mistaken, those are called 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation games on a same platform. I could be wrong. So it kind of proves the point that with progress comes the definition of a generation within a context.

If I answer this, I get no reply, so to keep your attention, I'm not gonna answer :P

Just kidding. So, I think the DS and PSP were a gen apart, technically speaking. The PSP leap-frogged a technical gen, that of the N64. I'm using the term technical gen because the normal use of the term gen fails. Regularly, the two competitors in a gen battle at largely similar levels, due to different approaches to solving the same problem: the need to be technically relevant. That's the reason gens exist. The PSP, using an aggressive push for graphical advancements, went a step ahead of the DS, and as such stressed the usual dynamics of console competition as could be seen in history. The same was done with the PS3. At the same time, both the DS and the Wii were employing low-end disruption strategies, so as such they didn't push the boundaries of hardware enhancement. Therefore they were somewhat of a step behind.

I could be wrong, but there must be more to gens than what has been studied this far, and the world of video gaming is still so young. The terms are still either loose or flawed, we have the same problem with the concept of casual and core. Terms that fail to express ideas we have of concepts we observe in the industry. It gets pretty philosophical when we get to that level.

Ahhhhh....hahahahahaha
Oh boy. Wii U is a game machine to play games. That's all you need to know.

But you say, that the new console-gen is needed, because the hardware of the old gen limited the games. You didn't answer, why the first games hitting a new console are at first mainly the same games as last gen and could in most cases be easily programmed for last-gen-platforms (and often are, as multiplats for last-gen and new-gen consoles). So it seems, the game-developer aren't really limited.

So who won the current generation? I think people would say the Wii won beating out the more powerful and generationally (is that a word) superior PS3 and Xbox 360. Even VG Chartz and every other gaming site groups these consoles in the same generation.

So, all things being equal, when the WiiU comes out less generationally (there's that word again) superior than the next Sony and MS offerings, wouldn't it equally be competing in that same generation? I think so.

Also, if the Vita is generationally superior than the 3DS, what generation is that Vita and what is the 3DS? Aren't they comepeting in the same generation considering their generational capabilities?

It does. A new-gen isn't and shouldn't be defined [just] by large graphical enhancements. It should be decided by if it's the companies new console (Check!) and if it does something different/in a different way (Check!)

Anyhow... how did this guy join in the 60's?

I'm not sure if you're being facetious. There's a bottleneck, at which point improvements are needed to obtain certain features needed for certain experiences. If not, a new console would have no purpose. The Wii or WiiU alternatives are artificial gens, they offer nothing that could not have been tacked on to the original consoles. I've talked about this with another poster earlier.

I believe you were looking for the word, "incompetent".

Although your word made that super funny.

The aspect you bring up about graphics not adding much to games after some time is true, but it doesn't negate the origins of the concept, of the business practice. If the WiiU didn't bring a spec upgrade to the Wii, who would have bought it? What would have warranted the creation of a whole new console that could not have been done as an extension to the current model, like Wii Fit was? A minor point to correct, your point remains however, is that it's graphics et al, so processing power, better RAM, better storage, networking and better media, which, just as an exmple, allows for better AI, a better online experience, a more seamless digital experience, and a few other console features related to computer technology upgrades.

The last paragraph is the most interesting. The industry sales leader is currently the one who defines what a gen is, what the gens were laid out as in the history of video games as outlined by wikipedia. The WiiU will compete on one hand with the PS3/360 and, and with the PS4/durango on the other. As such, it's difficult then to say whether it is a 7th or an 8th gen console by that definition. It will also depend on how long the PS3 and 360 lives are extended until their successors come.

They may not offer experiences that (it theory) couldn't be created with an add on, but these experiences will only ever be created (in reality) on a system where the user interfaces are standard equipment; therefore these improvements do require the release of a new system.

That wasn't the case for the Playstation Move or the Microsoft Kinect, nor was it for the Wii Fit. I'm repeating my arguments, but that's because they're on point.