A generation is a new line of consoles and is not based on graphics. I'm not even sure why I bother replying to these things sometimes.

Okay, there is much incorrect with your argument.

Since video gaming has the word, "gaming" in it, that means and expresses there is interaction. To deny interaction as a means of generational advancement is both assanine and ignorant. Here is why I say that:

NES to SNES to Nintendo 64 to Gamecube to Wii to now WiiU all have very different functioning controllers that lead to new ways of interaction with games. This is a TECHNOLOGICAL leap and therefore, a generational leap. That is not, I repeat, NOT a disputed fact.

Imagine playing SNES games with an NES controller. Something like Street Fighter would be... irratic (as it was on Game Boy) and see very little, if any success at all. Interface progressions are just as, if not more important (speaking from a sales and influencial perspective on this) than your more, "traditional" graphical leaps.

Even PS1 to PS2 to PS3 has controller advancements and same with XBOX to XBOX 360 (at least I think so) even if they are small advancements.

The problem is - and this is a first for thee industry - Wii gave us a large inteface leap at thee expense of large graphical leaps while thee HD consoles gave us large graphical leaps with minimal interface leaps (pre Move and Kinect). To be honest, Wii is very much part of this generation because of its contribution to thee other two consoles alone. Not to mention the boost in life these new interfaces gave to thee HD consoles (sales and appeal), it is obvious that technological innovation in the form of interface is very much a generational progression.

This is why your argument is totally off base. Yes, it would be nice to have both as part of a generational leap, but it is obvious in the way of sales, advertising, influence, and actual game play mechanics/interface, that what Nintendo did was create as much a generational leap (albeit in a different direction) as both Sony and Microsoft. It is time the world looks on Nintendo in this way. What they contributed to gaming with Wii, DS, and WiiU are steps forward for thee industry. Obviously, these consoles have earned their titles as, "next generation."

Where did  I disagree with any of this. Having 6 buttons on a controller is not something that was bound by technology. Graphics were. That's my point.

A generation is by birth and by definition rooted in the limitation of a specific type of hardware to perform certain tasks by reason of lacking technology (either unaffordable or not yet practically possible), and future upgrades are required to satisfy those needs. To have 6 buttons instead of 2 doesn't fall into that limitation, lacking live memory is.

maybe from your perspective. 

from a developer perspective system specifications is the most important factor.  software is created with a "minimum system requirements".   you'll find this for every PC game ever.  here's just one example for WoW: http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/minimum-system-requirements-for-world-of-warcraft

if your hardware doesn't meet the minimum requirements your hardware doesn't run the program.  timing of when the hardware released is a non-factor.

He's not saying that next gen hasn't started or doesn't start with Wii U, he's saying it's not in full swing until all of them are out and moving more consoles than their predecessors.

Earnest: Resulting from or showing intense conviction. 

It begins in the home space with Wii U but 8th generation won't be the main market force until all 3 are out for a little while.  It's always been that way.

@bold. This might be better:

Idiom:

In other words, when shit gets real.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's a bad translation anyways.

How does a person with a nonexistent profile make a thread?

Well anyway, you can rest assured that is something is said about the Wii U that can possibly be viewed as negative, non regulars will rush to post it.

From what is said, they are not saying the Wii U is the next console. They are saying that timewise, what you would call next gen isn't here. I would agree because there are only 2 games on the Wii U that look above this gen.

The rest are all current gen games.

No, it's a bug. Your suspicions are often wrong, make note.

What suspicions and what is wrong? I'm stating a simple fact of what goes on in this subforum. People who rarely ever make post much less threads in this section rush to make threads about bad news. Its been like that for a while now.

I will keep this one shorter. Nintendo showed that interface is as viable an option for generational leaps as graphics and processing. They nailed this point home even further by releasing, "old" hardware with technological innovation expressly on interface. That is a generational leap. It is NOT a traditional generational leap, but it ABSOLUTELY is a generational leap. You are arguing it is not a generational leap despite them proving so to both Sony, Microsoft, themselves, and every one of the 95+ million buyers.

What they put on display was that you can add all the power you want, but a generational leap can now be defined distinctly in TWO SEPERATE ways (if necessary). That is where we differ on opinion. You see generational as something tied to graphics, but as I put on display, new ways to interact (even with those new graphics) are just as much generational leaps. Nintendo took this to thee extreme, but they nailed that point home this console generation.