The Wii U has certainly gotten its share of shovelware, but I don't think it's anything excessive, and probably not much larger than the X-Box One and PS4 will get. In a sense, I suppose this statement sums it up pretty well: since the Wii U had so few good titles early on, that means the shovelware titles that were being released for it made up the majority of the software. The main issue is just a pure lack of quality software from launch to Pikmin 3. The only two big titles between the Wii U's launch (November 2012) and Pikmin 3 (August 2013) were Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (a remake of a game already released for Wii and released on the 3DS as well) and Lego City Undercover. That's not enough to move systems.

Delays did play a big role in that. I usually approve of delays for software in almost any circumstance, but delays are something that, if at all possible, have to be avoided during a console's first year or so. A new console needs all the software it can get, and delays are a huge blow to what will almost assuredly be a shaky start. 

Calm yourself down, good sir. You are arguing over the internet. If you're not debating for the fun of it, then you're doing it wrong.

Your definition is problematic because, as I've mentioned repeatedly and you still have never addressed, you never classify how MANY of these supposed next gen engines a console must support to be classified as next gen. If you have a number in mind, by all means, list it. Considering how you've ignored this point for so long, I'm going to assume you don't have anything specific unless you say otherwise here.

I also might add that your definition only stands for this particular generation. Volumetric lighting hasn't been in video games for that long. Considering aboslutely no games from, say, then 1990s use volumetric lighting, how would your definition apply there? Has there only been one jump between console generations ever?

We need a definition that concretely stands for all time, not something that you make up on the fly because it excludes what you're trying to exclude.

Cant remember more than a post at a time or something because thats how your acting. 

I'm assuming this is meant to be a question, and it's meant to say "Can you not remember more than a post at a time or something? Because that's how you're acting."

Setting aside your stunning aptitude for grammatical skills, yes, I can. You continually redefine your own terms, though. First you said a next gen engine was one that has volumetric lighting, then it was one that shows "big improvements," and now it's back to volumetric lighting."

If you dont consider unreal 4 a big improvement over unreal 3 then your probably have no idea of the differences. Your argument is like getting a caveman and asking him the difference between a pile of steaming cow shit and the mona lisa, and when you get a bewildered look back you just jump in, flailing your arms declaring the argument defeated. 

Let me quote your own argument back to you.

"If you don't consider my opinion to be the right opinion, then you're just stupid and you can't argue."

Once again, what we are searching for here is a CONCRETE definition. A definition that is NOT left up to someone's opinion. A definition should be something that, regardless of how crazy an opinion there is, it will still fit. Definitions are objective, not subjective. You're trying to claim that there's an objective truth behind whether graphics look good or not, and that's simply silly.

if it can run unreal 4, it can probably also run cryengine 3 and the rest. With that link you didnt read the best part "Unreal Engine 4 will still be used to power games on both platforms, but developers won’t easily reach the quality levels promised by the original Unreal 4 demo two years ago." See the important word "easily". As we all know, the PS4 only revealed itself to have 8gb of ram on that very same day so we know that epic didnt factor that into the demo.  

One more thing about definitions. "Probably" shouldn't be in them.

I read the entire article, but that's playing into my entire point, and I'm a little surprised you're making my argument for me.

Let's run with your horribly subjective definition for a moment, and say that there's some quantifiable term for "good graphical improvement." Let's say also, that games running below that quality level promised don't mean this term, but games in the future when the quality level is reached will. Does the console become next gen at that particular point? Is it always next gen if there's just some unrealized potential? Again, there's another level of subjectivity here.

Your saying a next gen console doesnt have to be able to play next gen games. 

A game is next gen if it is designed for a next gen console, yes? How would a next gen console possibly NOT play next gen games? That scenario doesn't even exist.

Even going by your incredibly shallow standards of graphical comparison, that doesn't make sense.

Stop talking about generation with regard to biology and being the next one.

I know this is going to be a huge shock to you, but guess where the term "generation" in regards to technology originated from.

Here's a hint. It starts with bio.

The idea of a generation, regardless of humans, animals, plants, cars, houses, or even action figures, is the NEXT group of things. It's not "so long as such and such meets certain standards." It's the NEXT one in line.

If thats the case then holy shit whats the xbox as that just appeared out of the red, white and blue smoke of the usa and wasnt following dick. 

Now I'm going to have to question whether you're reading posts or not, as I explained this several posts ago.

I'll try and do it more simply this time.

The term "generation" is not in reference to when a certain variety of something began. It's when the whole classification started. For example, if the original Ford T-Model counts as the "first generation" of car, that is the car's first generation. When Hyundai joins the market in 1967, they aren't making first "generation" cars. They enter into whatever generation is currently ongoing.

It's the same with the X-Box. The X-Box enters into the 6th generation of consoles. A company doesn't need to have 5 generations of their own variety preceding them in order to join the 6th generation. 

No shit games from the 90's didnt use volumetric lighting as thats something only now seen in 8th gen engines - what a freaking stupid comment. For all time just go and see how engines have evolved and how different tech has come in. This aint rocket science but im guessing you couldnt tell me the difference between unreal 2 + 3. Volumetric lighting IS a big improvement omfg.

Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Serious Sam had Volumetric Lighting/Crepuscular Rays/God Rays. - Heck you even had Tessellation back then in games like Serious Sam, Counter Strike and Morrowind.

But effects such as those will only take you so far, there is so much more to rendering in order to improve an overall image.

No they didnt. Where you getting your facts from? Im guessing you think lighting = volumetric lighting and polygons = tesselation?