School yourself because thats a now defunct and never widely used basic version of tesselation but certainly not what you see nowadays, plus it isnt engine specific but is card specific. PhysX isnt part of a game gen, so this aint either. Get your facts right. Go for it lets see what youll try to claim as volumetric lighting when its just basic bull.

Get my facts straight?
Seriously? Hows about you stop trying to "change the argument" to suit yourself.
You said those effects didn't exist back then with those games I listed, I provided *solid* technical proof in the form of imagry and an informative wikipedia link that says otherwise and yet you still think you're right.
At this point, if that's not going to admit you're wrong, then nothing will.

Also. It's not "Card Specific" it is brand specific and the game engine needs to support it (Well, Support N-Patches anyway) on top of it. - It also didn't have a single variation, ATI (Now AMD) did create Truform 2.0 and a variation of that ended up in the Xbox 360 console. (Used for Halo 3's water effects and also used in Viva Pinata.)
It was also available on the Radeon 8000 series, 9000 series, x700/x800 series, x19xx series etc'.

As for Volumetric Lighting, I'll prove you wrong tomorrow, when I can be bothered, I shall let My PC download the games from Steam overnight.

Permalite; the first combustion engine was different from the ones we have today, i.e; it wasn't a (primitive) combustion engine. That's basically the intellectual level he's at, I this might be a lost cause.

Tesselation werent part of the engine so my point stays. Have fun with that, because im going to say right now that all you are going to do is show pre-caluclated lighting and burnt textures. 

LOL, he got *owned*, but he'll probably just change the goal posts to save face.

(Sorry for butting in, please continue your interesting argument).

all you guys shoting owned yet you guys probably know nothing about game engines. dont butt into what you dont understand and never will

I do know nothing about game engines. That is why I don't get involved in technical conversations - it only exposes my ignorance. 

:)

So then how can you tell if someone got owned if you cant actually weigh up the value of someones argument? Freaking hell the internet exposes peoples mindlessness so easily. 

You're really the only one here who thinks your arguments make any sense at all. Your supposed "watertight definition" is riddled with holes, doesn't apply to any generation at all, and your only form of recourse is to shout "You don't know what you're talking about" and "If you don't agree with my opinion, you're stupid!"

And you STILL haven't answered my question which I've been asking for the past several pages. Here's a quote, since I have so little hope for you actually responding that it isn't worth retyping.

"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."

Im the calm one, your the one so flustered you cant remember a few posts back. Either that or you cant actually debate so dont go trying to lecture anyone on how to debate as thats hypocritical.

Your definition of "calm" could use some work, Mr. "Waaahhh Everyone Who Doesn't Agree With My Argument is Stupid."

It has to support the ones that reasonably reach that criteria. As ive already said - see a trend appearing here, something called circular logic as you arent reading what im typing - engines tend to follow roughly the same specs as one another as they are based on what they see as the market power for that gen, so for the 8th generation were talking about 8gb ram, 8 cores. There aint going to be an engine that comes out that does what ive said and wants 16 cores and 32 gb ram with a super computer graphics card. Cutting to the point, this is a non-point and goes to show how you just dont understand game engines. Use wiki and do some reading.

Engines "tend" to follow this trend? Wow, real watertight definition you got there.

Besides, I've already listed multiple examples where they didn't. But you apparently aren't reading any of the posts, so I'm not going to go back and list them for you. They're all posted right back there.

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. Just stop dude, just freaking stop as you dont seem to have the first clue as to graphics, engines or anything related to game framework. 

That's the ENTIRE point.

Your definition is such a narrow minded one you can only fit one generation of console tech (and not even that, as Crysis 3, a seventh gen game, had volumetric lightning) into it. A definition is something that you can use for ALL TIME. It applies anywhere and everywhere. It's not something you use once and then discard.

Is flower on the ps4 8th gen or metal gear solid on the ps3? These games were designed for the consoles they are on...See man if you dont understand how games are made, youll just make this stupid mistakes time and time again.

No, they weren't. Perhaps "originally desgined" would have been a better phrasing, but those games were designed to run on past consoles, and were then ported to other ones.

Heres somthing to pop your stupid biology bubble. Why aint the raspberry pi a 7th gen console? Snap. AND YOUR ARGUMENT COMES CRASHING DOWN.

...because it's a single board computer whose main purpose isn't to play games?

Seriously, you could have picked five hundred better examples for that. If you're genuinely curious, assuming it was designed for the main purpose of playing video games, yes, it would be "seventh gen." It's not one we would routinely discuss most likely, considering how small of a market portion it makes up, but it would still be a console manufactured during the seventh gen.

...in much the same way that a disabled human being is still part of a certain generation despite not being able to function as well.

Have you even built a "Game engine?"
I have. Although, it is pretty crude and not capable of allot of advanced 3D effects.

Now. Dynamic Lighting in Unreal 99:


The config file also allows you to enable volumetric lighting:






Some education on "Volumetric Lighting".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_lighting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume

Also, Halo Life 2 which uses the Source engine (Debuted in the Xbox/Playstation 2/Gamecube era.) which in turn is based on Gold Source which in turn is based on the origional Quake 1 engine also had Volumetric lighting.
See here: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lighting

Interested to see how you claim this isn't valid, like the Tessellation. (Which is valid.)
However, the end result and the source of this argument is that games in the late 90's did indeed have Tessellation and Volumetric Lighting, to argue otherwise will be humorous with all the proof laid out in front of you in pure black and white. (And pretty pictures.)
I can find more proof if you wan't me to continue.

And sorry MTZehvor for hijacking your debate. :P