Let's apply your statement about this generation to the previous: "Now we have a console maker that chooses to launch 6th gen tech on 7th gen time period, arrogantly thinking they could be as successful as their competitors." Well, even though prior to the start of the seventh generation some thought it would only sell GameCube-level numbers, the Wii was immensely successful, outselling both the PS3 and 360 by a considerable margin for several years after launch and still with a comfortable lead over the others in global sales. It had the right combination of pricing, marketing, and games to make it a best-seller. The Wii U's problem is that first and foremost it didn't have the games it needed, and basically it had to subist off of NSMBU and Nintendo Land for 8 solid months, plus the fact that it was poorly marketed didn't help either. I personally think the "Wii model" of less powerful but more affordable hardware that relies on non-standard controls as a selling point is too risky, as illustrated by the Wii U. Without the proper ingredients, the recipe doesn't work. While the Wii showed that Nintendo can rely primarily on their own software output, the N64, GC, and Wii U have shown that they probably shouldn't. I do think Nintendo should play it safe and make a system on par with the PS5 and Xbox 4 for next-gen.

I beg your pardon? I'd appreciate it if you watched your tone. Not only are you wrong, you're projecting, making a personal attack by accussing me of making up my own definitions because I don't agree with your non-standard classification.

The generations I outlined are not my personal nomenclature. If you were well-enough versed in the history of gaming, you would realize that these categories have existed for a good while and are the consensus view on how to categorize each system. It's not purely about specs. Release timing is a big part of it as well. It was always pretty clear that Pong machines like the Odyssey released in the early to mid-70s constituted the first generation of systems, that the 2600 and other cartridge-based systems released from '76 to before the Crash of '83 the second, that the post-crash 8-bit systems like the NES made up the third, that the 16-bit systems made up the fourth, and so on. Even though the Wii was barely more powerful than the likes of the Xbox, it is still classified as seventh generations based on the fact that A) it was released alongside the PS3 and a year after the 360, and B) it is Nintendo's fifth console overall (e.g., the NES is 3rd gen, the SNES 4th, the N64 5th, the GC 6th, and the Wii 7th). Don't believe me? Here's a good place to start. And as always, Google is your friend.

And to be honest I never really heard of the Zeebo. In the list from my last post I was providing the major and/or more well-known systems as examples. I didn't bother including the Vectrex, Astrocade, Arcadia 2001, Atari 7800, Neo-Geo, Jaguar, 3DO, and various other also-rans to save time and space. In any case, the Zeebo looks like something that was released for a couple of years in developing markets, and will end up going down as just another historical footnote. But, Wikipedia lists it as a seventh-gen system, which is congruent with its release timing.

So.. Should I start blaming Nintendo for the lack of notable games in Vita?

Did you really read my post?? Look at what I said: "And here is my conclusion: you didn't convince me at all. Actually now I am more sure that 5th and 6th gen were generations without big hardware differences.".

There isn't 1 single parameter in which GC is at least 5 times more powerful, so you just confirmed that there are no big differences. I'm actually repeating myself. You need to read my posts.

We are talking about graphic level, not design. You may find Mario Galaxy 2 a game with beautiful scenarios but that's not the focus of this conversation.

I know, it's hard to find good videos of the 6th gen (and backwards). Anyway, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv7VDojKQaM

I believe The Getaway Black Monday isn't much different from it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4PpuhGuTBY

But GT4 is undoubtly superior to both:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRBeta_IIb0

And what do you think about my images? I tried to find the best images of each game and Gran Turismo seems the best.

Want to do the same thing about the 7th gen? I assure you the Wii won't come even close to X360 or PS3.

I think that's what's being hard for you to accept...that Nintendo did in the 7th and 8th gen what no other company did so far (a purposeful generational downgrade).

Again, we're only talking about graphics. And yes you refused to proactively address the software analysis (you haven't did it so far) and even reactively (you haven't commented my images).

Return to the power racing? How? Launching a 7th gen piece of hardware in 2012? What is their race then? 2 or 3 years competing with the old PS3 and X360? Or 1 year without PS4 and XOne? If that's the case, their race if over. PS4 and XOne are totally smashing Wii U in graphics and that is clear on hardware, software and 3rd party support (exactly like what happened with the Wii).

Whether the difference now is bigger or smaller than with the Wii, I don't know, it's probably smaller but not significantly. What I do know is that Nintendo is once again 1 generation behind the competition. That's not the way for a billionaire multi-national company to behave. The WiiU's failure is the price they're paying for such greed. I trully hope that they learn with this so that next time they release a real 9th gen console to please the fans. They can't make omelets withouth breaking eggs. That's the lesson they need to take.

1- What exactly do you want to hear? There is absolutely no doubt that PS1 and PS2 were the weakest hardware in their gen. Is a fact. I just post a few details of both consoles. You can find the full specifications and see for yourself.

2- Graphic Level? You mean realistics graphics? I still think Mario Galaxy 2 is superior than half of PS3 library.

3- Like I said I can't find any decent video of Splinter Cell to show. But you can see RE4 videos. PS2 version was not a bad port. There was exclusive content btw. Is just Gamecube was superior.

And to finish, Wii U is closer to X1 than Wii was to X360.

Shadow1980 said:

First off, you never explained why you feel Nintendo is uniquely "arrogant."

Shadow1980 said:

Second, the Wii had more than two games supporting it in its first 8 months. Between launch and July 2007, it had not just Wii Sports and Wii Play but also Twilight Princess, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves, Sonic & The Secret Rings, Super Paper Mario, Mario Party 8, and Resident 4: Wii Edition. The Wii U didn't have nearly as much in its early months. It had NSMBU and Nintendo Land at launch and Pikmin 3 in August, and the between then the only things of note it had were an original LEGO game (as opposed to one based on a preexisting IP) and an expansion pack to NSMBU. The Wii U had the single worst dry spell of any console in recent memory, with precious little in its early months that couldn't also be bought for another system, and it was poorly marketed (they had commercials, but I never saw any). I don't believe in the common refrain that the primary reason for the Wii's success was that Nintendo somehow managed to draw in a bunch of non-gamers and "casuals" who never bought a console before and have now drifted back away from consoles. I've been meaning to make a thread focusing on that very subject.

Shadow1980 said:

You said, and I quote, "It's just your opinion twisting according to your personal wishes." How is that not a deliberately antagonistic attack on my character?

Shadow1980 said:

Also, it's just not Wikipedia. There are numerous other sources that classify the Wii as seventh-gen based on the fact that it launched alongside the 360 and PS3, including the VG Sales Wiki, numerous gaming blogs and news sites, and even this very site.

Shadow1980 said:

If we based everything soley on specs, we'd have to have a committee to determine whether the NES and SMS are second-gen or third-gen or whether the TurboGrafx-16 is third-gen or fourth-gen, among other examples of potentially ambiguous categorization based solely on system power. It's not as concrete as you suggest, and the boundaries can be quite fluid.

Shadow1980 said:

Sure, you're free to call it whatever you want, but don't expect anybody except some of the more vehemently anti-Nintendo partisans to even consider giving your classification any merit. Using multiple criteria might be as simplistic as you like, but the vast majority at least implicity agree that it's a system that works well.

Excuse me? The very text you've quoted tells you that. Look: "Thus, any company that challenges this basic law of the market offering the same tech/price ratio as the last generation is being arrogant...Nintendo is the perfect case about this.". What additional explanations do you need?

Wii Sports and Wii Play were the system sellers, the others were bonus. WiiU has also got 2 system sellers and some bonus games. Are you arguing about the size of the bonus? That doesn't make much difference. Wii would have sold almost the same even only with those 2 flagship games at the beginning.

And what does have PS4 that can't be brought for another system? Killzone and Knack? That's even less and see how the console is selling. Games are undoubtly very important but what makes a console to sell at the begining is the concept vs price. Wii had an appealing concept and price at that time, WiiU hasn't. That's the point. Otherwise, what is the WiiU's excuse to sell poorly now that it has many titles already?

As for the marketing, I see some WiiU commercials in my country and there were no Wii commercials back then in 2006/2007. I guess you are "unlucky".

Regarding the Wii's audience, I'm sure it was mainly console gaming newcomers. Then, some have evolved into richer eco-systems (PlayStation and Xbox) while others just went out of the market by the same door they came, although I don't know which case is more significant. But I'm curious about your thread, let me know once you create it.

That was not meant to be a personal attack at all, I'm sorry if you took it like one. It's normal that, when we don't use solid criteria / boundaries / logic, we let our wishes to take control over our subjective assessment. That happens with you as it happens with everybody. I was not criticizing that, since we can't do much about it. The only way to fight subjectiveness is by avoiding it (using objectiveness). And when you use multiple criteria you're not doing so. That's what I was criticizing. Again, I was not criticizing you but your option.

Does a logic makes more/less sense depeding on the number of supporters? That's funny.

Do we have a committee to determine the weight of each parameter of the multiple criteria used by Wikipedia? So why would that be necessary for the tech?

I know tech evolution is fluid, you just need to determine boundaries from which it is considered one generation and not the other. Release date is another fluid criteria. If that was the only one, would you need a committee to determine the week from which a generation would end while another would start? I don't think so.

The problem is not where to put the boundaries (that is the easy part), the problem is if you can actually do so. With multiple criteria (withouth determined weights for each parameter) it becomes next to impossible because here you have real ambiguity (caused by contradicting criteria).

The vast majority uses what has been used so far. They use it because it was used, and it will continue to be used because they're using it. It's a cycle. And it probably began to be the most informative criteria since console makers back then attempted to do the best they could, so the launch date was more aligned to the tech level and eveything was coherent. Not anymore. Now we have Nintendo and Zeebo challenging that logic.

I don't bother to get out of the cycle and use what is most informative now. When a gamer says he/she is thinking about buying a 7th gen console or that he/she would like to try 7th gen features, I assure you he/she is not thinking about console release dates. To call the Wii 7th gen is to misinform that gamer.

And recently we had a user here on the site creating a thread about the 8th gen where he only mentioned PS4 and XOne. People complained so much that he changed the title to something like "consoles with more than 1TFPS". Does this seems reasonable to you? What are the generations meant to be if they're not to be useful? Why does have a guy to mention the number of flops just to be clear about the context of what he wants to say (which is very simple and basic)?

Man, I've already said it too many times and with examples so that anybody could understand, and I will only say it again one more time (if after this you continue to ignore it, it's your problem): it's impossible for 2 different consoles to have the same power ; even when both companies try their best, different architectures will lead to different results, as well as 1 year difference can have some effect. That's case 1. On the other hand, it's not impossible for a console maker to aim for a less powerful console than competition (deliberately doing it). In this case, the console will be significantly less powerful (or "way less powerful" as you say). That's case 2.

Examples of case 1: PS2 - GC ; PS2 - Xbox ; X360 - PS3 ; PS1 - N64 ; Mega Drive - SNES.

Examples of case 2: Wii - X360 ; Wii - PS3 ; WiiU - XOne ; WiiU - PS4.

In case 1, consoles did not aim to be less powerful and any performance difference is due to the fact that it's about a different architecture and/or it was launched 1 or 2 years earlier. As a result, there are no significant differences, only differences of 1.2x, 1.5x, 2x...

In case 2, consoles did aim to be less powerful and performance differences go far beyond hardware architecture and launch year. As a result, there are significant differences like 5x, 10x, 20x...

Therefore, and to conclude, there is a clear difference between case 1 and case 2 and Nintendo has opted by case 2 in the 7th and 8th generations UNLIKE Sony or Microsoft, which have ALWAYS opted by case 1.

The stinking half? Will you take into account trash software when making graphic assessments? How fair...

Graphic level is graphic level (not necessarily realistic, look at Crysis for example) and to assess it by software you need to see the best of each console (what they are able to deliver), not the worst (what they are delivering regardless their power to do much better).

So let me know your opinion about these 2 images (whether the difference is big or small or even if they seem from the same generation):

It was not a bad port just because you say so? How do you prove it? Similarly, I could claim Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions was not a bad port for PS2 and Game Cube, it's just that both consoles have the same power while Xbox is far superior. Seems fair to you?

I don't know whether you're not understanding what I say or you just don't read my posts at all. I will try the simplest way I know, only with numbers (if you don't understand this, I can't do any better): 101 is closer to 999 than 100 is to 1000. That's your claim. And mine is: anyway, it's a hell of a difference, things have barely changed.

Except they didn't do that. THe PS3 lauched at $650 at the Xbox 360 launched at $500. Even then, they were sold at a loss. The Wii U launched at $350. A teardown of the Wii U shortly after launch revealed that the Wii U cost about $280 to build. The controller cost about $100 to build. That toylas $380, thus a ~$30 loss.The parts have obvious dropped in value over time, thus enabling them to sell it at $300 (still at a loss). Also note that Basic bundles, which are sold without a game, stopped production due to low demand, so it is always being sold with a game bundled in, thus saving you $60 on a game. If something like the Wii U were released back in 2006, it would probably have been be vauled at around $850.

But the fact remains that the term "generation" refers to a set of consoles/handhelds released within a loosely-defined timeframe.

Except that this isn't a realistic scenario. A gamer wouldn't ask about a "7th gen console"; he would ask about a "new console"  or whatever has recently become available on the market.

That is hyperbole. It's well-known that the Wii was simply an overclocked GC. However, the Wii U is a somewhat different story. It is build for low power consumption (to stop overheating), with a GPU that does most of the work that a CPU would normally do. This is a more modern design architecture that isn't found in the PS3/X360 and is found in the PS4/XOne. The reason that some ports show little to no difference is that the kind of games that developers are porting don't have a considerable audience on Nintendo platforms, and they don't see as worth the time and money to optimize it for the Wii U's architecture. To use your number difference analogy, the Wii U vs. the Xbox One would be more like 300 to 1000, rather than 101 to 1000.

The other thing to note is the controller, which is being simultaneously being displayed to at what was tested as a lag rate of 1 fps (invisible to the human eye). It also supports multiple tecnological features which are absent into the controllers of the Xbox One and the PS4. Whether or not you find such features useful is, of course, another matter, t but his adds to the technical merit of the system.