After all the hyping the devs did for the Wii U version. lol

CPU has the power to process (processing capacity). GPU has the power to render (rendering capacity). Media format has the power to store (storage capacity). I would say that you have a very narrow definition of power if you don't include storage capacity on it but if you say that it has "absolutely nothing" to do with power then you just lack reasonability.

Even you admit that N64's texture detail was hindered by its limitations on storage capacity. You just contradict yourself.

I think there is. Then what? Wanna come up with some solid arguments?

Developers' talent gets multiplied by machine power. There is no talent on Earth that could make a Mega Drive game looking better than any PS4 game. That's just impossible.

Funny that PS1 has games that are on par with any N64 game and WiiU doesn't has a single one at the level of the best PS4 and XOne games (graphics wise). Want more "exceptional" PS1 games? Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid 1, FIFA 2005, etc.

The difference between WiiU and PS4 is the difference of an entire generation. The difference between PS1 and N64 isn't. WiiU's graphics are much more similar to PS3 and X360 than to PS4 and XOne (they even share some of the games). Would you say the same thing about PS1 and SNES / Mega Drive? Or do they share the same games?

...or you just don't pay attention to what I say. Turok the Dinosaur Hunter wasn't launched on Saturn. Try harder. I'm waiting for that "plenty of others".

Keep narrow-minded. Don't change one bit. You're on the right track... In the meanwhile, think about what would be Zeebo's generation. I'm waiting for an answer on that too.

I agree. The fact that it was launched 4 years after X360 doesn't make me think it is a generation ahead.

You're mixing up the words power, capacity and capability, although related they're not the same. Again, like the word generation, you don't get to choose what the words actually mean. The ability to read CDs is a capability or feature that is largely independent of system power. CDs have storage capacity, not storage power. A PC without a DVD drive, isn't less powerful than one with, it's missing a feature. You have made up your own definition of power and said that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, that's not a tenable argument.

As for whether a Megadrive game could look like a PS4, hyperbole that does a disservice to any point you might have actually had.

Continue defining words as you see fit and setting arbitrary conditions to support a position you've already decided upon. Keep doing that and you'll always be right.

To keep it short:
GC/PS2/DC/Xbox: All 6th gen. All more or less on one technical level, though in fact Xbox was half a gen ahead in terms of power, features and time and GC was not that far behind Xbox in terms of power.

Wii/360/PS3: Wii technically being 6th gen. It's called 7th gen because of release date and yes, the all new controls.

Wii U/One/PS4: One and PS4 are basically on one level in every way. Wii U is in terms of (graphical) feature set. It is in terms of release date. It is much less powerful though. And it has an outdated online experience.

I meant "I agree that it's not 8th gen". Between 7th and 8th gen, it would be 7th. Then, whether it is really 7th or 6th or 5th is of little relevance to this conversation. The point is: just because a console is released 4 years after another one doesn't make it a generation ahead. To some people this is really hard to accept.

The concept of "generation" is poorly defined not only in gaming but also in general. Some claim it changes from grandfather to father, son, etc. Others affirm every year is a different generation. Nobody really knows what a generation is.

In gaming, most people use a logic based on time. But then it fails when we talk about exceptions such as Dreamcast or Zeebo. This shows that people don't really have a criteria. Logic is not rulling the concept. Preconception is. First, people set the results they want (that's the preconception). That's what Goodnightmoon did, for example. Then, they think of what logic they need to grab in order to stand for those results.

Then it fails when we see a console like Dreamcast launched 2 years after N64 and 3 years before Game Cube being called 6th gen. "But but the tech...". Yeah, now they talk about the tech. Then it fails again when we see a console like Zeebo being launched 4 years after X360 not being considered 8th gen. "But but Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft haven't made their move yet". Oh, now it's about what some companies do or don't do. Then it fails again when we talk about PS3 Super Slim. "But it's the same system running the same games". This 3rd "amendment" fails when we talk about Sega Mega CD, which runs games Mega Drive doesn't. "But the system is about the same". Then we can talk about Wii, which is about the same system as Game Cube. And so forth...

Either we use logic and solid criterias or we will be lost on the endless exceptions of a concept that ends to get little to no purpose.

I use logic. My logic is based on the technology. And there's a reason for that (even my selection is based on logic). The reason is that, in my view, console generations are based on gamers' expectations. A new generation means a new (tech) cycle, a new evolutionary step in gaming, something that wasn't possible without the release of a new console (otherwise, why would a new console be released?). Having to buy a new console, a gamer expects something more than the previous one offered.

So far, that expectation has been about technology (power / core capabilities). Had it been about something else and my criteria would have been that something. For example, had the Wii achieved more than half of the market and had the WiiU held that market share, my criteria would have changed (only from the 7th gen onwards) from power to interactivity. In that scenario, gamers would have changed their expectations and would be behaving (buy consoles, games, etc.) according to that, and demanding from future consoles new forms of interaction. Basically, the market behaviour defines generations. For example, Zeebo meant nothing to the market, so it's not 8th gen.

It's a no surprise, lot of 3rd party games got cancelled on the wii u due to their hardware limited and very hard to developed on, kinda like the PS3. Nintendo next console[s] should be more powerful and more PC-like so developers in general can easily port their games on it.
I think the Japanese need to step up their techs. Not just Nintendo but Sony, Bandai Namco and others major japanese companies as well. They should learn from hugely successful companies like VALVE, Microsoft (not xbox1 tho) Apple, Samsung, Google, Disney, etc.

You're just using semantics to prove a false point. Power is power. Nobody said it's just about the power to process.

A PC can work without a DVD drive but it can't work without HDD, can it? Or will a PC without any media drive and only 50MB of HDD be able to run 8th gen games (even if it has the best CPU and GPU on the market)? I'm indifferent in regards to the technology used to store data. 5th gen consoles didn't have HDD. Their storage capacity was solely based on media format. That's why N64 texture detail couldn't be as good. And you tell me this has nothing to do with power? It seems that I'm not the one with a strange definition of power.

As for the Mega Drive game, extreme cases reveal a logic's fragilities. Something that you claimed it was about talent (as if it was just about talent) is not. And you conviniently ignored the main point as well as my questions:

"The difference between WiiU and PS4 is the difference of an entire generation. The difference between PS1 and N64 isn't. WiiU's graphics are much more similar to PS3 and X360 than to PS4 and XOne (they even share some of the games). Would you say the same thing about PS1 and SNES / Mega Drive? Or do they share the same games?"

Although I challenge some definitions (which seems to be a sin, since the world is so perfect and the evolution is over) I'm not necessarily right all the time. But if my main points are not challenged and my questions get unanswered, maybe I'm not that wrong...

Generations are successive by time, not by the power of their hardware.

When we use the term generations with human beings, there are two different kinds. One is based on family trees, and the other has sociocultural roots. But both share the same exact criteria: They are successive in time. No matter how dumber or smarter the next generation is compared to the one that came before.

Well captain carot PS4 and XB1 are not at all at the same level. PS4 has faster RAM, has 50% more CU's, its CPU and GPU have 3 times the bandwidth of XB1, though ESRAM makes up for some of that difference.

There isn't a generational gap, sure, but there is a pretty significant gap in their power.