Time to settle the debate, once and for all, about Nintendo's new console; which generation does it belong to? Does it herald in a new era, or is the current gen still going? (Or is the hardware so dated that it belongs in something even earlier?).
Generations are tricky and a clean transition is getting even harder to establish, with three big players in the market all having staggered release schedules. PS4 pro and Scorpio are reminiscent of a young Sega, bridging the gap between generations with new hardware that doesn't quite abandon the old. Now Nintendo's latest entry does much the same.
The games don't look any better with graphics we've all seen before. And there's little variety; Mario and Zelda lead the way with a few third party offerings riding along, but let's face it we've played these games before. The hardware is underpowered and doesn't even compete with the current generation. The controller is so basic and dated it is hard to take it seriously. Overall ], the experience is hardly new.
Going by release date, Nintendo waited around four years before moving on. Five years is par for the course these days, but it is hardly set in stone. Add to that the fact that this console "isn't going to replace the Wii U and 3DS", Nintendo haven't been completely clear.
Perhaps this confusion is all a by-product of previous generational distinctions focusing on graphical improvements, which added the connotation of cutting-edge performance to the phrase "next-gen". Moving forward, basing console generations on hardware and not release date, could require spreadsheets just to keep track of everything. Dates are linear and easier to follow, and align with the general definition of a generation.
Another Mario game, with graphics from the 80's.
Dated hardware design; only two buttons?!
Is this the first gen 3 console with HDMI?
Surely it's a handheld?
Currently Online 
