I'd say there is a big improvement from the Switch to Wii U. Way better build quality, docked mode is twice as powerful (and a bit more) as Wii U. Controls improved, adding mobile capabilities. How is that not a generational leap?

Also your argument has now changed from saying they're the same gen to now saying to drop the name once you've been proven wrong and history shows they're different gens. Which is fine, but acknowlegde that in gaming industry terms and categorisation the Switch is 9th generation. 

Dreamcast and 360 are commonly accepted to be 6th and 7th gen consoles respectively. We'll see about the Switch. Labeling it now does't make any sense.

Those very two games both run on the Wii U..... why didnt you pick 2 non Wii U games instead?

"huge improvement" they look basically identical to their Wii U counter parts too.

Nice answer.

For a long time, maybe gamers have assumed that generation changes meant "better graphics".  Wii should have disproven this assumption but it's typically dismissed as a fad (partly becasue Nintendo botched it with Wii U).

Graphics are one factor that had heavy weight for a long time because they're readily apparent.  Now new generations will be defined on other values (such as building a hybrid console like Switch).  If you don't think so, look at other consumer products:

Cars - constantly upgrading on a variety of measures - safety, styling, performance, etc.  If Honda didn't refresh the Civic for 10 years, sales would drop drastically.
Phones - Cell phones would be an interesting case study because the refresh cycle is annual (sometimes even more frequent than that).  Styling, screen size, camera performance, CPU performance are all examples of items that change regularly.
Ovens - these are on the opposite end of the spectrum from phones - you could hold on to a reliable oven/stovetop combo for decades, but they do improve with time - faster heating times, better and better digital displays, integration with your smart device.  Again, imagine if LG was the only manufacturer creating Internet-ready ovens - they'd eventually kill off all of their competition.

And they were also accepted as new generation  gaming consoles the moment they released.

Why people don't accept Switch as a new generation console? I already addressed the power, its  current competitors and portability as pointless arguments for this discussion.

Next gen used to mean a huge leap in graphics. Going from NES to SNES, was a huge leap forward. Same with N64 to Gamecube, and PS2 to PS3. Going from 360/PS3 to XB1/PS4 wasn't a very big leap. In power maybe, but not in terms of graphics. We hit a point of diminishing returns back in 2010. Artists can't texture and model well enough to keep up. A 300,000 polygon model looks almost identical to a 600,000 polygon model. Yet ironically we still have people griping about 60 fps, and 1080p as if any of that really matters. You might as well complain that your toast has one pat of butter instead of two. Nobody cares.

If it's this hard for people to grasp a simple concept, I certainly know who not to take seriously in discussion.

Best post of the entire thread.

There are generations. Nintendo had relatively short lifecycles between 4-5 years. The idea of generations being longer happened because of Sony since they take greater risks with their consoles. 

EA also was dumb enough to think Microsoft was going to have the mass marketshare like last gen. They should know the difference between an American brand and a world brand. Last gen almost every year last Sony trailed Microsoft in sales until they caught up. That company does not know how to hold a lead to save their lives.

P.S.

I edited my post. Heh