::shakes head::

Just because previous generations have generally been closer in power before now, making it easy to commonly reference the generations by their power, doesn't mean power is what determines generation.

I find it rather interesting (or what I really mean is riculously stupid) that there are three pages of text debating whether Wii is in the same gen as PS360. Actually 2 pages. The first page was just PS360 owners flaming the opening poster for reasons only known to them. To end this stupidity I am pasting the 1st definition of generation from dictionary.com:

"the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time".

Generation is defined by time. Fanboys get this into your head. If I am only stronger than my dad or of the same strength it does not make me the same generation as him.

I think this thread has become so full of stupidity that I am not going to bother coming back to read the nonsense some people are spitting out.

The Nintendo NES had an 8 bit processor, the Genesis and SNES had 16 bit processors, and the PSX and Saturn had 32 bit processors. Why is it such a big deal if the Wii is a sixth or seventh gen console anyway?

Source it.

"Generation is defined by time. Fanboys get this into your head. If I am only stronger than my dad or of the same strength it does not make me the same generation as him."

Well, if you were a video game console and your predecessor had an 8 bit chip and you have an 8 bit chip but all the other consoles on the market have 16 bit chips, then are you a 16 bit system? Actually here is an example of just that Atari had three eight bit systems, the 2600, the 5200, and the 7800. The 5200 and 7800 came out after the 2600, but they were all in the same gen.

Defining a generation by "bits" is hilarious, you're still falling for outdated 1990's marketing.  8 bit! 16 bit! 128 bit!  

The bit rate of CPU architecture is not as important visually as other factors of the system, such as the Mhz of the CPU, what the CPU is designed for, the GPU, and so on.

For example, TurboGrafx-16 had comparable graphics to SNES and Genesis, but was using 8-bit CPU architecture. It didn't make a difference.  It's still classified as 4th gen.

35 million units after 3 years is not a successful generation.  Without Wii, the 7th generation is looking to be a dissapointment. But Paul wants to include ALL 757 million PC'S SOLD in the last 3 years as consoles.  Why don't you edit that into Wikipedia, see how it goes.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)

"Put Wii in whatever generation you want. 6th gen, 7th gen, new gen, it doesn't matter. It's dominating wherever you put it."

Well, then I hope it gets some more good games soon. Regardless of sales failed versions of Mario Kart and Metroid Prime, and boring pick up and play once in a blue moon stuff like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Music, regardless of sales, just don't cut it gamewise. I don't waste my money on games that only receive review scores of 7.6-8.2. But if doing so makes ignorant people happy, I guess it is their perogative.

I don't waste my money on games that only receive review scores of 7.6-8.2

Hey, open up your mind. 2 of the best games this gen are in that area (Mario Kart Wii and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn).  But I guess I'm just ignorant for believing myself instead of other people.

He was just being sarcastic when he started this thread, some of you wiitards are going a little overboard.

There are three methods I've seen applied as far as determining 'Generations' within the gaming community is understood.

1. By release, this means that the Generation is determined by sequential releases, the numeral is applied baed on the number predecessors of the earliest active console, anything prior to that line of consoles would be added in based on any previous console that was determined winner of that time and then the same application works here as that consoles predecessors are accounted for.

2. Horse Power, the sheer power of the console and each generation being determined by the most powerful console, this one is kind of wierd because I've noticed most people who try to apply this also pick and choose which console represents this method. In some cases they would say Xbox is the marker for the 6th generation, but that would be argueable because Game Cube had the highest demanding (graphically) games by the end of that cycle, but prior to that they consider the PSX to be the marker even though the N64 had much more Horse power. In the end this system recognizes the same ammount of generations and platforms in each generation.

3.Values, this system is very different it would recognize only three generations and only in a superficial sense, This method views the Atari as a value of play that would bring the player and console as one thing, and the games were all very arcadish. The next generation would be the NES cycle which would be the movement of the arcade to the home as well as the presentation of the controller being used by the player not the console. Finally the third generation would be the Wii as it presents the player using the game over using a controller or the console, the style of games also changed from arcade with the win/lose factor that would eventually shift to cinematic with a win/lose factor to a simulation game simulating a game and without the lose factor and in cases even the win factor.