"(NOTE: this entire post was a joke. I figured it was implied, but just in case, i'll say it out loud. JOKE POST)"

Trust me, some wouldn't get it if you hadn't.

The Dreamcast came out in 1999, not 1998.

Remember the ads: 9.9.99?

Those were good times.

The PS3 and 360 are evolutionary dead ends

What a stupid thread. We're talking 6th gen technology, not literally 6th gen.

 Even then the seventh gen technology is a flop

Not quite. The Wii uses 7th gen hardware at lower specs. If it was 6th gen tech, the size, power consumpton, and cost would be higher.

Maybe the easiest way to look at it is consider Wii "new-gen", as many people already did for two or three years...

It's in fact not in the 7th gen of the old cycle, but in the 1st gen of a new cycle...

What's nice about this "point of view": things can only get better... :)

Wii is only a first step, and quite a successful one... then WM+ will be a new step (real 1:1 controls)... and you could even consider the Balance Board as an additional feature as well...

Then with HD and some new features (Nintendo won't do a simple copy/paste, they will bring something new to the table), the "next Wii" should have a kind of universal appeal...

And then there will be no turning back, especially if Sony and/or Microsoft enter into this "new cycle" as well...

LOL WIN!  Wii takes up about the power of a lightbulb most of the time.

@coolestguy

What defines generation technology to you?   Graphics?  Hardware?  Controls?  Gameplay?

Graphics of the Wii are hardly 6th gen if people would actually develop for the Wii from the ground up, hardware is still superior to the Xbox and as LordTheNightKnight said it's 7th gen tech at lower specs.  If you go by controls PS3 is stuck in the PS1/SNES era, 360 perfected what the GC controller gave to users last gen, and Wii is on a whole other level which I guess would mean it's current gen =P.  Gameplay hasn't changed much on PS3 or 360 games from last gen maybe a few more characters on screen and some pretty effects but nothing amazing... most gameplay aspecs for PS3 and 360 can traced back to the PS1 and N64, there hasn't been much revolutionary this gen, but the Wii much like DS changed how games are played and made things new again, so again I guess that makes Wii current gen and PS3 and 360 5th gen right?

But the common sense thing is, all 3 consoles are current gen and gens are defined by times... not graphics... and there's aspects of each console that are rooted in past gens so arguing about little nit pick things is just plain stupid...

"and as LordTheNightKnight said it's 7th gen tech at lower specs."

So support my claim, look at handhelds.

The PSP uses 7th gen parts, at specs comparable to the PS2, but in a really small package. The Slim PS2 was pretty small already, but it could not go below a certain size because it just used improved 6th gen parts, while the PSP was able to get smaller with the 2000 (wonder what the rumored upcoming 4000 will be like. Either way, the PSP already has games on par with the PS2 (God of War), with upcoming games likely to top it (Resistance might).

For Nintendo's systems, the GBA and DS use processors made by ARM, which is one of the best developers for portable device processors. Which is why the GBA's specs compare better to the Amiga (although not in screen resolution) and the Neo-Geo than the SNES. The DS has the power of the N64, but not the bottlenecks, which means developers can take top level PS1 graphics as the minimum. Just look at how Mario 64 DS compared to the original version.

That's because they used parts of the generation they were made in, but at the specs of the generation they were based on.

The GBA actually had a 32-bit processor, putting it leagues ahead of the SNES.  In a sense it was more powerful than the "24-bit" Neo-Geo (actually a super-charged 16-bit architecture, as per my understanding). 

I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of "overall power" between the N64, PS1, and DS.  Show us just what the DS is capable of doing that the N64 and PS1 couldn't.  See if there's still room for graphical improvement and advancement, and overall advancement in the thing.  Ninja Gaiden: Dragon Sword pulled off some impressive graphics on the DS, easily challenging some N64 and PS1 graphics.  I know the DS is easier to handle than the N64, and that it doesn't have the N64's "texture smear," but supposedly has better technology handling the textures--allowing larger, more detailed 3D. 

Anybody have a breakdown of this?  I know that with that Ash game, the DS officially broke to 2 Gigabits in game size, effectively quadruple the largest N64 games--which topped off at 512 Megabits (Resident Evil 2 was one of 'em). 

(EDIT: Bad math and to emphasize a word for kicks.)