Here's my question: who cares? Whether people say it is a 6th or 7th generation console doesn't change a thing.

32-bit is not leagues ahead. Bit size became irrelevant years ago. How could you not have known that?

It's overall system specs that matter, not the word size (which is important, but not a real indicator of processing power). In terms of those, the Neo-Geo had a far more powerful processor, which was a huge factor in the system's huge cost. The GBA is way ahead of the SNES because of CPU speed and memory, not because of word size.

As for the DS vs PS1 and N64, the specs are available. But for an actual analysis, check out these pages on the PS1, N64, and DS.

512 megabits compared to 2 gigabits is quadruple, not double.

Everyone knows that bit-based measurements went out with the Dreamcast as it was about the last to tout such a thing, although Nintendo did mention the 32-bit processor on the GBA box.  With the 32-bit processor and all the other tweaks, I'd say that the GBA is almost leagues ahead of the SNES.  Word size is generally irrelevant after 64 bits.

That last bit, though, I'll have to call a "my bad" on that.  I was looking right at the thing and added the numbers wrong in my head.  I knew that didn't sound right.  DS games can effectively be four times the size of N64 games.  Dammit, I've stated this correctly many times before.  Pobody's nerfect.

It's all the tweaks of the GBA, definitely. The CPU's speed is 16mhz, which is slightly slower than the Super FX 2's 21 mhz, but the overall power makes up for that. The RAM is also twice the size (256KB RAM +128KB VRAM compared to 128KB RAM + 64KB VRAM), the sprites are more complex (with no flicker if there are too many on the same line), and the carts are larger (up to 32MB instead of up to 6MB).

The people who say it must care!

I just thought of something, you know what else changes each generation besides graphics and all that?

The controllers. Well, unless you're Sony. I don't know whether to give Microsoft a point in this area since the 360 controller is practically identical to the original xbox controller when you compare them against other controller changes through generations.

So now the PS3 and 360 are last gen since they didn't change their controllers, while the Wii is the only current gen system since it actually really changed the controllers.

And that's what happens when you base a "generation" solely on controllers. If you don't like it, I suggest not being a hypocrite and saying it's solely graphics.

(That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular)

Funny and interesting forum.

Best games still on PS360.

Most relevant 3rd party support on PS360.

That's all that matters. David Reeves once said "the hardware doesn't matter if you don't have the software" or something like that and comparatively speaking, the games are on the next gen consoles. Just look at that recent graph that showed systems with the most 70+, 80+, and 90+ games and the PS3/360 annihilated the the Wii...but with games under 40, the Wii took the crown.

So yeah, let's assume the trolls are right, and the Wii is last gen. Last gen means comparatively getting last gen experiences, and the numbers show that the Wii also holds that crown. It may be selling like hotcakes, but the flow of excellent games sure isn't going on there

/thread

"/thread"

Wrong. You just posted points already proven wrong here and elsewhere.