It's a fair assessment. Grouping consoles based on emphasis and the like seems more in line with the path of the industry; simple hardware advancements are not so much a progression of the industry. The Wii is non-emphatic on 3-D display, and obviously the same way on the other two, so it has to be in a separate category.

Generations are defined by values, not technology. Everyone that thinks that a new generation includes motion controls and HD TV's is wrong. The wii is introducing new values, like more accesible gameplay for every kind of gamer. And yes, SONY AND MICROSOFT WILL FOLLOW SOONER OR LATER.

@OP: Nice post ^^

 In creating this system, and choosing to use the same terminology that the existing system uses, it had to be a foregone conclusion that you would generate the reaction that you did.

Ever since the the fifth gen starting peaking over the horizen and it became obvious that all the major players would henceforth be regularily releasing new systems gamers have been emotional about the whole cycle. This has just gotten worse over time as the internet has become more and more intimately tied to our gaming. (I mean more in terms of websites/forums/gamenews/previews/etc, not in the actual games themselves) Now we start getting regular announcements about new systems years before they hit retail. We see flamewars about systems that don't even exist yet.

There are a lot of gamers who desparately want to have the cutting edge console. In creating the system that you did - which I will agree has a certain logic to it - while borrowing the lexicon of the existing generation system, you are, in their minds, insulting many gamers; they take so much pride in owning a gen 7 console that they don't want the wii included because it taints what gen 7 is, now you come along and say that the wii not a gen lower than their console, but one higher, and you have all the makings of a flamewar.

That many of those who have been flaming you haven't taken the time to understand your system (see all the posts about motion controls), is completely expected. To them gen x is always better than gen x-1. To them, the only possible justification for your OP was that you are a fanboy trying to turn the whole wii is gen 6 argument on it head; and telling them they have a system that is anything but the best is insulting to them.

I'm not going to claim bias, but the forum error may have been a freudian slip there Happy.

Anyhoos, I think you're misreading what the consoles each offer. You don't really give any basis on why the Wii doesn't fit your qualifications under the 3rd generation. There is cinematic gaming on it, and that will continue into the future. Nintendo still makes Zeldas and Fire Emblems. Third parties have put put out Okamis, Resident Evils, Manhunts and others. Everything else applies to it also.

What should register a seperation is the the changing landscape in gaming called online. That is really what the 360 and PS3 are all about and the Wii to a slightly lesser extent, but still qualifying. Look at games like COD 4 and Halo 3, two of the best selling games this gen because of their robust online multiplayer. Look at how important co-op is to Gears of War, another of the best selling games this gen. How about Mario Kart Wii? Same story. Look at the online stores all three consoles offer. If anything is a defining factor of a new generation, it would be the shift to development focus on online co-op and multiplayer.

Here, here! People often undercut the HD capable consoles features and other options outside of the HD experience. 

This reminds of me of the cycles of gaming article that Malstrom posted. This fourth cycle has a bias towards social games.  However I think a better way to describe this cycle would based on the software itself.  The Wii series fit this new social gaming cycle in many ways while LoZ:TP, SSB:B, MP3, SMG, do not.  They are on the same console which makes it difficult to say that the console embodies the cycle.  There are also far more old cylcle style games on the Wii than new cycle ones making it difficult to claim the system itself is a part of the cycle when the majority of its software isn't.  PS3/60 have a select few of these new cycle games as well (Singstar, Lips, Uno etc.). Hardware has always been just a way to get at the software.  With so many different types of software being available across consoles it would only make sense that we begin to define it via the good itself and not the end through which we seek it.

Oh just to add on the importance of online gaming and how it should be reflective of it's own generation, look at the beginnings of online only games like Shadowrun and Warhawk. Look at the shift in major franchises like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto and others taking long standing single player experiences and either enhancing them or adding onto the side either online multiplayer or online co-op. This isn't strictly online gaming either. Let's take a look at the Wii. What do many of the Wii's biggest sellers have in common even if there is no online? A social aspect.

Let's look at the biggest selling games this gen. Wii Sports, Wii Play, Gears of War, Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty 4, Guitar Hero III, Rock Band, and the list goes on. What do they all have in common? The ability to play with others. Mario Galaxy I know is a stretch but it shows that Nintendo thought it important to put even a minimal social aspect into an otherwise single player affair.

Look at some of the biggest fall titles this year. Animal Crossing, Call of Duty 5, Little Big Planet, Gears of War 2, Resistance 2, Fable 2, Wii Music, SOCOM: Confrontation, Left 4 Dead, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Rock Band 2, etc. etc. Just look at all the social gaming to be had.

If anything is the catalyst to begin a new generation in gaming, it's the new focus on playing with others and the damn near mandatory attitude that some sort of mutliplayer aspect should be created if it in any way fits into a developer's game. This includes all three current consoles and to a lesser extent the PS2, Xbox and Dreamcast for setting the stones.

Great posts Onyxmeth, i was going to post about online/social gaming but you beat me to it and explained it much better then i could of.

But i don't see how the wii fits into a separate generation, nothing about it separates it from other consoles unless you start to make more generations. Motion controls have been around since forever, expanding the audience of the gaming world has been done before, the wii is also last gen when you think of online play.

You know guys, i don't think online qualifies as social.
Just because you can interact, doest mean you being social.
Talking to phone isn't social, chatting in the internet isn't social etc., but they are interacting.
For example i'm having hard time at thinking that i would be socializing with you at the moment.

Online most definitely qualifies as social. So does the phone, internet, etc. What exactly is the difference between socializing and interacting anyways in this case? There is nothing in the definition of socializing that specifies two people need to be in the same room. In fact, the word interaction is in the definition of the word social.

of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society