@Onyxmeth: I'd like to point out what you said yourself: Word interaction is in the definition of social. But tell me, is the word social in definition of interaction?

Not at all. However, the definitions for interact and interaction are very vague explanations. Then again, I'm not the one who decided to put the two in comparison, you were. Why not expand that first reply to better explain why people need to be face to face to socialize and otherwise they are simply interacting? My overlying point to you was I didn't see how they were any different based on what you said.

I agree with bdbdbd, that social gaming and online gaming are different things. Social gaming is playing with friends. Online gaming (in the traditional meaning) is playing with strangers. This also explains, that nintendo tried their own online approach with using friend codes. They tried to make social online gaming. But I think it was not so successfull, because everyone expected traditional online gaming instead of social online gaming.

So then basically online gaming becomes social gaming in your eyes as long as you play your friends online, since you know that is possible...and likely. My friend and I play almost every night in Madden 09, headsets on and chatting about the day. I've never played a stranger in Madden. What would have been the difference if we played on the same screen? We'd be playing the same game in the same fashion and still talking about the exact same things. I suppose the only difference is I can offer him some chips and iced tea. I guess that's what makes it social huh? Snacks and drinks?

Nope you are right, according to my definition you are doing social online gaming with him.
I think I must redefine what I said before. Here are the new definitions.

social gaming=gaming with friends
non social gaming=gaming with strangers
online gaming=gaming using some sort of connection
offline gaming=gaming without some sort of connection

I still say, that social gaming and online gaming are not the same. But they can overlap and result into social online gaming.

@Onyxmeth: As you may notice, i was pointing out that interacting doesn't equal socializing. Interacting is just one part in it just like communicating.

Usually "social" has a deeper meaning than interacting and communicating. You can communicate without interacting (this is what you do a lot with kids) and you can interact without socializing.
Socializing is more about caring and values, which leads us to what hentai pointed out; when playing online and communicating with friends, can be social experience due to real life social ties, the possibility of playing with people and meeting people online doesn't make it social by any means.

If we look at online gaming, its value is the moment of surprise, unpredictability and the possibility to a mistake when playing with people. Not being social.

It seems like a lot of people want me to justify why the Wii should be in its own generation rather than be included in the same generation as the PS3 and Xbox 360.

A large portion of this organization was influenced by discussions on the evolution of value systems within society; in most of these discussions value systems end up being discussed in how they influence how an individual or group sees the world through the filter of their values, as well as how an individual or group is seen through the filter of their values and the values of people who hold a different value system. One example of a discussion would be on how an imperialist would be seen by (and see) an environmentalist.

Part of the reason I started thinking about it in this way was how the interaction between HD-Gamers and Wii Gamers was very similar to how people of different (but closely related) value systems relate to each other. The thought I started to have was that the value systems that built these systems, and of the gamers who choose these systems, are very different. You can see these value changes in how the similar features between the two systems are actually very different.

Consider online gaming, all three systems allow for online game play and yet the PS3 and Xbox 360 have a very different approach than Nintendo has with the Wii. The HD consoles have adopted the PC model of online gameplay where there is a focus on an individual (using a personal headset) to communicate with a 'stranger' in a highly competitive environment (leaderboards, achievements, etc.) with little consideration for an individuals feelings; in contrast the Wii is moving towards a system where a group (using a public microphone) communicates with their friends (friend codes) in a friendly environment.

I think this was a very intelligent post, and interesting way of putting it. When i look at the strategies and customers on all consoles, i see a huge difference with the PS3/360 and wii. There are not many photo's going around of old people or girls or even families playing on ps3/360, i do not here about how a PS3/360 brings a family together in the living room to have fun. By all means that is not a bad thing, but you would never have heard these things in previos generations, that would have been laughed out of town.

In fact when Nintendo said this was its main aim the enthusiast crowd fell down with laughter and said nintendo had no chance, of succeeding (of course now they are mad about it). so Inclusion would one of the category for this forth gen, also breaking down barriers which the 360/PS3 were not made to do. no one can argue with that.

I think people think it is the motion controls which are the sole factor of the Wii success, but it isn't that is only a small part, the truth is the software that sells the wii. Motion controls doesn't sell the Wii, Wiisports/play/fit (and many other Wii title)sells the Wii.

Edit

Also Wii is the only console that has been built to connect to the internet 24/7even in sleep (WiiConnect 24, though that has really been that great), that should also fall under the 4th gen cat

my 2 cent