Every generation seemed to be decided by graphics, that was always the biggest improvement every generation.

This generation we're in (the 7th gen) I consider to be the HD generation, so the Wii can't fit into that so I would say it belongs in the 6.5 generation.

(Alright don't throw stuff at me for what I'm about to say, it's just what I think, and I am a graphics whore so that would explain my answer, I just want to know if other people think this aswell)

I consider the Wii not part of this generation. Every generation seemed to be decided by graphics, that was always the biggest improvement every generation. Now I know the Wii has improved graphics over the GameCube, but compared to how different the PS3 is to the PS2 and X360 to the Xbox (or the HD consoles) the Wii isn't much of an improvement on graphics.

This generation we're in (the 7th gen) I consider to be the HD generation, so the Wii can't fit into that so I would say it belongs in the 6.5 generation.

Come on, guys, no need to get that angry an cocky. It's all a matter of conventions, and the "next-gen" blurb started as pure market speech that was then given more definite meaning than it was meant to.
When the marketing was spouting stuff like "next-gen gaming" in 2005 was it referring to any gaming occurring on consoles that would come on the market later chronologically, or was it about graphics, complex AI, big open worlds?

In other fields, say nuclear power plants, there are very clean cut technical meanings when talking of generations, it has nothing to do with market or chronological order. So I am not that surprised if someone leans on giving this kind of interpretation to the term.

Plus there's not even a clean cut definition on what a console is. Are handhelds consoles? Are they part of the n-th generation, or do they have their own?
And if they have a parallel categorization, why? Is it because they don't compete on the market with the "traditional consoles"?
But we see a trend going on in Japan where gaming is moving to handhelds, so maybe they are.

And if things are not that clean cut maybe one can have doubts about the Wii, too. And wonder why we keep splitting in mythic "market shares" between Wii, X360 and PS3.
How many of the install base are Wii-exclusive owners, and how many gamers do possess one in addiction to a PS3 or 360?
And of those who own only a Wii, how many are in the same market as a x360 or ps3?
Because many of them would never have bought a console without a wiimote or a balance board. For those people the Wii is not a competing console that does the same things better than others, it is an entirely different thing. Like a handheld is.

All these things said, is it really that absurd if someone has doubt if it makes sense to consider the Wii part of the current "generation"?

PS - to show that you get different "logical" results if you choose different criteria:
2+2=-7 if you are working in modulo 11 arithmetic
the earth is flat if you define flat as anything having a local curvature radius over 1000km

So you mean to say that all the major exclusives, so where devs actually try to max the system, look better than PS2 games. Tells me enough.

Most multiplat games look better on GC as well. Splinter CEll looks horrible on PS2, but pretty good on GC (and amazing on Xbox). The difference between the two RE4's should in itself be enough evidence that the GC is the stronger system though.

not to play devils advocate, i agree with outlawauron, ps2 graphics were better than most games on the gamecube. there were only a few games on the GC that looked better than PS2 games. Such examples: RE4, RE0, RE, Windwaker, Twilight Princess.