Clearly. This is silly.

The Wii is part of the 7th console generation. To say the Wii is not part of this console generation would be to say the PS2 was not part of the 6th console generation.

The Wii and PS2's dominance in their respected console generations was due to their dominance over three main target market groups: Casual, Non-Gamers and Children(Under 18). The Gamer market groups was more evenly spread out and much closer in comparison to their competitors in their respected generations. Winning three market groups by huge margins clearly helped out with the PS2 and now Wii wiining their respected console generations.

But generations are strictly historical terms.  They refer to history.  They've already been decided.  This isn't about your own logic or your own philosophy, or even your own opinion.  It's like saying "I think the 1960s were actually in the 1850s.  It's just my opinion, lol."

"Well look guys, the way I see it, the Dark Ages is a term to refer to any time without light, so all of history was the Dark Ages until the invention of electricity (the Enlightenment).  And every night when I turn the lights out I'm living in the Dark Ages for a few hours."

"Industrial Revolutions are what happens when one industry goes around the whole planet, so satellites and the internet are Industrial Revolutions, but factories and steam engines are not."

This is one of the greatest posts in recent VGchartz history.

Absolutely! Generation is a definition of time not capability and 7th gen consoles are defined as systems offered for sale after 2004 that makes the Wii 7th Gen. Each generation has a well defined time frame filled with products of various abilities. Google "7 th generation consoles" and see what you find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(first_generation)

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.

IMO, "stronger system" isn't the best way to communicate that a system is capable of better graphics. That term almost makes it sound like it's the system that won't break when dropped on the floor.

 Which aslo happens to be true.

If anything, this generation is defined by the Wii. I'd rather say that the X360 and PS3 are "Gen 6.5". They are basicly the same consoles with added hardware...kinda like the Sega master system and it's CD add-ons.

The wii actually brought us further into gaming. If the X360 worked with IR controls... don't you think Halo wouldn't have improved with wii-like cotnrols?

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

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

This generation we're in (the 7th gen) I consider to be the LC generation, so the PS3 can't fit into that so I would say it belongs in the 6.5 generation.