@all
So you are basically saying that someone arbitrarily grouped consoles in "generations" writing a wikipedia page. That you guys started quoting it as truth without giving much thought about the argument. And that gives you the right to jump at the throat of anyone trying to make sense of the definition, against what is basically a self sustaining meme.

Mix into this the agenda of the Wii fanboys that don't want to feel "left behind", and you've got a very poor debate.

Oh, well, I suppose that's the bad thing about a Wikipedia world. I just wish more people thought about source cross-checking, and that when writing is so easy and reading even easier the written word has lost most of its weight by itself and we should strive to find better criteria of authority.

Your right.. it's last gen and this gen... So not only will it win this generation against the PS3 and 360.. it will win the PS2/GC/Xbox/Dreamcast generation... OMG!!

Please don't.

Oh I see that's addressed to all of us now.

In fairness, I never quoted Wikipedia. I don't have to.

Yes, an arbitrary definition being accepted at large and supported in a context where corporate dialogues influence the general dialogue does in fact define the word being used. It's used that way, so it means that. That's all there is.

When we speak to each other we make certain concessions about the language that we use, certain implied agreements that we are using words in identical contexts with identical meanings. When you deviate from this point you are not speaking the same language as the other person, even if the difference between your languages is only the usage of that one word (it never is - everyone speaks different languages, and our brains just translate as best they can because our languages are so closely related in English).

Welcome to the world of linguistics. Enjoy your complimentary mint.

You can't check out of this hotel.

lol @ people thinking the PS2 had better graphics than the Gamecube.

Star Wars: RS III and F-Zero GX, both at 60fps

Shadow of the colossus, at 15fps

Generation groupings of consoles have tended to be very time based because they tend to be used to discuss which consoles were in direct competition for sales and third party resources. The technical capabilities of consoles have never been that important, and systems with massive differences in abilities (potentially larger than the current generation in meaningful processing power difference) like the N64 and the Atari Jaguar have been part of the same generation before.

Personally, I think it is important not to focus on processing power and graphical capabilities when trying to define a generation because we are approaching (or have passed) a point in time where they are a meaningless metric ... Soon enough we will have hardware which is as much of an improvement on the PS3 and XBox 360 as the PS3 and XBox 360 were on the Dreamcast or N64; and this hardware will be as small and energy efficient as the Wii. Once we have passed that point, it doesn't matter how long the gap is between generations it will be the graphical improvement between generations will be fairly meaningless.

There's nothing wrong with accepting a conventional value, and explaining to the OP that you're talking about that particular convention.
Making fun of him because "generations" has always meant chronological order doesn't make much sense, and shows ignorance of the usage of the term in technology.
Attacking him because of downplaying the Wii's graphical capabilities is beside the point. And speaking of sales is even more beside the point.

@Khuutra
Giving much value to language conventions in the internet world is a slippery slope. We can debate on linguistics till next morning. But you must admit that the world changed, and that we tend to give the written words the bigger weight we used to when books were assumed to have gone through a peer scrutiny and review. Except that the freedom and sheer amount of information on the web implies that it usually does not happen.
As such, conventions can be born and die in a matter of months, no need to treat them as giants as their feet are of clay.

I suggest the OP layouts how his console generations should spread. What generation are we currently in? Generations of previous consoles?

I'm at a loss, need you to enlighten, help me!!!

I have not attacked Gilgamesh, though I admit I would have done better by explaining this to him in my first post.

The transience of the language has nothing to do with it. Words means what they mean as they're said. That's all there is.

Speaking of sales isn't entirely beside the point. Since generations appear to be defined by competition as much as time...

@HappySquirriel
That's all very sensible, and I agree with most of it.
But a question springs to the mind. If competing on the market (and for developers' resources) is the base of the conventional definition of generations, how come the PS2 is pigeonholed in a different generation than the last one?
It is still sold on the market against the other consoles, it still has games developed for, it still has accessories produced for. When the "next-gen" consoles will come out, won't they again compete on the same market against current consoles?
Let's face it, there's not much usefulness in the generation definitions. Not even for businessmen, who will have to dive into much more detailed demographic analysis of the console potential customers and could not care less about this "generations" thing.