'True Next-Gen' Is a Farce

Before I begin this blog, should I preface with "inb4 rabid fanboys disregard blog content and only read title?" And also with "inb4 OP can't inb4?"

Thankfully, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel the need to speak my mind on this matter in a place where I cannot be given 200 disagrees by rabid fanboys and bubbled down into oblivion with my opinion being hidden due to the hive-mind that is N4G's sporadic dislike of anything that is counter to what they believe. Referring back to my title, yes 'next-gen' is nothing but a farce. It is no longer a valid title, that is, a valid title used by the companies producing video games and in the way many people have begun commonly using it. What is the common use of the term now you may ask? Well the term has for some reason come to represent graphics. But I mean, if that is the case, why are a majority of games released this generation which are graphically mediocre not considered to be past-gen games?

Now, the hypocritical majority of voices that exist on this website are the true spurring movement behind writing this piece. I'm simply fed up with all the (insert derogatory adjective here) posters belittling various (see: Nintendo) console(s) and their publishers because it doesn't fit their on the spot thought up definition of the term 'next-gen'. So what do I intend at accomplish this this blog post? Realistically not a whole lot. However I do hope to have a sum of people actually read through this post, preferably those who misuse the term 'next-gen'. And maybe it will get more members of this 'community' to react to that use of the term, effectively stopping it.

First of all, we must begin the question: what is really 'next-gen'? What does the term mean? Well a quick Google search of "next generation video games" yields a Wikipedia article as the second result. Normally, Wikipedia is a great source to gain basic and advanced information (don't listen to your teachers.) This article, "The History of Video Games", seems to be very appropriate in accordance with this blog. Hence, a video game console generation is defined in my own words as correlating to all the information on that article: the next iteration of consoles released by companies to the home market.

But, what does this mean towards a console generation? (Brace yourself, because in comes a quick history lesson on console generations.) It means that the first console generation began in 1972 with the Magnavox Odyssey. A console which used Digital Electronics to run its games, games including Pong, Chase, and Computer Space. The second generation of consoles known as the 8 bit era began in 1976 with the 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System. Along with that other companies began to join the fray with the Atari 2600, the Intellivision, Odyssey 2, and Coleco vision all joining the market to compete. That is what is defined as the second generation. The third generation of video games, otherwise known as the 8 bit era began in 1983, with the Nintendo Family Computer, also known as the NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) and the Sega SG-1000. The release of these consoles marked the end of the North American Video Game Crash of 1983. Along with these two were the MarkIII/MasterSystem also by Sega, and the Atari 7800. Following the third generation, the fourth generation known as the 16 bit era, began with the release of Nippon Electric Company's PC engine (also known as Turbo Grafx-16) in North America. The generation all consisted of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, the Neo Geo, the Commodore CDTV, the CD-i and the Super A'Can.

The Fifth Generation, also known as the 3D era due to the obvious use of 32/64 bit or 3D visuals consisted of four major competitors. The 3D0 Interactive Multiplayer, the Sega Saturn, the Playstation, and the Nintendo 64. Along with those consoles were a plethora of others, nine others to be exact, that I will not bother naming. Following fifth, the sixth generation consisted of the Dreamcast, the Playstation 2, the Nintendo Gamecube and the Xbox. Along with them came a variety of handhelds, though the focus for this blog is on home consoles.

Finally comes the seventh generation. The one we are currently in the transition phase out of. This generation consisted of three major console competitors: Xbox 360 by Microsoft, Playstation 3 by Sony, and the Wii by Nintendo (and the various handhelds to come out in this generation). Now, to what my point is for that mini history lesson. A console generation is marked by the iteration of consoles that come out in it. Many of the previous console generations I listed above consist of many video game consoles that I'm sure most people have never heard of. Does that mean they did not exist during that generation? Of course not, it does not such thing. So why is it that suddenly in the seventh to eight generation of consoles people believe this to not be true?

Here's what we know so far of the Eighth Generation. It consists of these currently released consoles: the Nintendo 3DS, the Playstation Vita, and the WiiU. We know it will also contain a newer console by Sony, most likely the Playstation 4. We also know that it will have a new console by Microsoft, the Next-Box, or 720, whatever you wish to call it. Also added into the fray are the OUYA (is this a last generation console also?) and NVidia's new combination handheld/pc console.

What does a generation not consist of though? Well for one it doesn't consist of the number of consoles. We've seen clearly that there were a huge number of consoles in the past and they were all apart of their own respective generations. It doesn't consist of player counts or amounts sold. That has been fluctuating between each and every generation. It surely doesn't consist of graphical capabilities, otherwise we'd be in a generation far past Eighth due to the PC platform, with console manufacturers playing catch up for several years. Even though previous console generations focused on graphics (8 bit, 16 bit) that was all that they had to focus on at the time. That was the most they could do with the hardware and the software that they had. In fact, most of the consoles were graphically equal at the time, so graphics only defined the progression that consoles were making, not their differences in power or graphical capabilities (let's be honest, there weren't many that I remember). Not to mention, in modern generations graphics still have stayed equal amongst most console video games. Even the games that people claim as superior (graphically) to others look just barely better, if at all.

So I have to re-iterate the entire point of this blog. A console generation is not the graphics, the units sold, or the playercount. A console generation is the succession of consoles for the major manufacturers. Now referring back to the title of my blog, why is 'next-gen' a farce? Well because it's used to represent something that it's not. Publishers and companies are using it to represent graphical content instead of what it really is. So do not listen to publishers such as EA or Activision or the like when they say what is or isn't 'next-gen'. Their primary purpose is to sell you video games at whatever price point they can make the most amount of money. If they can spin some sort of blatant misdirect to convince people what is or isn't a 'next-gen' system, they will. All in the name of taking your money. So I urge those reading this, stop using the term 'next-gen' just because you don't like something a manufacturer put out. Stop using it to define graphics (remember PC's guys, or do those not count suddenly because of another on the spot made up definition). And start using the term as what it's meant to be; a definition of succession of consoles. And let me finally remind you, there is no such thing as 'True Next-Gen'. The next-generation of consoles has already started, whether you like it or not.

[360ICE]

'True next gen' is really just a term mostly used by people who feel the Wii U isn't an adequate jump from the last gen. It's not really an objective title that is exclusive to a certain group of consoles.
Calling PS4 and 720 for true next-gen is'nt particularly more objective than saying "Xbox 720 and PS4 are better than the Wii U".
Hell, you could say Wii U is true next gen, because the other consoles lack a pad controller (remains to be seen, but if). I'd think that would be weird, but hey. Whatever floats your boat.

It's not a farce, it's just more rooted in opinion than some would like.

In fact, console generation is hardly an objective term. Some people would disagree with your inclusion of handhelds. Some people would disagree with what consoles go into which generations. Take cheap consoles like M&M machines and POPstations. If one of those were released now, would you call them next-gen? It's really just a way for the subject to make some sense of the many consoles released.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

Generation is clearly defined by multiple sources as the successors to the previous iterations, hence the reason why I included an entire timeline of the consoles and their respective generations. The people who use the term to berate the WiiU are the same ones who say "NES fanatics" so they're not using it because they don't think it's an adequate jump, they're just fanboys, and that's where the gist of this annoyance and blog came from.

But objectively speaking, generations aren't subjective. They're marked by time period, they're marked by succession to their previous counterparts. Not to mention the handhelds are definitely part of the console generation too. What else would you consider them? Part of nothing? There's a reason why the 3DS and the VITA followed up the Psp and the NDS. They are next generation handhelds. The same way the WiiU, the PS4, and 720 are/will be next generation consoles. It's the same reason I included the NVidia and OUYA consoles. They will be next generation systems, whether people like it or not.

Also, M&M machines and POPStations? what are those? Do you mean the systems that sell and have like 50 games on them? Can you even classify them as anything more than a quick toy? They're not exactly consoles because people don't develop for them. Consider them the same as a huge board game, just one that is digital. Unless of course you'd consider a handheld that had monopoly, battleship and other board games on it in digital form a console. Otherwise, no, I wouldn't call them next-gen, because they're not competing with any of the manufacturers directly or indirectly.

[WildArmed]

Agreed. PS3/360/Wii were 7th gen (regardless of how you put it)

Just as PS4/720/WiiU are 8th gen (upcoming/current gen) of consoles.

People throw around terms like next-gen like it's defined by a console's hardware or such.

[360ICE]

When sideburnes like the Dreamcast release between generations, old tech release in new packages years after original like the Gameboy Micro, and different varieties and updates of already existing consoles (some of them vastly different from the original) are taken into account, the borders between generations immediately appear less clear, and you'd start getting disagreements. Are anyone objectively wrong in any sense? If so, by what standard? There are many consoles that breach with the concepts of time, succession, technology and support.

Oh, and POPstation not being a console is also really a subjective judgement. It has more games, more power and probably more support than any of the first consoles ever made.
That must mean people's perception of what a console is has changed, thus rendering the idea of an objective definition of console a bit meaningless. Maybe it's about what the maker of the console says it is? Well, the POPstation is marketed as a console. And there are games being developed for it, that can also be bought separately. Sure, most of them are probably first party, but still. I doubt you'd argue that third party support is what defines a console.

Which leads me back to my main argument. 'True next-gen' is just a term people use to make sense of the coming consoles. They think PS4 and 720 will be in a different league than Wii U, and therefore think the next-gen starts with them. I'm not sure I agree with that, but that again would be my opinion.

[MattyG]

A generation isn't defined by it's tech, but by it's release window. The WiiU was released after the Wii. Therefore, it is a new generation. It's as simple as that, no fanboyism or tech talk required.

[MacDonagh]

Wow. This was really well-written. Actually, most of the blogs have been a joy to read for me. It's good that there are some really good writers on N4G.

On topic of this whole next-gen thing, I believe it will be a generation of change. Some of it good. Some of it horrible. I can see a lot of companies falling to the wayside because the signs are all around. The amount of closures that this generation has had to deal with, all of the big 3 posting losses; it will be interesting at least to see the fallout from it all. I just plan to stand back and watch because it's going to be pretty funny watching everybody lose their mind over it.

[rainslacker]

I don't consider well written insulting anyone who may disagree with him at every opportunity.

On Topic and not particularly in response to you but the blog:

Next Gen doesn't need to be defined. It is similar to the term hardcore. The term itself will vary based on who uses it, and where. I can't imagine how many qualifying statements would be needed to be used to get a commenter's point across when they are trying to define certain topics. Sometimes it's just easier to classify a statement into a simple, understandable term. Just because some people can't get the context of the term based on the comment doesn't mean that the term is being used improperly.

By writing this blog, and trying to set the definition of the term "Next-Gen" to what you believe it should be, is no better than what you are accusing others of doing.

As to the whole PR speak. Yeah, that's nothing new. It's been around since the dawn of the first console(or second rather), and publishers have always done this. It has been, and always will be used for self-promotion. Next-Gen is exciting for many people, and publishers will capitalize on that excitement to sell their products. If people want to listen to them, then that's their problem, not mine or yours.

As to what Next Gen means. Well it does mean what you say, a successor to a company's own product line. It also means a technological jump(graphically or gameplay) from the previous gen. It can also mean a new way to play games over the previous gen. It can also mean a new way to provide games to the consumer(Cartridge to CD). It can mean all those things and so much more.

There is no true definition of Next-Gen. There never has been, and there never will be.

[MacDonagh]

Really? I haven't really seen many insults from the writer of this blog. Only some spirited debate from either side of the fence which is good. The blogs this month have been quite high-quality recently.

I hope it continues.

[SilentNegotiator]

"A console generation is not the graphics"

Ah, yes, the old "Specs only mean graphics" farce...

[WildArmed]

It's much similar to the "Specs mean better game" farce, no?

[SilentNegotiator]

You mean the fact that higher specs mean all the more potential?

Nope, nothing like that.

[WildArmed]

Righ, so that explains why the highest rated/most loved games are obviously from the 7th gen (PS3/360/Wii).

That vast "potential" of the hardware is realized with every single game isn't it?

Oh wait, that's right, most of the best games weren't even realized this gen.

[SilentNegotiator]

So you're pretending that potential means nothing? A higher capacity for AI, scale, etc not being realized in "every single" game means that potential means nothing due to "most of the best games" not being realized this gen?

If Half-Life 3 came out next gen and reached its lofty expectations and was spectacular with massive cities, great AI, impressive physics, etc, capitalizing on the new Playstation /Xbox /and mid to high end PCs....that would all not count because COD 53 isn't up to snuff?

Your logic is far from sound there.

EDIT: You talk as if potential is completely neutralized by the fact that you can still have a good game on a less powerful system.

No, "bigger" does not mean "better graphics". I'm so tired of reading misinformed blather about specs being "just graphics". Scale, what is rendered all at once, has a LOT of gameplay implications. Population, activity, etc are all affected by what can be rendered/processed at once.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I AM NOT SAYING THAT BETTER SPECS MEANS THAT THE GAMES ARE INSTANTLY BETTER. But many games benefit from better specs (Again, AI, the ability to render bigger more populated areas at once, physics, and more) and there will (and are) games that wouldn't have worked on less powerful systems. Plain and simple.

Stop being threatened by other companies than your favorite releasing more powerful systems. They will get some games not possible on the rest and some will be quite amazing thanks in part to the pushed boundaries. Just ignore these games if it makes you feel better, but don't act as though potential created by higher specs means completely nothing.

[WildArmed]

You talk about this 'ideal' gaming world, but that isn't how it goes.

Indie games have used much less resources than retail games, and still have proved too put out better games than most AAA developers.

The logic behind "specs = better game" is just folly. It is a "potential" for better games, but that doesn't mean that you cannot have an equally great game on SNES or such.

There have been games with MASSIVE cities already. If you are talking about graphics, then say so -- so u massive pretty cities w/ uber physics etc etc.

But still, you can have all that, and still have a poor 'game'.

The very fact a Wii game, Super Mario Galaxy (Wii, 7th generation console)is ranked highly among gamers and critics a like should be enough to convince you, it's not the specs, but what you do with it.

[jessupj]

Wii games have mostly been judged in regards to other Wii games. They have not been compared to the HD consoles.

How many times have we heard the phrase "good for a Wii game"?

I'm not saying SMG is a bad game, but I mostly disregard that arguement you made for it.

[WildArmed]

@jessupj

Having heard "good for a Wii game" again and again shouldn't mean anything when a quality games does come out.

Super Mario Galaxy was one of the most critically acclaimed game EVER. Xenoblade Chronicles is one of the best RPGs this gen. Brawl really is fun.

Don't mistake me using Wii as an example of a sign of my bias towards it. If you want we can go further back:

FFX/FF6/FF7/FF8/DQ8 are all games from previous gens and are much better than most games this gen.

I'm sure you all know how FF went in this gen.

Heck, Zelda:OoT is better than most games this gen.

Specs don't make a game, it really is the vision and hard work of the developers.

Console specs won't matter unless you have the right people work on it.

[WildArmed]

Dude I play on PC. I don't care about the next super powerful gaming console as none of them are going to on par (in sepcs) to my PC. I really don't have any shares in any of the big three, so don't mistake this as me defending Wii U. (which I don't own, neither do I own a Wii)

I know better specs = more resources for the developers to work with. I'm not delusional about it.

My point is that specs don't make or break the game. They are just a part of a much more intricate system.

By putting so much emphasis on the "specs", it downplays the hard work and vision of the developers. Yes specs give more resources, but they play a limited role.

[Christopher]

I agree completely with this. The problem is that I think we should wait another 5 years before a new generation of consoles because [some] developers have been so lazy this generation.

I was appalled at how lazy the level designers were in ME3 when they didn't work to make weapons and mods as parts of the story and even when they had the chance they did it wrong. They played it safe with about every scenario in the game, never providing any surprises because as soon as you saw a few half-height barriers, you knew you were going to be in a fight. And even the abilities played it safe, taking no aim towards better customization that meant much of anything and instead giving you options that pretty much decided for most of them that you were going to go this way instead of the other because the other sucked.

I'm sure I'll be happy about the next generation, but I doubt I'm going to be that happy about how quick and slapdash the game design has been this generation as companies focus more on selling games that are fun to play but are not what they could be with a focus on design over graphics.

[moegooner88]

I played The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of time on 3ds for the first time this year, and it ended up as one of my fav games of all time, you know why, because there was so much emphasis on all aspects of game play, level design and story progression, rather than on the graphics, aka it was developed the old school way. At the of the day, it doesn't matter which generation a game was released on, a great game is a great game regardless of its release window. For instance, the PS4, and next Xbox can be twice as powerful as the Wii U, and yet the Wii U might end up with the best software line up.

[WildArmed]

Silly Moe! Ofc it was developed the old school way, it is an old school game :)

LoZ:OoT is one my fav. games ever too, played it back in 1990s when it came out.

[Rage_S90]

It's ironic that you describe previous generations in terms of power, then proceed to disregard it for this generation. If generations were describe as 8 bit-16 bit, then couldn't a generation also be described as the hd generation?

The term itself is pretty loose, but i think there is without a doubt a correlation to the power of the console. If a company were to release a 16 bit console now, i doubt it would be marketed as next gen, or received that way by gamers.

Technology is a huge part of what defines a generation, people are always looking for better, faster, and prettier things. Better technology allows games to be more expansive, detailed, and allows new features. If you look back at games that wowed people, a lot of them tend to be associated with a jump in technology. FFVII being the first 3d Final Fantasy made it hugely memorable, or maybe people remember GTA III being one of the first 3d open world games, again only possible because of the technological jump.

So yes, in my opinion technology is what defines a generation, it provides us with game experiences that weren't possible before, if you count gimmicks however you could have an argument, but i find that to be a weak one.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

I addressed that in the blog. Generations were described as power because that was the natural progression, the only logical progression at the time. It was the only thing that could be improved upon easily to attempt to one up your competitors. Notice how the Virtual Boy failed miserably.

But if you notice, there was no big difference between any of the consoles correlating to graphics. The same has stayed true so far. The 360 and Ps3 while looking better than the Wii were not miles ahead like some people like to believe.

The same will be true of this new generation. The consoles will most likely be evenly matched graphically because there's not much that can be done to improve with a closed system.

And to reply to your releasing a 16 bit console now, it wouldn't be next generation because it isn't competing with anything now. It's just released. I replied to 360ICE about that, about the systems that release and have 50 snes or nes games on them. They're not next gen. They're not of any generation. They're just technically sophisticated toys released to be played on the TV. Otherwise would you consider a Ipod or Iphone a next gen console because it has games being released? No.

And also if you consider technology as a defining part of a generation, then you'd have to consider motion technology, tablet technology, eye cam technology, motion sensing technology as a defining factor of a generation also. But you only seem to focus on graphics as part of technology (graphics include: Physics, particles, effects, shiny colors).

@Matty

Actually that is a great example. The Ps2 was the weakest of the three consoles at the time. Xbox and Gamecube were much more ahead of it in terms of graphical capabilities, yet it was still part of the console generation, why wasn't that labeled as a last gen console?

@Rage

So then you agree the PS2 wasn't in the same generation as the Gamecube and xbox ? Or are you saying that the Wii at the time wasn't part of any generation at all simply because it was doing its own thing instead of trying to be a graphical powerhouse?

[Rage_S90]

Well that's were were gonna have to disagree, as i think there is a substantial enough difference to define them as different gens. As for the future well i have no idea because we haven't seen them yet, so we're just gonna have to wait on that one.

If you're going by that you could argue that the wii isn't current gen, as it's going for a completely different market then the HD twins. Although admittedly the HD twins tried to eat into Nintendo's market by releasing peripherals.

Of course i wouldn't consider an Iphone a next gen console, because it's a phone, the key word here is console, weak argument on that one.

[rainslacker]

I think I see the disparity here, which I didn't really understand from your blog. If you go by each consoles release per manufacturer, the GameCube would be 4th gen, the PS2 would be 2nd gen, and the Xbox would be 1st gen, however when talking about console gen, they will always be put into the group that they most compete against each other with, with the numbering dating back to the original Magnavox Odyssey, which is the generally accepted start of the home console, with the 7th being the PS3/360/Wii.

To that end, I would say that the Wii U is next gen simply because it will be the main competitor from Nintendo for MS and Sony with their upcoming consoles, thus the "next-gen" is born. In this regard, yes, you are right, it's not about graphics or whatever, it is about competing consoles within a time frame set by generally accepted dates among the community.

However, and this is a big point, it can also be used in the ways you criticize within your blog. There is no one definition of the term itself, and it really depends on context for it's use. For instance, it can be used to define a general advancement of tech, as MattyG explains below. His definition is no less valid than your own...mostly due to context.

[MattyG]

Yes, next-gen is associated with better tech, but that is just what we associate it with. "Generation" is referring to time, not tech. If PS2 had released and had only been a tiny bit more powerful than the PS1, it would have still been "next-gen" at the time. If the PS4 has an unnoticeable technical advantage over the PS3, it is still next-gen. People need to stop looking at next gen as a way to show that a console is more powerful, and start looking at it as a way to see that a new console has released.

To put it in human terms, I'm far weaker than my grandfather. But does that mean we came from the same generation?

[MattyG]

Just look at this definition of the word generation. ( http://i.imgur.com/ZfhgqYE.... ) Next generation has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with time and succession.

[ZoyosJD]

The generation in which a console is in is only a categorization by a group of people by Wikipedia, N4G, or otherwise. No matter how much you may wish the definition was set in stone the perception of a generation is subjective.

The whole definition as you wrote it: "the next iteration of consoles released by companies to the home market" could very well create a time lapse in generational differences.

ex. What would you say if Nintendo released it's next several iterations of their console within the same time frame as one console release for another company. Would you consider both of Nintendo's consoles to be of the same gen(breaking your definition), would Nintendo enter generation 10 before the others enter generation 9(creating a time lapse), or would other companies be skipping a generation (again, breaking your definition as they are that companies next iteration of their console).

If the systems were always released at the same time this might not have been an issue, but that clearly isn't the case and the chances of this happening are becoming more and more likely as certain consoles are lasting longer and longer while Nintendo maintains a similar timeline. You can only get people to believe in a categorization as far as their perception takes them.

"You may lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

No, it wouldn't break my definition. That said company would be entering their 10th generation early. Incredibly early.

And people can or cannot believe in the categorization all they want, that doesn't change the fact that it's real. Remember, you can make someone believe something or not, but that doesn't change the facts.

[ZoyosJD]

But, based on the history of games as you so thoroughly wrote out these generations aren't defined by a single companies release of a console, these are groups of consoles; otherwise MS would only be entering *their* third gen, rather than *the* eighth.

You (and may others) are simply creating a paradox by trying to define something that can be viewed from different standpoints.

A generation is a time frame; breaking it for individual consoles releases for any given company would just create console release time frames, not generations.

Their are no facts as their is no standard. I could create a 152 gen timeline based on hardware computations in logarithmic FLOPS scaling, and would be no less fact than you citing Wikipedia, and would be a whole hell of a lot easier to define.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

@ZoyosJD

It is the company's (microsoft's) third generation. But in terms of console generations, it is 8th. Why is this so hard to comprehend for you? It will be NVidia and OUYA's first gen also. But they will be entering their first generation within the 8th generation. This isn't that hard to figure out. everything I've explained to you still fits my definition perfectly. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't negate it.

[ZoyosJD]

You can't even keep your words correct because you are caught in your own paradox.

"said company would be entering *their* 10th generation early"

There is no case of "their" generation as "generation" as you defined it is "the next itteration of consoles* realeased by companies*". emphasis on the "s".

It may be MS third generation but what if nintendo put out five consoles in that same time allthewhile staying competitive. Does that suddenly make it the 10th? Would MS just skip a couple generations despite always being a competitor? Or would nintendo have multiple consoles in the same generation as you see people claiming now?

The point being, if any company contiueously pushes out new hardware at a faster rate than the others they are increasing the frequency at which the next itteration of their console releases eventually leading to a point in which they can not be kept track of on the same time scale, hence why you use "their" generation.

As soon as you separate one company from the rest your no longer using generations as a group, but as individual consoles releases, defeating the purpose of using the term in the first place.

I'll go for wikipedias definition for now, but just know that its just a group of people trying to create a catagorical form as they go along who have simply been fortunate as to not yet have this problem. Please note that their has already been quite the debate over this on the talk page as is without it even happening to the same extent as what I proposed and is likely to happen in the future. And reitterating, wikipedia is not the final say on this, it's up to the individual until the day it is defined and agreed upon.

[jessupj]

It seems people are so desperate so defend the Wii U from the people saying it isn't a next gen console. It's understandable though. I would be too if I so passionately believed in something.

But the fact is there is no official standard in which a generation period is defined. Since this is the case, what really matters then is what the general public perceive a generation to be.

And that perception is power. It is a significant evolution in technology. There is a really why many people, including industry professionals, journalists and even major publishers are questioning whether the Wii U is a next gen console, or even out right saying it is not, and they are right to do so.

I could go on, but I don't think it would taken seriously by most people here.

What I will say though is this; You might call it next gen, I might disagree. In the end it doesn't matter, because when all is said and done, the fact is it has current gen technology. And that is a fact that can't be disputed.

[mamotte]

I'll follow your game. You know what's next gen? PC. And by definition, the highest-ranked games from all time are on PC. Because moar power make better games.

So I really hope you play on PC.

[TheDivine]

If you only want power get a rig, every console is underpowered compared to what you "could" build. If you want games get whatever console, handheld, pc, ipad that has the games you want. Some of my favorite games have been ones that aren't graphically impressive but they're artistically beautiful and fun. Xenoblade shit on every rpg this gen and it was on the wii, Fire Emblem Awakening is my favorite Srpg ever and its on the 3ds, and Persona 4 Golden is a ps2 port that wasn't graphically impressive to begin with but its amazing nonetheless.

Graphics are great for certain games. It def gets me hyped when a new gen starts and I see stuff mind blowing and new exciting ip's but honestly I prefer a fun game over a pretty game. I'd much rather play Demons Souls, Tales of Symphonia, or Devil Survivor than Crysis 2 or KZ3. Next gen is just a timeframe when the major consoles launch. It's a new start. The wii-u is next gen period. It's a massive leap over the wii ( remember its a wii successor not anything else), it has innovative online social networking, a tablet controller, all kinds of new stuff built in, and the games are a gen beyond the wii. Even the wii was a nice leap above the GameCube. Nothing mind blowing IN THE LEAST but Xenoblade wasn't possible on the GameCube and neither was motion controls and online. If Sony released a souped up ps3 with cloud, a new controller, more ram, faster disk read speed, and a Overclocked card it would be next gen. What most people argue about is Nintendo vs Sony vs MS which has nothing to do with a gen. That's x vs y, power and games which is not indicative of the generation.

[Ingram]

Wii U is an Insult with a huge gothic "I", no matter how verbosely you try and spin it, since it uses vastly outdated technology of yore, hence the "WiiU is not next-gen" argument, which is a perfectly valid way to remark the reality of its innards.

While is also perfectly valid -as an opinionated piece- that you go and decide to play the Wii U white knight role, it's not really a matter of protocol or denomination.

Why would anyone care so much that the Wii U has some "next-gen" "official" denomination or status if its main problem is having such a weak hardware?[<-rethoric], it's not like giving someone a medal automatically makes him a hero.

It's not a step forward, it's a repackaging with some twist mimicking the latest posh trends; a tablet controller with an absurdly low quality screen and battery life.

The sooner some of you guys get that the Wii U is a piece of ****, the sooner we can move along, really.

If you guys keep on voting with your wallets towards that direction, if you keep conveying the message that "specs" don't matter, consoles will become mere toys. And it's ok, you have the right to buy whatever turd-on-a-stick you see fit, just don't try and justify your purchase at all costs

"just cause the poor turd is different and new and tastes like **** doesn't mean we should not call it Proper Food"

No. No.

[parkerpeters]

Hey, Ingram. Your butt-mad is showing.

I don't own a Wii U. I probably wont for a few years. I am a sony fan boy. I play almost exclusively on PS2/PC.

Listen to my words: The 8th console generation started with the 3DS and all following consoles, regardless of quality, are a part if the 8th generation.

That is just how time works. It is linear.

[Ingram]

Who cares about the label and status of the Wii U being next gen or not? Why is this detail of capital importance?

With all due respect, I don't care what you own either. Why the need to tell me and the world? Need to convince somebody about your objectivity and neutrality?

My butt-mad might be showing, but it's baboons hipnotized by Nintendo and Apple the ones throwing stones from glass houses.

I listen to your words, yet you haven't even read what I said.

If I take some 2008 GPU and the amount of RAM PC's had in 2004, and resell it in 2013, I'm laughing at customers. Period. Stop worrying about the Wii U being considered next-gen, because it doesn't matter for many other reasons, lack of power being the prime one.

You'd rather care for commercial generations labeling? be my guest, we can call it Super Mega Wii U so you guys feel better, really, since it seems to be the most important thing to care for lately, where the Wii U fits and if it is considered next gen or not. The fact that the console is so underpowered that this debate appeared, should give you already a good idea of the situation. The fact that is a 33 watt piece of...hardware is telling enough.

Whether you admit it or not, the console is ****, with all the letters one after the other. The games for the upcoming consoles will mope the floor with Wii U's face. Cope with it, because that's the only relevant fact.

Oh, maybe Herodotus and later the romans and other people popularized a linear idea of time, but physics has evolved a lot in that respect too.
What's that? Herodotus is a Next-Gen historian and the gregorian calendar is all we need? all right then, I see.

[parkerpeters]

Hardware doesn't matter as long as it's solid, and I don't really give a shit about graphics.

In fact, nobody should really. It is called video gaming, not video pretty effects. The important part of gaming is the games. That is what made the SNES and the PS2 so special. Not the hardware. The SNES had inferior hardware to the Genesis in every way, and look how well that helped Sega. The PS2, again, inferior to the Dreamcast. It isn't about power. It is about fun. It is about innovation in gameplay. If you care so much about power and graphics go play on a PC. there you will find fantastic titles like Hotline Miami, Minecraft, and.... Oh wait, not exactly graphical blowouts there... But those games sure are fun. And why is that? Because they were made to be fun.

I care about innovation and fun. So should you, or frankly, you need to get a new hobby. It isn't about graphics. It never really was, and it never really will be, no matter how much Microshaft implies that it is.

PS. I am sorry that the concept of linear time upsets you. Write your local congressman. Maybe he can get a bill passed by last month!

[Ingram]

By the way, it may not look like it, but I honestly found the main blog post most interesting and well written.

I was replying to this whole trend of establishing some kind of fanboy safeguard around the concept of the Wii U not being defined as "Next gen" partially, which is getting quite old, unnerving and bleh.

edit@parkerpeters^: look man, the SNES had a clear edge over the Megadrive, colors, sound, sprites... the Megadrive CPU was faster. I was a SEGA fanboy.

And the Dreamcast had more VRAM than the PS2 yes, it was smaller, cheaper, and it had a modem and the VMU, it was IMO the most innovative out of the two, but they're pretty different.

I wouldn't say one was better than the other...but PS2's basic hardware was also better in this case. The PS2 had some EDRAM with an insane bus width and a way more advanced CPU compared to the SH4. PS2 produced even with its smaller memory pool, better graphics, pushed way more polygons and stored more texture content thanks to the DVD. The main reason the PS2 ended up being arguably the best one is the games though.

You care about innovation?
Then you should be excited about the other upcoming consoles instead. Why do I take the sudden liberty of telling you what you should care about? because you did the same.

[parkerpeters]

Good blog, and an entertaining read I am sure, for those not aware of what a console generation is.

We are WELL into the 8th gen now, and people need to quit griping about graphics. Graphics are one of the least important aspects to a game, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[FAT MAN GO BOOM]

great blog ZNP, very well thought out and well written.

Most importantly the point you are making is very clear and right on the money...

Cheers....

[steve30x]

You are right about the debubbling and 200 disagrees. N4G is all about disagrees and Debubbling. Every time you reply to an article you are walking on egg shells because theres always that somebody that will not like what yoy said and either debubble you or disagree.