My 2 Cents

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ah....huh.......well like I said, if you wish to follow that then fine, I will follow my opinion since I see no evidence of everybody going by this so called standard.
I'll ignore the childish abuse simply cos thats what you do and I'm used to it.
As for making sense, I think I proved it doesn't and anyone with half a braincell can see that it doesn't makes sense anywhere near 99% of the time, it's seriously flawed and since it does follow the same theory as a family tree my analogy is fine.

PS3 = Next-Gen
Xbox 360 = Semi-Next-Gen
Nitendo Urine = Breaks peoples TV's and coffee cups and is NOT Next Gen.

Oh and fyi, no one is paying me to wind you up and nor am I trying to in any way, I'm having a discussion about gaming on a discussion board in the gaming section. Doing nothing different to that which you are doing.
You never know, one day I might agree with YOU about something.

G'Night chap

Jonno

[GepperRankins]

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,800 for console "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.11 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 62,800 for wii "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 48,400 for "playstation 3" "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 59,400 for "xbox 360" "seventh generation" OR "7th generation". (0.09 seconds)


about 50,000 is enough for me anyway

[Jon L. Obscene]

I don't really understand your point but........

Results 1 - 10 of about 45,100,000 for Next gen. (0.22 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,780,000 for playstation 3 next gen console. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,270,000 for Xbox 360 Next gen console. (0.20 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360,000 for Nintendo wii Next gen console. (0.16 seconds)

6.7 million is enough for me

Jonno

[GepperRankins]

I don't really understand your point but........

Results 1 - 10 of about 45,100,000 for Next gen. (0.22 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,780,000 for playstation 3 next gen console. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,270,000 for Xbox 360 Next gen console. (0.20 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,360,000 for Nintendo wii Next gen console. (0.16 seconds)

6.7 million is enough for me

Jonno

oh sorry. was i coming accross as saying that none could be considered next gen consoles? my bad. i was trying to say that all three were the same generation. that must be where the conflict was. accept my apologies please

[Cheese]

@Cheese....... Thank you, thats a very interesting read and just what I was looking for, your other links are not what I was looking for but the wikipedia is a good link. And a year span would make sense.......if not for a few obvious flaws in it's theory.

Firstly, going by that link Sega managed to get 2 "Next-Gen" consoles out in 1 Generation step.......TWICE! and one Next Gen addon in the middle.

4th generation (1989-1994)

The Mega drive (Genesis) (1989)
The Mega cd (1992 )

Both 4th generation systems yet both clearly "Next-gen"

The Sega 32x (1994) actually an add-on but acording to the link that counts as do handhelds. This falls under either 4th or 5th gen, depends what time of 1994 4th gen stopped and 5th gen started.

Then 5th generation systems......1994-1999

The Sega Saturn (1994) (pushing a little close to 4th gen which combined with the 32x could in essence mean Sega had 4 Next-gen systems in 1 Generation)
The Sega Dreamcast (1998) (Which aparently is a 5th AND 6th generation system that is of the same gen as the N64, Playstation, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox? )

Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".

My point being I spose is that the pages you find online or in mags or on TV to say what is and isn't a next gen system are contradictory crap and you're simply believing whatever they tell you, whereas the likes of myself and Busyman are going by an unwritten rule about whats Next-gen based on what the machine can actually do, otherwise you end up with console after console all Next gen in the same gen which makes no freaking sense whatsoever.

Jonno

The thing is you can't call a console "next-gen" forever, sooner or later you have to define what generation it belongs to. If you're calling a console "next-gen" then it stands to reason there is a generation system in place, a "next gen" console is leaving a generation behind it. The links I've provided show what is the acceptable view on this to most people.

As with any grouping this way things are up for debate. I, for one, have no problem with Sega having more than one console in a generation. The Genesis and Mega Cd are too closely related to call different, for instance. Arguments about classifications don't make it flawed, debates like these rage in much more serious fields (for instance, animal classification, world history, natural history).

Secondly, we keep hearing about how Gears Of War is the first "Next-Gen" game, well surely by that definition any media/software released on any of these systems is automatically "Next-Gen".

We're talking about the generations of consoles, why bring up games? GOW is a game for a 7th gen or next gen console. It also could be described as a next-gen game, but that means something different and is not classified in any way. Really, that is when I think it is more acceptable to say for you and Busyman to make your own opinions up, a game is only "next-gen" when it offers something new that hasn't been done before (though let's not get bogged don by discussions of what a "next gen" game is, just accept it is different to being a game for a "next gen" console).

It's not a "Believing what they tell you thing" but you do believe what they say and take it as gospel?

I don't. I believe the general workings of the 7 generations classification to be the most correct answer, however I am aware of its flaws like I am aware of the flaws in evolution theory or in classifying literary periods.

However, I find it far more acceptable (and so do most people) than just saying "This console is next-gen because it has lots of new hardware". Please tell me what is and isn't "next gen" out of the past consoles, what do you call a console like the Playstation which was "next gen" in its day now. If you accept that the PS was next gen at its time but is not now you are already subscribing to a theory of classifying consoles by generations, now you just have to argue how that works.

Nope, still don't agree with that because there's only been 2 Xbox's and 3 Playstations so it's impossible to be 7th otherwise that will mean I'm 10,000,000th generation of my family not 14th.

Edit: And besides, this "Standard" you speak of.....who determined that? which Governing body of the gaming industry came up with that crap?

It doesn't have to be official or announced by a governing body to be standard. However, if you were speakng to an XBox designer, games developer or Bill Gates himself and you said, "The 360 sure is a nice 2nd generation console" then they would look at you like you were a mad man or as if you were stupid.

Now, and this is the tricky part so I hope I don't lose you here, the 360 is a second generation Microsoft console. This is because it is the second console that they have made. So, are you still with me? So...

The 360 is a second generation Microsoft console that belongs to the seven generation of consoles as a whole.

Semi-Next-Gen

Where do you get this nonsense from?

Really, I think Gepper may be right, someone has put you up to this. That's a good one, you got me there.


In conclusion, the generation system is the best way to group consoles. The term "next-gen" is an oxymoron at best, if you couple this by having no discernable generations behind it then it means absolutlely nothing. It is not gospel however, it is not written up on high, it is something that has come about organically. However, if I was talking to someone in the console trade, games trade or someone who had truly had "nearly 24 years of gaming experience" then I would expect them to know, or have an idea of what I meant, when I said "The 5th gen consoles are when it really kicked off" or "The 6th gen consoles were pretty crappy".

I think the problem you're having is confusing "next gen" for meaning "groundbreaking".

[NikkiD]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

[Cheese]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

The articles you've read are getting "next gen" and "groundbreaking" confused as well.

Personally I haven't seen any articles to suggest that the Wii doesn't belong in the 7th Generation, they stopped using Bits to decide gaps in generations so they should/are probably stopping worrying about the hardware. You can't deny it is a competitive console released in the same timeframe as the other 7th gens, which in my mind makes it 7th gen. History can be revised though, so when the dust settles on this console war we'll be able to better argue Wii's place in the 7th Gen.

Good post (you not me). I'll leave the "next gen" games for now, that's an even more confusing issue. Though I agree in part with what you're saying there.

[GepperRankins]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

i've never heard "the wii is not next gen" from any respectable source. from any source at all really except jonno and busyman, and i've been fanatically following the major blogs and three of the top gaming websites for a year or so.


please to be not making shit up. kthx

[MCHeshPants420]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

i've never heard "the wii is not next gen" from any respectable source. from any source at all really except jonno and busyman, and i've been fanatically following the major blogs and three of the top gaming websites for a year or so.


please to be not making shit up. kthx

I think we have to accept that "next gen" has more than one meaning, otherwise we doom ourselves to an argument even more pointless than which console is "best". If you look at it with the generations of consoles in mind then Wii is 7th gen and thus "next gen". However, if you look at it with the generation of consoles removed from your mind and base your "next gen" opinion solely on hardware, graphics and all that funky stuff then you can argue that Wii is not "next gen".

[Busyman™]

If it is in fact the media and the gaming industry which have determined what is considered generations in consoles, then they themselves should stick to that framework, no?

I have read countless reviews of the three systems, in trying to decide which one to get and when to get it. I have an Xbox 360 and will probably buy a PS3 in the new year, but it is highly unlikely I will waste money on a WII. Why? Because most of it's draw is it's controllers, which look like they would be fun for a while, but would become quite boring very quickly. The other draw was the fact that they were talking about offering all the old NES, SNES and N64 titles online for download to play on the system. Then I downloaded some emulators and this was pretty much quashed as well. But I digress. In reading all of these reviews, and watching game/system review shows with my son, the same phrase keeps repeating itself in the media. The Wii is not next gen.

Now if this classification of generations of gaming consoles is based solely on release date, and the gaming industry and the media are the defining body of these generations, then why does that phrase keep popping up? Surely the media know what these generations are and how they are separated? Surely there is no confusion on this issue?

In reading that wikipedia article, along with the Console Wars: A Brief History Article, I found that there was one other major difference between the generations of consoles. Each generation was also marked by a jump in technological advancement. The Wii, although it is a slight improvement on the GameCube doesn't have that. The controllers are not new or revolutionary. Light guns have been around for ages (a point that has been made several times). The upgrade in CPU and GPU is a much smaller one than that of the 360 or the PS3, which also distinguishes it from these consoles. So why do the media keep saying that the Wii is not next gen? Because although it does fit the time frame of the 7th generation of consoles, technologically, it does not match up.

As far as games go, you have to bring up games when discussing consoles. How else are you to judge a gaming system without looking at the games it plays? Of course games are generational. If they are released for a 6th generation console, they are a 6th generation game, etc. Sure games are released on multiple platforms, spanning different generations. Normally, each release is slightly different from the other consoles, and each release is rated differently for each console. Different releases may include different levels and upgraded graphics for higher spec systems. So saying that Gears of War is the "first next gen" game is a valid statement. It was released for a next gen console, and was, at it's release, the first game that showed what that console was capable of.

Hot damnit, someone got it!

I don't know what's so hard about "next-gen". Great post.

You don't need friggin' Google or whatever to define what it is. You don't need a game mag to say "the Wii is not next-gen" to say it's so. Many have already called the Wii, Gamecube 1.5.

If you come out with another game console and it's basically the same as the one before it but with a new controller then when someone says "that's not next-gen" they aren't saying 'that's not the system that came out after the previous system from the same manufacturer'. Jeez.



Who cares what 7th gen 5th gen whateverthefuck? The Atari Jaguar came out and was billed as next-gen (by Atari no less) but was a piece of shit. Sure it was a new generation of Atari console but no one but Atari would bill it "next-gen". When I buy a new game console, I'm looking for a technological bump with games to utilize it.

One could argue that today's next-gen console has PC's last-gen graphics. I would say the gap is closing but unlike consoles, PC graphics cards are constantly upgrading. Consoles get a set GPU and it stays that way for at least a 5-year or so cycle.