The 8th generation arrived.....last year.

Mothhive

New member
Apr 2, 2010
79
0
0
Maze1125 said:
Mothhive said:
In terms of technology, a generation is defined as "a specified stage of development in manufacture, usually implying improvement". The Wii U was not an improvement over the 7th generation consoles, and therefore belongs to that generation.
Do you know what the word "usually" means?
It means, most of the time, but not always.
As in, there are exceptions. Such as, for example, the Wii U.
Yes, I am aware what it means, thanks. Now, if you could give me a good reason why the Wii U should be considered an exception, then I'll happily admit that it is part of the 8th generation. So far, I've seen no convincing arguments, so good luck with that.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
In terms of technology, a generation is defined as "a specified stage of development in manufacture, usually implying improvement". The Wii U was not an improvement over the 7th generation consoles, and therefore belongs to that generation.
Wii U is an improvement over Wii. Wii was an improvement over Gamecube. Gamecube was an improvement over N64 and so on.

Is it written somewhere that they must exceed their competitions technology by a certain percentage?
It was not an improvement over currently available technology, thus, not a new generation.

I'll go back to my ridiculous fork example if you like, and ask whether you think a fork is next gen, even if it's a regular borning metal fork like all the others out there, simply because the person that made it used to make wooden forks?
Your fork example doesn't really work because forks don't have generations, atleast not yet.

Oh so now instead of having better tech than their competition, they must also improve over currently available technology like PC technology?
I'm aware forks aren't considered to have generations, but I was trying to give a humorous example that was easy to understand.

As for PCs, we're talking about console generations, so PCs don't enter into it (which is a good thing because they are much harder to quantify as they are in a constant state of improvement). So yes, new generations have to be a vast improvement over previous generations. Nintendo may have improved on their previous console, so it would be fair to say it's a new generation of Nintendo Console, but they have merely caught up to the 7th gen consoles with the Wii U, so they belong to that generation.

I like how insistent you are that large technical improvement is an arbitrary way to gauge a console generation, when your criteria, time, is even more arbitrary. Is the Xbox One 9th generation because it comes out after the 8th Gen PS4?
Time has always been the defining factor and it is the case here too. The Wii competed against 7th gen consoles and it won in terms of sales. The Wii was not competing against 6th gen consoles even though it was close to the specs of the Xbox. It makes no sense that you think the Wii U will be competing against 7th gen consoles too.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
Maze1125 said:
teebeeohh said:
part of the Kessel run moves you close to a cluster of black holes, the closer you fly to that the shorter the route you have to take.
Yep, that's exactly the bullshit George Lucas came up with in retrospect to justify his completely lack of understanding of technical terms.
nope, Lucas explanation was that the falcon has more advanced nav computers than other ships(because that makes sense) and thus bends space more effectively or however FTL flight is done in star wars. the black hole thing is from some EU ook i think
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Bad Jim said:
KazeAizen said:
When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?
What's wrong with looking at tech specs? We are buying hardware. We want to know what that hardware is capable of. We'll worry about which games are good when we are buying games.
So you buy game consoles because of their hardware? I would dare say most people buy game consoles because of their games.
Most people buy their consoles when they have been out a few years. In that case, you can indeed buy the console with the most appealing games. But right now, you have two consoles that have not been released yet and one console that is out but does not have a great library of games. You don't really have much information to go on.

Maybe if you have psychic powers and can see the future, or you have enough cash to buy it for just 1-2 games, you'll buy a WiiU. The rest of us are either not buying a next gen console yet or have looked at the hardware specs and preordered a PS4 or xbone.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Bad Jim said:
WeepingAngels said:
Bad Jim said:
KazeAizen said:
When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?
What's wrong with looking at tech specs? We are buying hardware. We want to know what that hardware is capable of. We'll worry about which games are good when we are buying games.
So you buy game consoles because of their hardware? I would dare say most people buy game consoles because of their games.
Most people buy their consoles when they have been out a few years. In that case, you can indeed buy the console with the most appealing games. But right now, you have two consoles that have not been released yet and one console that is out but does not have a great library of games. You don't really have much information to go on.

Maybe if you have psychic powers and can see the future, or you have enough cash to buy it for just 1-2 games, you'll buy a WiiU. The rest of us are either not buying a next gen console yet or have looked at the hardware specs and preordered a PS4 or xbone.
I am not buying a next gen console yet BECAUSE there is no purpose to owning hardware (weak or strong) with nothing to play on it. Which brings me back to: I bought my 3DS because of it's games and I didn't care about the specs.

I should add that even though the 3DS is much weaker than the Vita, we never hear people say that it's not in the same generation as the Vita...because that would be stupid.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Mothhive said:
Maze1125 said:
Mothhive said:
In terms of technology, a generation is defined as "a specified stage of development in manufacture, usually implying improvement". The Wii U was not an improvement over the 7th generation consoles, and therefore belongs to that generation.
Do you know what the word "usually" means?
It means, most of the time, but not always.
As in, there are exceptions. Such as, for example, the Wii U.
Yes, I am aware what it means, thanks. Now, if you could give me a good reason why the Wii U should be considered an exception, then I'll happily admit that it is part of the 8th generation. So far, I've seen no convincing arguments, so good luck with that.
Okay, how about this. It isn't an exception at all. It's made some very clear improvements, but before that, consider this generic scenario:

Generation A has two consoles, ConX and ConY, both have 8GB of ram and 10MHz processors. The manufacturers of ConX and ConY decide to make new console, but they go in different directions.
As such, ConX2 has 16GB of ram but the same 10MHz processor, while ConY2 has a 20MHz processor but the same 8GB of ram.
Regardless, both have made improvements and so both can reasonably be considered part of Generation A+1. Agreed? Good.

Right, now the manufacturer of the ConX2 likes how things going and so makes the ConX3 with 32GB of ram and a 40MHz processor.
However the manufacturer of the ConY2 has become disillusioned with simple "number" progress and instead makes the ConY3 with exactly the same 20MHz processor and 8GB of ram, while instead focusing on multiple quality of life improvements and new gameplay features that the ConX3 doesn't have.
Now clearly, only the ConX3 counts as generation A+2, while the ConY3 is still generation X+1, as everyone knows that the only improvements that count are one that can be measured in numbers and everything else is meaningless...

The Wii U has multiple features that didn't exist in ANY generation 7 console. It those ways it is a clear improvement on them. They may be features that you personally don't care about, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Improvements aren't just things measured in numbers.
 

Mothhive

New member
Apr 2, 2010
79
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
In terms of technology, a generation is defined as "a specified stage of development in manufacture, usually implying improvement". The Wii U was not an improvement over the 7th generation consoles, and therefore belongs to that generation.
Wii U is an improvement over Wii. Wii was an improvement over Gamecube. Gamecube was an improvement over N64 and so on.

Is it written somewhere that they must exceed their competitions technology by a certain percentage?
It was not an improvement over currently available technology, thus, not a new generation.

I'll go back to my ridiculous fork example if you like, and ask whether you think a fork is next gen, even if it's a regular borning metal fork like all the others out there, simply because the person that made it used to make wooden forks?
Your fork example doesn't really work because forks don't have generations, atleast not yet.

Oh so now instead of having better tech than their competition, they must also improve over currently available technology like PC technology?
I'm aware forks aren't considered to have generations, but I was trying to give a humorous example that was easy to understand.

As for PCs, we're talking about console generations, so PCs don't enter into it (which is a good thing because they are much harder to quantify as they are in a constant state of improvement). So yes, new generations have to be a vast improvement over previous generations. Nintendo may have improved on their previous console, so it would be fair to say it's a new generation of Nintendo Console, but they have merely caught up to the 7th gen consoles with the Wii U, so they belong to that generation.

I like how insistent you are that large technical improvement is an arbitrary way to gauge a console generation, when your criteria, time, is even more arbitrary. Is the Xbox One 9th generation because it comes out after the 8th Gen PS4?
Time has always been the defining factor and it is the case here too. The Wii competed against 7th gen consoles and it won in terms of sales. The Wii was not competing against 6th gen consoles even though it was close to the specs of the Xbox. It makes no sense that you think the Wii U will be competing against 7th gen consoles too.
So now it's dependant on who the console competes with for sales which defines which generation it is? Hasn't the Wii U already been competing with (and losing to) the 360 and the PS3 for the past year? So surely that makes it 7th Gen? Also, if it struggles to compete with the other 7th Gen consoles, it certainly won't be able to compete with the 8th Gen consoles. And if it doesn't compete with them, then it's not part of that generation, right?
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
KazeAizen said:
So this is really eating at me. Why can't people just admit that the 8th generation of games started last year with the Wii U? I mean seriously it seems that to me people said the Wii U doesn't count as an 8th gen consoles but rather a 7.5 gen consoles because its specs are maybe just barely better then the PS3 and 360's. Are tech specs really so important and vital to your gaming experience now that when one piece of hardware doesn't meet some arbitrary bar it is automatically excluded from current gen talk?

When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs? Also if those are so freaking important to everyone I kind of feel sad about gamings future. Oh sure the games will look phenomenal and such but when people start talking more about the processing power and less about the consoles mascots in terms who is better that just seems utterly soulless to me and that's the last thing I want gaming competition to turn into. Soulless arguements of which consoles has the biggest metaphorical dick. I'd like to see talk more along the lines of who is the bigger badass. Bayonetta or that guy from Ryse who is pretty much Kratos light.

The simplest answer is: because people are brand loyal, uneducated, and generally too insecure to let the piece of hardware and name they associate their worth with to be trumped.

As someone who had enough disposable income to purchase all systems and a nice PC during damn near every generation, I can safely say that all consoles and PC have their merits (yes even the dreaded casual Wii).

However, people have become so accustomed to judging a system by specs last generation that they have forgotten that the most graphically superior systems never sell the best because its about the games not the hardware.

- NES was graphically inferior to other systems
- SNES was graphically inferior to other systems
- Ps1/2 as well
- DS/Wii as well

Yet all of those systems sold amazingly well despite hardware limitations because they had amazing games.

The WiiU is the an 8th generation console and despite its slow start, is starting to get a decent catalog which I am happy about.

I'm also happy that the Ps4 and Xbox one are essentially just limited PC's at this point because I do not have to buy them due to multi-platform releases. I just wait to get it on PC now. Where as the WiiU I own due to nintendo games never coming out on PC.

Since my first sentence did state a pretty harsh truth, I fully expect to get flamed by said brand loyal people in an effort to protect their brand.

Also would like to point out that Ps4 and Xbox One are shaping up to be just as good consoles as the ps3/xbox 360, I just don't have a personal need because they do not have any games that would validate a console purchase this generation outside of the WiiU.

Thought I would have to reiterate that because sensitive posters take any disinterest towards their brand as an attack. lol.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
WeepingAngels said:
Mothhive said:
In terms of technology, a generation is defined as "a specified stage of development in manufacture, usually implying improvement". The Wii U was not an improvement over the 7th generation consoles, and therefore belongs to that generation.
Wii U is an improvement over Wii. Wii was an improvement over Gamecube. Gamecube was an improvement over N64 and so on.

Is it written somewhere that they must exceed their competitions technology by a certain percentage?
It was not an improvement over currently available technology, thus, not a new generation.

I'll go back to my ridiculous fork example if you like, and ask whether you think a fork is next gen, even if it's a regular borning metal fork like all the others out there, simply because the person that made it used to make wooden forks?
Your fork example doesn't really work because forks don't have generations, atleast not yet.

Oh so now instead of having better tech than their competition, they must also improve over currently available technology like PC technology?
I'm aware forks aren't considered to have generations, but I was trying to give a humorous example that was easy to understand.

As for PCs, we're talking about console generations, so PCs don't enter into it (which is a good thing because they are much harder to quantify as they are in a constant state of improvement). So yes, new generations have to be a vast improvement over previous generations. Nintendo may have improved on their previous console, so it would be fair to say it's a new generation of Nintendo Console, but they have merely caught up to the 7th gen consoles with the Wii U, so they belong to that generation.

I like how insistent you are that large technical improvement is an arbitrary way to gauge a console generation, when your criteria, time, is even more arbitrary. Is the Xbox One 9th generation because it comes out after the 8th Gen PS4?
Time has always been the defining factor and it is the case here too. The Wii competed against 7th gen consoles and it won in terms of sales. The Wii was not competing against 6th gen consoles even though it was close to the specs of the Xbox. It makes no sense that you think the Wii U will be competing against 7th gen consoles too.
So now it's dependant on who the console competes with for sales which defines which generation it is? Hasn't the Wii U already been competing with (and losing to) the 360 and the PS3 for the past year? So surely that makes it 7th Gen? Also, if it struggles to compete with the other 7th Gen consoles, it certainly won't be able to compete with the 8th Gen consoles. And if it doesn't compete with them, then it's not part of that generation, right?
The only reason it is competing against 7th gen consoles is because the other 8th gen consoles aren't out yet.

It matters not one bit how well it does against it's competition, that doesn't define a generation.

By your logic, the Wii was a 6th gen console and that Nintendo released two 6th gen consoles. Do you agree with that statement?
 

hexFrank202

New member
Mar 21, 2010
303
0
0
I agree; this is how generations have always been decided.

For example, the Atari 5200 was the system intended to replace the 2600. By all rights, it should have been part of the 3rd generation. Except, it failed within a year and left store shelves. Then later, the NES era happened, and then Atari made the 7800.

So people call the 5200 a 2nd generation console, because of where it fits in the release and sales schedule.

Also, personally, I don't feel as though the generation really kicks off until the majority of consoles are close to being out. Like, I feel the 7th really started in 2006, the 5th really started in 2001, ext.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
By your logic, the Wii was a 6th gen console and that Nintendo released two 6th gen consoles. Do you agree with that statement?
I would say Nintendo did launch 2 6th gen consoles, the Gamecube and the Wii. The Wii was basically an overclocked Gamecube with a motion sensor attached and a new controller, and as a result got ignored by virtually all third party developers aside from the shovelware producers. Nintendo simply isn't competing in the same market anymore, they decided to try to court the non gamer crowd, and now they are probably done in the home console market because that crowd has moved on to tablet and phone games, or are simply not interested in upgrading from their Wiis.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
Bad Jim said:
KazeAizen said:
When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?
What's wrong with looking at tech specs? We are buying hardware. We want to know what that hardware is capable of. We'll worry about which games are good when we are buying games.
Because that isn't what a console generation means. Otherwise we wouldn't even count Microsoft and Sony as part of the 8th gen but instead a seperate set.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Supernova1138 said:
WeepingAngels said:
By your logic, the Wii was a 6th gen console and that Nintendo released two 6th gen consoles. Do you agree with that statement?
I would say Nintendo did launch 2 6th gen consoles, the Gamecube and the Wii. The Wii was basically an overclocked Gamecube with a motion sensor attached and a new controller, and as a result got ignored by virtually all third party developers aside from the shovelware producers. Nintendo simply isn't competing in the same market anymore, they decided to try to court the non gamer crowd, and now they are probably done in the home console market because that crowd has moved on to tablet and phone games, or are simply not interested in upgrading from their Wiis.
So are you saying that an overclocked CPU isn't faster? I am not seeing where the Wii isn't faster than the Gamecube.

Oh and that you think Nintendo had two 6th generation consoles, 5 years apart is what I call radical.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Supernova1138 said:
WeepingAngels said:
So are you saying that an overclocked CPU isn't faster? I am not seeing where the Wii isn't faster than the Gamecube.

Oh and that you think Nintendo had two 6th generation consoles, 5 years apart is what I call radical.
Overclocking only gets you so far, if the chips have a lot of headroom and good cooling you might be able to squeeze out maybe a 20% performance boost in the console form factor, which is nothing compared to the boost you get with completely new hardware. Small incremental performance increases does not a generation make (unless you are Apple of course). Hardware wise, the Wii is more or less a 6th gen console, that Nintendo decided to put out when the 7th gen started as part of a new business strategy: namely no longer competing directly with Microsoft and Sony and trying to build a userbase outside the regular gaming audience. They were successful in that regard, but their new audience didn't stick around, and Nintendo launched the Wii U with hardware equivalent to the 7th gen consoles and with virtually no worthwhile games, hence the position they are in.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
Bad Jim said:
Extra power does give the developer more options. Minecraft, for example, is impossible on the PS2/Xbox due to the lack of RAM and the absence of a hard disk. But it does exist on the 360, and it could be done on the PS3.

Also, things that can be done on one generation with lots of cheap tricks and artificial restrictions can often be done very simply on the next generation, with no silly tricks complicating the code and no artificial restrictions. Open worlds, for example, existed on previous gen consoles, but the lack of polygons was quite a problem, as you had to restrict the view distance, or limit yourself to about 100 polygons per acre, or have horrible pop-in with the land visibly deforming as you ran through it. But they've flourished this gen, as simply having a larger polygon budget makes these issues much easier to deal with.
See that makes more sense. It certainly makes Sony and Microsoft sound less irritating when they keep hyping their amazing upgrades (though it doesn't make it any less boring).

It's hard to say exactly what the next gen will bring us, but we could possibly get fully destructable environments. A real military tactic is to use explosives to make your own doorway, rather risk the existing door. Not only does that sound kind of fun, but it opens up a lot of interesting tactical possibilities. Maybe we'll see a Minecraft with physics, where dynamite can make a mountain topple rather than excavating a hole and leaving rock some suspended in the air.
I'm not really sure about fully destructible environments as that would be game-breaking. Most games will limit that to buildings and plants. As far as I can tell we might have that on Battlefield 4 which will be released on the 360 and PS3 anyway.

I'm not sure that Minecraft specifically would benefit from that, though. Isn't the appeal of Minecraft based on your ability to shape it as you wish? Having an entire mountain collapse might ruin some floating building opportunities.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
Nintendo is like Wasabi.
It can't be measured in scoville, because it relies on unique IPs and gameplay, and these are either subjective or incomparable.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Supernova1138 said:
WeepingAngels said:
Supernova1138 said:
WeepingAngels said:
So are you saying that an overclocked CPU isn't faster? I am not seeing where the Wii isn't faster than the Gamecube.

Oh and that you think Nintendo had two 6th generation consoles, 5 years apart is what I call radical.
Overclocking only gets you so far, if the chips have a lot of headroom and good cooling you might be able to squeeze out maybe a 20% performance boost in the console form factor, which is nothing compared to the boost you get with completely new hardware. Small incremental performance increases does not a generation make (unless you are Apple of course). Hardware wise, the Wii is more or less a 6th gen console, that Nintendo decided to put out when the 7th gen started as part of a new business strategy: namely no longer competing directly with Microsoft and Sony and trying to build a userbase outside the regular gaming audience. They were successful in that regard, but their new audience didn't stick around, and Nintendo launched the Wii U with hardware equivalent to the 7th gen consoles and with virtually no worthwhile games, hence the position they are in.
I am aware of how overclocking works.

Here are the facts. Gamecube ran at 485 Mhz and it was stable. Wii ran at 729 Mhz, a 50% increase and it was stable. If they had chosen a Celeron like the Xbox had that ran at the same speed without being overclocked, you would still be complaining about clock speed, right?

So if my previous sentence is correct, your problem is the clock speed and not that they overclocked it.

So with that, CPU speed doesn't determine what generation a console belongs in.

I know that Nintendo has made mistakes that have costed them third party support since the N64 and I know that the casual crowd Nintendo was chasing has abandoned them. What I don't know is what that has to do with this discussion.
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
The WiiU was the opening act to the 8th generation of consoles. Unfortunately it danced on stage, promptly shit its pants, and then stood there in silence while the music continued to play; assuring everyone it would start dancing again once its mommy brought it a new pair of pants.

Calling it gen 7.5 is really a mercy so that it doesn't have to be compared to the Xbone and PS4 waiting in the wings with their star studded spectacles.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
The WiiU was the opening act to the 8th generation of consoles.
Pretty much.

MS and Sony where likly waiting to see what Nintendo had to show, with Nintendo's cards revealed they most probably thought "is that it?. It's like getting the dumbest kid in the class to read his essay out first as no matter what, you know that you're not going to be the worst.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
U with hardware equivalent to the 7th gen consoles and with virtually no worthwhile games, hence the position they are in.

I am aware of how overclocking works.

Here are the facts. Gamecube ran at 485 Mhz and it was stable. Wii ran at 729 Mhz, a 50% increase and it was stable. If they had chosen a Celeron like the Xbox had that ran at the same speed without being overclocked, you would still be complaining about clock speed, right?

So if my previous sentence is correct, your problem is the clock speed and not that they overclocked it.

So with that, CPU speed doesn't determine what generation a console belongs in.

I know that Nintendo has made mistakes that have costed them third party support since the N64 and I know that the casual crowd Nintendo was chasing has abandoned them. What I don't know is what that has to do with this discussion.
My problem is that they took 6th gen hardware, slapped on an overclock, attached a motion sensor and called it a day, that does not make the Wii a generation higher than the Gamecube. Generational differences between consoles should have a larger jump in terms of hardware, which means doing more to improve graphical fidelity, memory size, and storage rather than simply overclocking what you already have, and attaching a controller that nobody knew what to do with. At this point, I wouldn't classify Nintendo as being in the same generation as Sony and MS, even if their consoles are all released in roughly the same time frame; there is simply too much of a disparity in terms of technology between Nintendo's consoles and the others.