Support NeoGAF

[Meelow]

yes and the Vita and 3DS are part of the same generation

This is why I miss bits it was much easier ID'ing a console by saying "This is 64 bit and these two are only 32 bit" instead of getting into debates over generations.

But even then they went by generations, people can technically say then the N64 was next gen compared to PS1/Saturn if power had anything to do with it.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Not with regards to technology. Stop implying human terms towards technology which has always been defined by technological advancement. So stop twisting the logic so it can fit your agenda.

Should we inform Wikipedia that their definitions of game console generations is twisted to fit an agenda? Because they've got it all wrong right now.

The problem is that there is more than one valid use of generation. The further problem is that two of the major definitions - temporal and technology - are not well suited to identical roles.

The technological definition is useful in subjective, case-by-case comparisons but it sucks as an overall framework and as a timeline. Technological progress is uncertain and relative, it speeds up and slows down in different areas. It's even blurrier now because the PC platform is becoming a serious competitor to core-oriented game consoles - so are you going to say Durango and Orbis are "last gen" before they even exist, since by then gaming PCs will probably be a lot more powerful?

The temporal definition seems the only rational way to organize generations of products. The 7th generation of game consoles competing in the same general arena were the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360. The 8th generation is Wii U, Durango, Orbis. This is extremely simple and unambiguous. It isn't tainted by gaming politics, where people argue over what we the people deserve in our game boxes, which evil corporations are lying to us today, marketing, etc.

However, the temporal usage isn't relevant in arguments over "power". This is where people can argue about next-gen until they are blue in the face, that's all good.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

So why has this definition only been used since the Wii came into the picture? Also, handhelds, see below.

See, this is where things get weird. The DS is pretty much a portable N64, and the PSP a portable PS2, yet they're considered the same generation. By tech terms, the PSP (And the Vita over the 3DS) would be a generation ahead, yet no-one says that. That's why the whole Wii U is last gen argument holds no water for me.

the 3DS and Vita are substantially more powerful than their predecessors and therefor they belong to the same gen, while the WiiU has a weaker CPU, and slower GPU then current gen consoles. It´s a huge difference.

Should we inform Wikipedia that their definitions of game console generations is twisted to fit an agenda? Because they've got it all wrong right now.

The problem is that there is more than one valid use of generation. The further problem is that two of the major definitions - temporal and technology - are not well suited to identical roles.

The technological definition is useful in subjective, case-by-case comparisons but it sucks as an overall framework and as a timeline. Technological progress is uncertain and relative, it speeds up and slows down in different areas. It's even blurrier now because the PC platform is becoming a serious competitor to core-oriented game consoles - so are you going to say Durango and Orbis are "last gen" before they even exist, since by then gaming PCs will probably be a lot more powerful?

The temporal definition seems the only rational way to organize generations of products. The 7th generation of game consoles competing in the same general arena were the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360. The 8th generation is Wii U, Durango, Orbis. This is extremely simple and unambiguous. It isn't tainted by gaming politics, where people argue over what we the people deserve in our game boxes, which evil corporations are lying to us today, marketing, etc.

However, the temporal usage isn't relevant in arguments over "power". This is where people can argue about next-gen until they are blue in the face, that's all good.

Anyone can edit a wikipedia article.

You know, it´s really weird how next generation for fighter jets/weapons, cell phones, computer chips and every other technological piece is defined by a huge technological advancement, and yet consoles which are still part of technology is not defined by the same standard.

 

[eso76]

The sad part is how cod-centric the industry has become.
Yeah, Reggie lying is bad, but even worse is Nintendo having to use Cod to advertise their system.
I think I even miss the days when Nintendo was censoring violent games or boycotting them.

 

[Y2Kev]

We need a version of this where he's looking at a mirror talking to himself.

 

[NoirVisage]

so good.

Reggie's hair is getting thin. Trouble in Nintendoland?

I noticed that too, unless that's always been the case. poor dude.

 

[TGO]

yes and the Vita and 3DS are part of the same generation

This is why I miss bits it was much easier ID'ing a console by saying "This is 64 bit and these two are only 32 bit" instead of getting into debates over generations.

it would have confused people with the PS2 being 128-bit & PS3 being 64-bit, and I think the original Xbox was 32-bit, Bits don't matter anymore

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Irrelevant. Its GameCube release was highly limited, its main release was on Wii, ergo it is a Wii game. Eternal Darkness was initially developed for the N64, as was Starfox Adventures. Doesn't mean they should be considered N64 games. Fact is, even if TP were somehow classified as a GameCube game, it doesn't justify the console's general lack of ideas, its mediocre first party support and limited library of third party games, let alone good ones.

As for innovation, if an idea doesn't go beyond a single title, it's a gimmick. The bongos might have been OK for that Donkey Kong game, but had no wider practical application and showed Nintendo desperately struggling to devise an idea which stuck. Same goes for the wildly unwieldy GBA connectivity.

We obviously disagree about the quality of Wii Sports, which I and my family greatly enjoyed and IMO showed how motion sensing could create a new gaming experience liberated from the complexity of buttons and with greater physical immediacy. The Wii's inconsistent tech and subsequent sub-par imitations and implementation (even in Nintendo games, like the pointless waggle in DKCR and Galaxy) may have wasted that potential, but games like Red Steel 2 and the Tiger Woods games show it was not only viable in a traditional gaming context, but could enhance those experiences too. Even if we disagree on that, there's no question that pointer controls represent the greatest innovation of the previous generation. The GameCube could only offer the Wavebird, which was great and important but essentially a luxury, changing nothing about how the actual games played. On that score, the Wii's 'split' controller (one unit per hand) is hugely underrated.

Comparing two games that never came out on the N64 to Twilight Princess is hilarious and completely wrong.

Twilight Princess is a Gamecube game with tacked on Wii controls. No component of it was designed with the Wiimote experience in mind.

I've never seen such a fervent Nintendo fan be so hostile to the Gamecube while building up the Wii as God's gift to humanity. It's baffling. The Gamecube was a fantastic console.

 

[Tobor]

Omg, I'm dying. Lol!

 

[Boss Man]

So why has this definition only been used since the Wii came into the picture?

Because until the Wii came into the picture, both definitions applied. Nintendo shook things up with the Wii, everyone was/is cognizant of that.

You could call the Wii something in between PS2/Xbox and PS3/360, because motion control is tech. But I think the Wii U (the gamepad is very cool, but still) is going to end up technically much more closely aligned with PS3/360. It's not as much of a gray area as the Wii was, and I'm very comfortable calling it a current generation console- albeit the most advanced one.

Should we inform Wikipedia that their definitions of game console generations is twisted to fit an agenda? Because they've got it all wrong right now.

Maybe? It's Wikipedia, that's kind of how it works. Shit changes.

The problem is that there is more than one valid use of generation. The further problem is that two of the major definitions - temporal and technology - are not well suited to identical roles.

I think the problem is that they were identical until this previous generation, and now we don't know what to do. Honestly people just need to accept that and stop trying to correct each other's application of the term. The temporal definition is especially inadequate if you imagine that Nintendo did in fact release a console that is strictly weaker than PS3/360. I don't think it is, but something like this is possible. What if Nintendo released a console in two years that is identical to the PS4 except with half the RAM? Would it be a generation ahead? Using it that way makes the term a bit useless IMO.

 

[TGO]

You should be rewarded for effort lol

 

[Emitan]

Sonic Racing Transformed is the only one worth playing so he's right!

No...

 

[Ciastek3214]

Goddamn.

 

[Bgamer90]

LOL. Wow.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Slow clap

 

[BolognaSoup]

The sad part is how cod-centric the industry has become.
Yeah, Reggie lying is bad, but even worse is Nintendo having to use Cod to advertise their system.
I think I even miss the days when Nintendo was censoring violent games or boycotting them.

Great point. I don't even care if it did look significantly better. I want unique experiences on my U. We don't need 3 console manufactures doing the same thing.

 

[Diablos54]

the 3DS and Vita are substantially more powerful than their predecessors and therefor they belong to the same gen, while the WiiU has a weaker CPU, and slower GPU then current gen consoles. It´s a huge difference.

But the DS and PSP are a gen apart tech wise, so why are they part of the same generation? Shouldn't they be in their own separate generations according to your definition? Saying they're in the same gen because they're both stronger than the GBA is silly considering the Wii U is stronger than the HD twins, if only a little. When you start putting words like 'substantially' into a definition, it becomes subjective, which is the opposite of what a definition is supposed to be.

Edit:

Fuck me, Y2Kev you clever man!

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

hahahaahaa

 

[Dark Octave]

I wonder if he really thinks so or it is just a straight PR lie.

He's a suit. He'll be with Microsoft or Sony in five years saying the same stuff about them.

 

[qq more]

Beautiful

He's a suit. He'll be with Microsoft or Sony in five years saying the same stuff about them.

Well, shit. There goes that Iwata X Reggie pairing!

 

[Y2Kev]

if you think about it, both reggies are endlessly critical of each other

perhaps it is a commentary on gamers and gaming

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Brilliant.

 

[Globox_82]

lol Reggie the parrot

 

[Sadist]

Haha dude

 

[Seik]

Holy shit! :lol

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Irrelevant. Its GameCube release was highly limited, its main release was on Wii, ergo it is a Wii game. Eternal Darkness was initially developed for the N64, as was Starfox Adventures. Doesn't mean they should be considered N64 games. Fact is, even if TP were somehow classified as a GameCube game, it doesn't justify the console's general lack of ideas, its mediocre first party support and limited library of third party games, let alone good ones.

As for innovation, if an idea doesn't go beyond a single title, it's a gimmick. The bongos might have been OK for that Donkey Kong game, but had no wider practical application and showed Nintendo desperately struggling to devise an idea which stuck. Same goes for the wildly unwieldy GBA connectivity.

We obviously disagree about the quality of Wii Sports, which I and my family greatly enjoyed and IMO showed how motion sensing could create a new gaming experience liberated from the complexity of buttons and with greater physical immediacy. The Wii's inconsistent tech and subsequent sub-par imitations and implementation (even in Nintendo games, like the pointless waggle in DKCR and Galaxy) may have wasted that potential, but games like Red Steel 2 and the Tiger Woods games show it was not only viable in a traditional gaming context, but could enhance those experiences too. Even if we disagree on that, there's no question that pointer controls represent the greatest innovation of the previous generation. The GameCube could only offer the Wavebird, which was great and important but essentially a luxury, changing nothing about how the actual games played. On that score, the Wii's 'split' controller (one unit per hand) is hugely underrated.

we get it, you really like the wiimote.

 

[Tobor]

if you think about it, both reggies are endlessly critical of each other

perhaps it is a commentary on gamers and gaming

Both Reggie's know, deep down, that it is indeed their problem.

 

[Y2Kev]

wow, lol

 

[Neiteio]

Whoa, Reggie-ception.

 

[Kerub]

I feel pretty ashamed when I read the youtube comments.

 

[xandaca]

Comparing two games that never came out on the N64 to Twilight Princess is hilarious and completely wrong.

Your last remark shows you're either trolling ('I've never seen such a fervent Nintendo fan be so hostile to the Gamecube while building up the Wii as God's gift to humanity') or just being cretinous, but regardless, the debate was that TP was a GCN game because it was originally developed for that platform. My point, as was obvious, is that such an argument is specious because many games aren't even released on the platform they're originally developed for. TP was a GCN game, then became a Wii game, just as Starfox Adventures and Eternal Darkness were N64 games until they became GCN games. GameCube was not TP's primary platform, otherwise it would have had an equivalent sized release to the Wii version, rather than being as (extremely) limited as it was.

For the many people defending the GameCube, few have come up with anything important it actually did and instead attempted to make their point by disparging the Wii. The GCN had some good games, but was a completely unremarkable and creatively flat console overall. I have a strong suspicion many people defend the GameCube more out of their dislike of motion controls than any reality - what particularly exposes this (not so much here, admittedly) is those who moan about the Wii's game droughts when the GameCube's and N64's were just as bad (apart from the Wii's final year, which was admittedly almost literally barren).

 

[kittens]

Reggie has some augmented reality eyeballs or something.

 

[krypt0nian]

For the many people defending the GameCube, few have come up with anything important it actually did and instead attempted to make their point by disparging the Wii. The GCN had some good games, but was a completely unremarkable and creatively flat console overall. I have a strong suspicion many people defend the GameCube more out of their dislike of motion controls than any reality - what particularly exposes this (not so much here, admittedly) is those who moan about the Wii's game droughts when the GameCube's and N64's were just as bad (apart from the Wii's final year, which was admittedly almost literally barren).

We like the games better on the GCN. That's all the proving we need to do.

 

[bounchfx]

god dammit reggie. I liked you

 

[Diablos54]

Your last remark shows you're either trolling ('I've never seen such a fervent Nintendo fan be so hostile to the Gamecube while building up the Wii as God's gift to humanity') or just being cretinous, but regardless, the debate was that TP was a GCN game because it was originally developed for that platform. My point, as was obvious, is that such an argument is specious because many games aren't even released on the platform they're originally developed for. TP was a GCN game, then became a Wii game, just as Starfox Adventures and Eternal Darkness were N64 games until they became GCN games.

Huge difference between 2 games whose development was moved from one system to another, to a game which was fully developed on one system, and ported to another with waggle

For the many people defending the GameCube, few have come up with anything important it actually did and instead attempted to make their point by disparging the Wii. The GCN had some good games, but was a completely unremarkable and creatively flat console overall. I have a strong suspicion many people defend the GameCube more out of their dislike of motion controls than any reality

Yep, nothing to do with the quality of the games, it's just because WAH WAH WAGGLE... The GC may not have had the cultural impact the Wii did, but it's a better system for hardcore gamers than the Wii ever was, and I love my Wii (So do the ladies .

 

[Alpolio]

I just looked at Gametrailers side by side comparison of BLOPS2 for the Wii U & 360. And the Wii U does look sharper and cleaner.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/zorvwd/call-of-duty--black-ops-ii-wiiu-vs-360-graphics-comparison

 

[ASIS]

You know, it´s really weird how next generation for fighter jets/weapons, cell phones, computer chips and every other technological piece is defined by a huge technological advancement, and yet consoles which are still part of technology is not defined by the same standard.

None of the following are made with creative use at the end. All of these technological pieces are about functionality first and foremost, videogames are not. This is an interactive creative medium, yes technology matters, and its, in my opinion, the end result of engineering excellence, but its not the primary reason why people play videogames.

By your logic, The Artist should not be considered a movie made in our decade, or even our lifetime.

 

[Blasty]

the 3DS and Vita are substantially more powerful than their predecessors and therefor they belong to the same gen, while the WiiU has a weaker CPU, and slower GPU then current gen consoles. It´s a huge difference.

The Wii U is substantially more powerful than its predecessor, the Wii. It's interesting how people are now trying to introduce a new meaning to console generations.

 

[Meelow]

the 3DS and Vita are substantially more powerful than their predecessors and therefor they belong to the same gen, while the WiiU has a weaker CPU, and slower GPU then current gen consoles. It´s a huge difference.

Wait what? Nobody said the GPU was slower, I'm pretty sure you mean ram.

 

[Tobor]

The Wii U is substantially more powerful than its predecessor, the Wii. It's interesting how people are now trying to introduce a new meaning to console generations.

The same comparison was made for years regarding the Wii. The argument is as old as the tech in the Wii U.

 

[Blasty]

The same comparison was made for years regarding the Wii. The argument is as old as the tech in the Wii U.

I mean before the Wii and Wii U.

 

[Boss Man]

Irrelevant.

It's hardly irrelevant...

I think all of this "deep" discussion about what shit is or isn't should allow us to just accept that Nintendo isn't playing the same game as the other two and we should just stop arguing about it.

Nintendo has been doing its own thing since the Wii, and they've actually been very successful at it. They're hardly even competing directly anymore. How many people are going to decide between buying a Wii U or a PS4? How many decided between a Wii and a 360? They've peeled away, good for them. If the console market crashes, I guarantee you that Nintendo will still be there with their new machine. They've done a smart thing.

Now let's stop being so damn confused by it. It doesn't make sense to group the Wii U with PS4/720. It hardly made sense to group the Wii with the PS3/360. I honestly can't see why this is so hard to accept, it's good for everyone really. Sony and Microsoft get to compete with each other and sit back and watch Nintendo test the waters with different things. Nintendo gets to stay out of the expensive tech race and rely on its IPs.

 

[Amir0x]

oh my god @ that gif

thread totally justified existence lol

Irrelevant. Its GameCube release was highly limited, its main release was on Wii, ergo it is a Wii game. Eternal Darkness was initially developed for the N64, as was Starfox Adventures. Doesn't mean they should be considered N64 games. Fact is, even if TP were somehow classified as a GameCube game, it doesn't justify the console's general lack of ideas, its mediocre first party support and limited library of third party games, let alone good ones.

See if you can tell the difference between the games you mentioned (Eternal Darkness and Starfox) and Twilight Princess.

...

Yeaaah! Twilight Princess is a Gamecube title. Hastily slapping on a few motion gimmicks and 480p does not an original Wii game make. It is also a Wii game, of course, but first and foremost, it is a Gamecube game, and if we're talking about Nintendo's design talents of that era, Twilight Princess undeniably belongs in the assessment of that time period. It's incredibly misleading to try to claim it for the Wii era. It demonstrates the GCN-era Nintendo through and through.

 

[TGO]

So its base on the generation they was released in not power?

 

[kittens]

oh my god @ that gif

thread totally justified existence lol

this thread justifies existence?

or the existence of this thread justified?

or both :-O

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

For the many people defending the GameCube, few have come up with anything important it actually did and instead attempted to make their point by disparging the Wii. The GCN had some good games, but was a completely unremarkable and creatively flat console overall. I have a strong suspicion many people defend the GameCube more out of their dislike of motion controls than any reality - what particularly exposes this (not so much here, admittedly) is those who moan about the Wii's game droughts when the GameCube's and N64's were just as bad (apart from the Wii's final year, which was admittedly almost literally barren).

what?

sorry man, the gamecube was just better. it had better nintendo games and better 3rd party support. the wii has a few notable games and the wiimote tainted most of the experiences because it's just not accurate enough and added unnecessary steps to perform something on a game.

 

[freenudemacusers]

God I miss the cube ;(

 

[TGO]

The same comparison was made for years regarding the Wii. The argument is as old as the tech in the Wii U.

 

[Amir0x]

this thread justifies existence?

or the existence of this thread justified?

or both :-O

The existence of this thread is justified!

but existence itself is justified just thanks to Y2Kevs beautiful face!

what?

*images*

sorry man, the gamecube was just better. it had better nintendo games and better 3rd party support. the wii has a few notable games and the wiimote tainted most of the experiences because it's just not accurate enough and added unnecessary steps to perform something on a game.

I like how your selection of images also highlights MANY of the innovations that came forward specifically thanks to Gamecube, as well. Just because they aren't copied a billion times does not mean the innovation is not great. Popularity != quality.

Good show, kazuma. <3 Gamecube

 

[Seik]

For the many people defending the GameCube, few have come up with anything important it actually did and instead attempted to make their point by disparging the Wii. The GCN had some good games, but was a completely unremarkable and creatively flat console overall. I have a strong suspicion many people defend the GameCube more out of their dislike of motion controls than any reality - what particularly exposes this (not so much here, admittedly) is those who moan about the Wii's game droughts when the GameCube's and N64's were just as bad (apart from the Wii's final year, which was admittedly almost literally barren).

So many things wrong in a single post. D: