Do you consider the Wii-U to be a true "next gen" system?

Three quarters of you are idiots.

Of course the Wii U is next gen. If it isn't, then neither was the Wii. Which in that case means Nintendo are still in the sixth gen somehow. Next gen consoles aren't measured on tech alone.

The Wii was NEVER on the same level as the 360 and PS3..... It was in the same gen as the Xbox and PS2.

Yeah. Next gen or no, I buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games. And good third party games don't hurt either, Wonderful 101 is looking pretty good.

I see the Wii U as the next console by Nintendo, but not necessarily as a "next generation" console. To me generations are defined by movements or era's which commonly coincide with technical advancements such as the movement from sprites to polygonal models, pre-rendered backgrounds to full rendered backgrounds, SD - HD and so on. Playstation and Xbox's "next generation" consoles are not as big a leap going from something like SD to HD, but the tech is advancing enough to basically perfect the promise of last generation consoles. PS4 and NextBox are going to be the leap from sub HD games to proper fHD60fps.

I would say it is. Even though the Wii U may not be strong in some areas (graphics etc.), at the moment there seems to be more innovation coming from it (gamepad, Nintendo in general). So each of the consoles are stronger in different areas. Generations of consoles should be based on when they come out, not what their capabilities are.

How about "rendering an image once" to "rendering two images in parallel"?

Also, don't say things like "sub HD" to justify your 'technical movements' argument. 720p is HD. Even upscaled 480p->720p is HD. And "fHD60fps" means nothing. I can render 2 polygons with no AA at 1920x1080 at 60fps. I can render 2,000 polygons at that, too. Can I render 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 at 1920x1080, 60fps with full Ansio and AA? no. Technology is relative and not really comparable at this scale. Also, you're completely ignoring cost. Do recall that consoles back in 2005 costed $500 and the manufacturers were bathing in debt. Nintendo retails better hardware at $300, and is profitable after one game sale. The xbox360 could've done this 'fHD60fps', but everything would've looked like garbage.

The Wii U is next generation.

What the fuck are you talking about? What does rendering any amount of polygons in any resolution have to do with what I'm talking about? A polygon is not rendered at any frames per second... if you were rendering a stationary polygon, what you would end up with is an image... frames only come into play when motion is added into the mix.

Due to restrictions imposed upon developers by last generations hardware, many games had to be rendered sub HD and scaled upwards to 720P and very rarely 1080P. Even when a game was rendered natively at HD resolutions, other sacrifices had to be made, such as frame rates well below 30fps. The leap from SD to even sub HD was a big leap, but the promise of what last generation consoles could do will probably only be possible with this upcoming generation of hardware.

@MAGZine did you just say that the will hardware was better than ps3 or xbox 360s?

Next generation to me implies a new level of hardware, neither the Wii or the Wii U should be considered next generation. They were both released using older (Wii) or then current generation hardware. (Wii U)

The Wii isn't noticeably better than a Gamecube. The Wii U hasn't shown superior capabilities over the 360 or PS3 and likely never will.

You could say the Wii is current generation because it was released in the same time period as the 360 and PS3 but from a hardware level it simply isn't, same with the Wii U.

@liquidprince said:

I think you said it the best. Nintendo is kind of off in their own world of console generations.

Graphical fidelity is not the only indicator of a hardware generation. By that logic, the Wii fits closer to the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era, and not with the PS3/360. Then you have two Nintendo consoles in one generation, and it all falls apart.

The WiiU isn't disqualified just because Nintendo has decided to emphasize other features over raw horsepower.

Yes, gen has nothing to do with power, it's about time.

For example, Sony could have made the visuals worse on the PS4 than on the PS3 and it'd still be next-gen.

I don't think you guys understand what a generation means

It is very much a current gen console in my eyes.

Not really i see it as that console you bring our will having people over so they too can get nostalgic like you

I voted 'no', but I'm not sure if it even really belongs in the same conversation anymore. PS3 and 360 were direct competitors while Wii was off doing its own thing (and doing it very successfully). PS4 and X8OX will be direct competitors again while Wii-U is off doing its own thing again (though less successfully this time by the looks of it).

It's not really 'next' or 'last', it's sorta just off to the side.

@bourbon_warrior: I have one! But you're right, I haven't played it since the beginning of December.

I know it tehnically is, but no.

No I consider it a current gen system with many years of games not on it.

@magzine: The reason why Nintendo can make a profit so quickly is because its last generation tech!! The exact same reason why the Wii was able to make a profit.

Of course it's "next gen", generations has nothing to do with console performance. People just love to hate on Nintendo because they have chosen to expand the different ways a game could be played instead of iteratively allowing an increased number of polygons.

EDIT: I know from looking at my avatar, I may seem like a Wii-kid fanboy, but I actually don't have a Wii U and I haven't played on my Wii for like 2 years.

I wish there was an option for this kind of mid-gen purgatory the wii u put itself in. It's super new yet at the same time kinda old

No, it's not part of the next generation. It's already out.

It can't run current gen games as well as current gen consoles. So it's barely a current gen console let alone next gen one.

Nope.

Because when someone talks about polygons, everyone assumes they're rendering stills. *facepalm*I mean why not just store the still as pixels? All objects in games are made up of polygons. That'd be the reason I said polygons.

The PS3 and Xbox can scale to 1080p without issue. Scaling is cheap. If your tv supports it, it'll happen... if not by the Xbox, then by your tv.

I think the fact that you couldn't connect the dots/my entire argument went right over your head, then proceeded to give me the same argument I just found flawed, is indicative of just how done I am with this thread.

Nope, the hardware is current gen and the software so far showed is current gen. wii tv is cool but is that a generational leap? I don't think so. second screen is cool in some instances but I don't think that's a generational leap either. I'm not saying it's a bad console but I very much believe that it's a current gen console. I think the software changes to the new ps4 alone feel like part of a new generation of how we will game.

I feel like Microsoft and Sony are pulling the "lesser" Wii-U in a sled, doing the real next-gen advances.

ahh yeah.. noooouuuu

Nitendo is nintendo

Of course. If you don't than that is fucking crazy. It's not like systems have to be at the same technical parity to be part of the same gen.

Would you consider the Game cube and Wii as part of the same generation? Would you consider the Ps1 and N64 to be different gens because 1 uses discs and one used cartridges?

The Wii U is Nintendo's next generation of console, though I don't plan to get a Wii U until the Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2 come out, I can at least appreciate that they do something different. I also am a firm believer that good mechanics, Smart ideas, and a good sense of style age better than new technology.

Chronologically, the WU is either part of the PS3 generation or the PS4 generation, and it just wouldn't make sense for it be considered part of the PS3 generation, so what other options are there?

Don't put an arbitrary restriction that you can't have 2 consoles in a single generation because that's exactly what Nintendo did going from NGC to Wii. Everyone even made fun of it by saying a Wii is just 2 Game Cubes taped together.

Why can't anyone see that the WiiU is just really late to the party. It's featuring games from the current (albeit years old) games as new. The WiiU is the 360/PS3 equivilent, but just really fucking late to the party. They also showed up drunk.

So your argument that I am incorrect involves using the logic that I'm criticising. Lovely.

It doesn't matter if the Wii is twice the power of a Gamecube or ten times. It was Nintendo's next system, it was sold during the same period as the PS3 and the 360, and it kicked the absolute shit out of them in terms of sales. What happens if Durango comes out and it's only twice as powerful as the 360? Are you going to make fun of it if it doesn't compare with the PS4? What happens if Microsoft decides Nintendo is onto something and makes a slightly better 360 that's dirt cheap? Is that not next gen?

Limiting your view to graphics only is idiotic. In that case, the PC is the only next gen platform, and changes generations every few months when new GPUs roll out. I reiterate: The WiiU isn't disqualified just because Nintendo has decided to emphasize other features over raw horsepower. It looks better than its predecessor, it employs new features, and it'll be sold mainly during the lifespan of the PS4/Durango. I have yet to see a counter argument that isn't "It doesn't make enough shiny!" and, in my mind, that's no longer enough.

It's hard to argue one way or the other without first putting in place rules to what a generation shift is, when can it take place, what constitutes the shift and so on. Until we can all come to an agreement to some of those questions, the WiiU can be either or hell, maybe even a part of both.

I voted yes purely for political reasons.

I have, with the exception of my PC but you said console so yeah. It's a great system, but I'm pretty close to running out to stuff to play on it right now.

I don't know why the term next gen has become synonymous with power. All it should mean is the next systems the manufacturers put out. Yes, the Wii U is a next gen system as it's Nintendo next console after the Wii.

@jams: I'll take the simplistic route: breaking things into ill defined generations is an exercise in futility. There's nothing to be gained for it, beyond the ability to brag if the system a person has chosen is the "best", whatever that means. Or, perhaps, technology is evolving to the point that defining a generation like in the past no longer applies?

As long as games continue to innovate, whether that's graphically, artistically, or mechanically, I'll be pleased.

Technically yes but I went with no. With the rise of multiplatform games this generation on consoles. I feel like that is the litmus test that should be used now. The WiiU shares it's multiplatform releases with PS3/360 which I feel by all means classify it as a contemporary of those systems. I just don't see it getting the the same multiplatform releases as the PS4 and Durango. The WiiU shares most of its library with the PS3/360 which means it is most similar to those consoles. It makes it much like those new bootleg NES which sure they probably employ new technology but they still play NES and you would probably classify them in the NES generation.

If you look at it from a tech standpoint then no it isn't but if you look at it from the fact that the Wii is current gen so the WiiU should be next gen then it is. So yeah it is even if it is pretty garbage for the most part.

I still don't know what in the hell you're talking about... I've already answered your nonsense before, so I'm not going to again. The one thing I will say about your post that is 100% incorrect is that scaling an image does not equate it to being in HD. If you take a 480P image and scale it to 720P it is not an HD image as you said. It is a SD image stretched out to fit into a HD area. For something to be in HD it needs to be natively rendered in 1280x720 or higher. Anything else is sub-hd, which is alot of what we ended up with during this current generation with PS3 and 360. And many times when we did get native HD, it was at the cost of performance. Next generation should remedy that.

I know. It's obvious.

Also, you're wrong, unless if you're going to accuse Microsoft and Playstation of false advertising. Upscaling is absolutely HD, even if it's a hack. I get what you're saying, but you don't get what I'm saying.

No offense, but I'm tired of talking to someone who thinks that upscaling means that a game is in HD. I could upscale a 10x10 pixel image to 1920x1080. Do you honestly think that that 10x10 image streched out to 1920x1080 is the same as an image that is truly rendered at 1920x1080?

I don't know why people care about this arbitrary stuff. Who cares if it's "next-gen" or not? Either you want it, or you don't. The end.

@liquidprince: I'm not sure you understand the concept of "HD". HD refers to size of the output, and nothing more. I'm not saying that your two examples are the same... au contrarie, there'd likely be a marked difference. I'm just saying that you're misinterpreting the "High Definition" standard. Here, have a definition.

High-definition video is video of higher resolution than is standard. While there is no specific meaning for high-definition, generally any video image with more than 480 horizontal lines (North America) or 570 lines (Europe) is considered high-definition. 720 scan lines is generally the minimum even though many systems greatly exceed that.

Maybe you should actually read the links which you post. HD refers to a set of resolutions that start greater then 1280x720. SD refers to resolutions of 480P and below. ED Refers to 720x480 or 720x576. Scaling an image is not the same thing as having an actual HD image. I don't understand what the fuck you're not understanding here. A scaled image is taking an image that is below actual HD resolutions and stretching it out so that it fits your TV or Monitor screen. If it doesn't scale then you would be left with black bars all around the image.

@liquidprince:

why do you keep repeating yourself?

It is true that an image rendered at 1080p will be of better quality than an image rendered at 480p and then upscaled 1080p.

The resulting products both fit within the HD specs.

HD says nothing about the quality of the image, just the size.

And here's why it doesn't.

Here is a 480p image:

Here is a 720p image. It is the 480p image "scaled up" to an HD resolution. Notice no loss in fidelity.