*A tutorial in basic logic*: so-called NEXT-GEN

If people are going to continually throw around term like "next-gen", it would be nice if people knew what it actually meant.

Wikipedia defines it as such The phrase Next Generation is cited as a frequently-used buzzword, in which case its meaning is intentionally vague, but carries a connotation of newness or modernness. See buzzword for an explanation of this usage.

 Now, let's look at the "newness" of all three modern consoles, and please forgive me if I leave anything important out.

 XBOX360

- HD capable 

- better graphics than last gen

- wireless controllers (that actually work well)

- "updated" XBOX controllers (a few extra buttons)

- XBOX live and Live Arcade (better than last gen)

- better hardware than last gen

- downloadable demos from Live (previously available only on PC)

-next-gen multimedia (HD-DVD)

- (somewhat) backwards compatable

PS3

- better graphics than last gen

- wireless controllers

- "updated" PS2 controllers (inludes Sixaxis functionality)

- Next-gen mulitmedia (can burn CDs[?], Blue-Ray)

- HD capable

- PS3 "Home" (PS2 had nothing like this)

- Better hardware capability that last gen

- Does PS3 have a "virtual console" or "arcade" equivalent?

-backwards compatable

Wii

- better graphics than last gen (This is not a sheep opinion. Just check out screenshots of Galaxy and MP3)

- wireless controllers

- "Wii-mote" controllers. A new control scheme unlike previous-gen consoles.

- WiiConnect24

- Virtual Console

- backwards compatable

- wireless functional tie-in with Nintendo DS handheld on some games

- Miis. (call foul all you want. No previous system had "profiles" like this, and even PS3 seems to be taking the hint with "Home")

- multimedia (cannot play DVDs, but can show pictures and play music[?])

- better hardware capability than last gen (graphics aside, no console last-gen could have handled what the wii-mote does)

- backwards compatable (can even use last-gen controllers and memory cards)

Now, looking at this list, can ANYONE truly say that any of these systems ISN'T "next gen"?

If people are going to continually throw around term like "next-gen", it would be nice if people knew what it actually meant.

Wikipedia defines it as such The phrase Next Generation is cited as a frequently-used buzzword, in which case its meaning is intentionally vague, but carries a connotation of newness or modernness. See buzzword for an explanation of this usage.

Now, let's look at the "newness" of all three modern consoles, and please forgive me if I leave anything important out.

XBOX360

- HD capable

- better graphics than last gen

- wireless controllers (that actually work well)

- "updated" XBOX controllers (a few extra buttons)

- XBOX live and Live Arcade (better than last gen)

- better hardware than last gen

- downloadable demos from Live (previously available only on PC)

-next-gen multimedia (HD-DVD)

- (somewhat) backwards compatable

PS3

- better graphics than last gen

- wireless controllers

- "updated" PS2 controllers (inludes Sixaxis functionality)

- Next-gen mulitmedia (can burn CDs[?], Blue-Ray)

- HD capable

- PS3 "Home" (PS2 had nothing like this)

- Better hardware capability that last gen

- Does PS3 have a "virtual console" or "arcade" equivalent?

-backwards compatable

Wii

- better graphics than last gen (This is not a sheep opinion. Just check out screenshots of Galaxy and MP3)

- wireless controllers

- "Wii-mote" controllers. A new control scheme unlike previous-gen consoles.

- WiiConnect24

- Virtual Console

- backwards compatable

- wireless functional tie-in with Nintendo DS handheld on some games

- Miis. (call foul all you want. No previous system had "profiles" like this, and even PS3 seems to be taking the hint with "Home")

- multimedia (cannot play DVDs, but can show pictures and play music[?])

- better hardware capability than last gen (graphics aside, no console last-gen could have handled what the wii-mote does)

- backwards compatable (can even use last-gen controllers and memory cards)

Now, looking at this list, can ANYONE truly say that any of these systems ISN'T "next gen"?

Maelkav

All three consoles are current-gen.

The Abox, PS2, and GC were also considered next-gen at one time.  Now they are last gen.  It's not really very difficult.

 

- Does PS3 have a "virtual console" or "arcade" equivalent?

Maelkav

Kind of. There are some old PS1 games available for purchase, but you need to transfer them to your PSP to play em. 

The reason the Wii's classification comes under so much fire is all down to Nintendo themselves. By originally saying things like "Wii is not next-gen, it's new gen" Nintendo have sheparded their own fans into the valley of denial. I believe their craving to be different is purely a clever marketing technique, coined in an attempt to set them apart from the crowd. The truth, in actuality, is far from that. They are part of this flock you call 'next-gen', like it or not.

If you're talking about the hardware design of the platforms, the Wii is using the same architechture as the Gamecube and is therefor not next-gen. The Wii is obviously the "next-gen" in terms of it being Nintendo's new console.... but that's not even up for debate.

Everyone arguing that Wii isn't next-gen is refering to the generations of hardware technology. The Wii is old hardware and not next-gen in that sense, end of story. That doesn't prevent you from enjoying it but don't think you're buying anything more than a $250 Gamecube and a Wiimote.

The reason the Wii's classification comes under so much fire is all down to Nintendo themselves. By originally saying things like "Wii is not next-gen, it's new gen" Nintendo have sheparded their own fans into the valley of denial. I believe their craving to be different is purely a clever marketing technique, coined in an attempt to set them apart from the crowd. The truth, in actuality, is far from that. They are part of this flock you call 'next-gen', like it or not. 

-Spock-

Evryone in all camps is guilty of misusing the term "next-gen" (even though it is now "current gen)

I've heard Wii-users say that the PS3 and 360 AREN'T next gen because "all they got is nice graphics". Well, that would be a gross simplification of those two systems, which offer a LOT of "next gen" stuff.

If you're talking about the hardware design of the platforms, the Wii is using the same architechture as the Gamecube and is therefor not next-gen. The Wii is obviously the "next-gen" in terms of it being Nintendo's new console.... but that's not even up for debate.

Everyone arguing that Wii isn't next-gen is refering to the generations of hardware technology. The Wii is old hardware and not next-gen in that sense, end of story. That doesn't prevent you from enjoying it but don't think you're buying anything more than a $250 Gamecube and a Wiimote.

Lazy_Boy88

With your agument, no PC games can EVER be "next gen", because PCs have been using the same basic architecture for almost 2 decades.

Is this a viable argument?

A tutorial in basic logic.  Nice.

Now we just need a tutorial in basic language comprehension and fanboys could be almost tolerable.

I will define "next-gen" in its most applicable manner in respects to gaming.  Your post is only valid if we consider the entire console itself, and think in the antiquated and fragmented manner that this industry places our minds in (in order to turn a higher profit).  What is the primary and most important function of a video game console? 

A console should be considered little more than a machine that processes software.  Therefore, I perfer a practical and direct interpretation of the term "next-gen."  Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds. 

All other parts of a console amount to little more than fun little add-ons that should not be factored into how well a console achieves its primary function (processing gaming software).

Today, when USB 2.0 devices function on e-machine grade computers, a consoles' form of input should not be praised or criticized to any extent (all input devices should simply be USB devices and work on all consoles).  The fact we're still forced to play with one style of controller per console absolutely sickens me.  Nor should we judge a console on its ability to process other forms of entertainment media.

Therefore, we can judge current-gen consoles by how well they accomplish their primary functions.  All consoles fall quite short of what could possibility be done if the industry operated like any other aspect of entertainment media, but each console falls short of the bar by different amounts.

Two consoles occupy a relatively similar position below the bar.  One console is literally years behind the others in tems of raw processing power.  I'll leave it up to you to identify the console in question -- it is hardly "current gen" and certainly not "next-gen."

better graphics than last gen (This is not a sheep opinion. Just check out screenshots of Galaxy and MP3)Maelkav

A console should be considered little more than a machine that processes software.  Therefore, I perfer a practical and direct interpretation of the term "next-gen."  Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds. 

All other parts of a console amount to little more than fun little add-ons that should not be factored into how well a console achieves its primary function (processing gaming software).

Today, when USB 2.0 devices function on e-machine grade computers, a consoles' form of input should not be praised or criticized to any extent (all input devices should simply be USB devices and work on all consoles).  The fact we're still forced to play with one style of controller per console absolutely sickens me.

Therefore, we can judge current-gen consoles by how well they accomplish their primary functions.  All consoles fall quite short of what could possibility be done if the industry operated like any other aspect of entertainment media, but each console falls short of the bar by different amounts.

Two consoles occupy a relatively similar position below the bar.  One console is literally years behind the others in tems of raw processing power.  I'll leave it up to you to identify the console in question -- it is hardly "current gen" and certainly not "next-gen."

FoamingPanda

Panda, all you do is topic-hop and Wii bash everywhere you go. Did you read the original post? You simply are too closed minded to even contribute something worth our time.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

A console should be considered little more than a machine that processes software.  Therefore, I perfer a practical and direct interpretation of the term "next-gen."  Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds. 

All other parts of a console amount to little more than fun little add-ons that should not be factored into how well a console achieves its primary function (processing gaming software).

Today, when USB 2.0 devices function on e-machine grade computers, a consoles' form of input should not be praised or criticized to any extent (all input devices should simply be USB devices and work on all consoles).  The fact we're still forced to play with one style of controller per console absolutely sickens me.

Therefore, we can judge current-gen consoles by how well they accomplish their primary functions.  All consoles fall quite short of what could possibility be done if the industry operated like any other aspect of entertainment media, but each console falls short of the bar by different amounts.

Two consoles occupy a relatively similar position below the bar.  One console is literally years behind the others in tems of raw processing power.  I'll leave it up to you to identify the console in question -- it is hardly "current gen" and certainly not "next-gen."

Maelkav

Panda, all you do is topic-hop and Wii bash everywhere you go. Did you read the original post? You simply are too closed minded to even contribute something worth our time.

That's funny.  I'm not Wiibashing at all on this thread.  I am simply accurately defining exactly what "next-gen" should mean, so users might arrive at their own conclusions.  I also apologize if I offend you by simply judging consoles fairly against where they stand against the objective standard that I have defined within the post. 

[QUOTE="Maelkav"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

A console should be considered little more than a machine that processes software.  Therefore, I perfer a practical and direct interpretation of the term "next-gen."  Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds. 

All other parts of a console amount to little more than fun little add-ons that should not be factored into how well a console achieves its primary function (processing gaming software).

Today, when USB 2.0 devices function on e-machine grade computers, a consoles' form of input should not be praised or criticized to any extent (all input devices should simply be USB devices and work on all consoles).  The fact we're still forced to play with one style of controller per console absolutely sickens me.

Therefore, we can judge current-gen consoles by how well they accomplish their primary functions.  All consoles fall quite short of what could possibility be done if the industry operated like any other aspect of entertainment media, but each console falls short of the bar by different amounts.

Two consoles occupy a relatively similar position below the bar.  One console is literally years behind the others in tems of raw processing power.  I'll leave it up to you to identify the console in question -- it is hardly "current gen" and certainly not "next-gen."

FoamingPanda

Panda, all you do is topic-hop and Wii bash everywhere you go. Did you read the original post? You simply are too closed minded to even contribute something worth our time.

That's funny.  I'm not Wiibashing at all on this thread.  I am simply accurately defining exactly what "next-gen" should mean, so users might arrive at their own conclusions. 

Hmm. The Wii-mote functionality isn't next gen? It's just like the previous gens? Right.

Please, your biases are obvious. The purpose of this thread was to inform some horribly biased people in all 3 camps such as yourself, but you obviously make it a point to be elitist and ignorant.

Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds.FoamingPanda

wtf?  I don't know if anyone will agree with you on this. 

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]Next-gen simply means that a machine utilizes the most powerful and cost effective hardware to date, and gives game developers the most cost-effective and widest range of programmable options; so that the developer might make any game that comes into their minds.karicha9

wtf?  I don't know if anyone will agree with you on this. 

That's funny, virtually every gamer beyond the age of 15 has understood this fundamental conception of "next-gen" up until this point (when one machine deliberately regressed in relative terms and provided a vastly inferior and antiquated product; then fans of that one product attempted to "redefine" the term to feel better about their company loyalty). 

Man, the primary function of a console is to process video games -- who could have ever dreamed up that crap?

Hmm. The Wii-mote functionality isn't next gen? It's just like the previous gens? Right.

Input, before the USB device became an easy and simple way of standardizing input formats, could most definately be considered a form of CONSOLE progress and innovation.  But now that we have the capability to allow DEVELOPERS and PUBLISHERS to create control formats through the USB device, and the ability to allow consumers to decide the best input format (could you imagein the forum "controller wars?"  I sure could! ) we should NOT consider a form of input -- NO MATTER WHAT CONSOLE WE DISCUSS -- as a burden or advantage to that console.

If this industry made ANY sense, we'd be juding forms of input along with games and certain genres -- NOT along console lines.  Controllers, unlike the ability of a console to process raw data in the most powerful and cost-effective manner, is a subjective PERSONAL PREFERANCE.  I don't need to remind you how many people hate the Wiimote (I actually like the Wiimote, it sure as hell beats analog controllers in terms of control -- although the mouse and keyboard still triumpths).

But I'm not going to praise a console for simply creating a controller when controllers should simply be USB devices in the first place.  It makes no sense.

[QUOTE="Gears360"]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

the miis and "multimedia (cannot play DVDs, but can show pictures and play music[?])" are next gen features??????
wireless controllers next gen ????

i just exploded of laughter :lol:Maelkav

I'm glad that you got your jollies out of it. :?

Apparently, you didn't read the definition of next gen.

By the way, your beloved 360 uses wireless controllers.

edit: @FoamingPanda - just because it "doesn't make sense" doesn't mean its "last gen, crap hardware, etc. etc."

PS1 used CD's like the Sega Saturn and Sega CD (which flopped, overall). It would have "made sense" that PS would imitate the N64 and use cartridges.

vastly inferior and antiquated productFoamingPanda

You clearly have an antiquated view of "next gen".  No surprise, really.  Your extrapolation of such a simple term as "next gen"  tells the whole story.  I guess you think the world is still flat.

I can, because they are all current gen... >_>

j/k :P

Great post.
foxhound_fox

:lol: 

Since when does Next Gen mean "as powerful as the rest"? Next Gen simply means the companies next generation product of the same vein. Like Apple Ipods. Each one defines a Generation not based on functions or how many gigs(songs) it can hold. But each Ipod was simply Apples newer Ipod. Thats all. Although, usually with a succession in each generation the product gets a noticable upgrade....but that alone doesn't define "next gen".

Just because many can't see the differences between gamecube and Wii does not mean anything. We've all seen the specs and technically speaking its 2-3 times more powerful than GC and it has multiple features the gamecube never had or could imagine having. The PC is lightyears ahead of consoles (only now is that gap closing) and has always been. So are all consoles considered last gen simply because they couldn't match up to the PC's specs?

Obviously calling the Wii last gen is a exploit used either by fanboys or angry gamers at Nintendo's new approach of trying not to focus on looks, like the GC did. Any person with a logical mind knows that Nintendo's new system is next gen regardless of what its competitors are doing.

Since when does Next Gen mean "as powerful as the rest"? Next Gen simply means the companies next generation product of the same vein. Like Apple Ipods. Each one defines a Generation not based on functions or how many gigs(songs) it can hold. But each Ipod was simply Apples newer Ipod. Thats all. Although, usually with a succession in each generation the product gets a noticable upgrade....but that alone doesn't define "next gen".

Just because many can't see the differences between gamecube and Wii does not mean anything. We've all seen the specs and technically speaking its 2-3 times more powerful than GC and it has multiple features the gamecube never had or could imagine having. The PC is lightyears ahead of consoles (only now is that gap closing) and has always been. So are all consoles considered last gen simply because they couldn't match up to the PC's specs?

Obviously calling the Wii last gen is a exploit used either by fanboys or angry gamers at Nintendo's new approach of trying not to focus on looks, like the GC did. Any person with a logical mind knows that Nintendo's new system is next gen regardless of what its competitors are doing.

Japanese_Monk