Critics still coming to terms with Wii's "next-gen-ness"

Wii. Like it or not, the name and the console it represents arguably receive more favorable buzz than any other current game platform. Is it because of a departure from the traditional definition of next-generation gaming, the industry's fascination with its prospects, or that motion-controls with inferior graphics are in-fact a blast to play on a large scale? Hopefully by late November (post launch), we'll be closer to a definitive answer, but some are still obviously and understandably coming to terms with how Nintendo defines next-generation gaming:

• Ars Technica on the concept of next generation: "That 'next-gen hardware experience' that I've come to expect as a birthright of console gaming will be missing from the Wii. Things that were graphically and computationally unthinkable in the previous generation will not suddenly become possible with the Wii ... Zelda: Twilight Princess is a launch title for the 'next-gen' Nintendo console. This is a GameCube game, people!"

• Factor 5, developer of the excellent GameCube launch title Rogue Squadron II, is "extremely disappointed" with Wii calling the console a "GameCube 1.5" while ragging on the system's inferior graphics and audio capabilities.
  

While I'm sure everyone got the 2005 E3 memo stating that Nintendo wouldn't embrace power advancements with Wii, I thought "next-gen" was in the eye of the beholder? The two above critics appreciated Nintendo's previous systems (by their own admittance in one way or another), so maybe they just feel slighted by not getting a GameCube 2. Any readers out there feel the same this close to Wii's launch? The line has been drawn.

[via Wii Fanboy]