Video game generation between 2nd and 3rd?

[Leo_A]

The types of games we played in the 16 bit age were frequently the same styles of the generation before. About the only thing that appeared in large numbers that didn't really already exist beyond perhaps an oddity or two, was the popularization of the fighting game genre.

I'd say that one could make that argument for most transitions in this industry. Rare is something like the 32/64 bit era and the radical change in types of games that occurred with it.

So that argument, if anyone uses that to defend lumping the Colecovision and such into the same category as it predecessors, rings pretty hollow.

[Niku-Sama]

well when did ET come out, I know it didn't cause the crash but it is definitely a marker to when everything started to crap out at that time

What we call the "third generation" were consoles launched in 1985-1986 in the USA, with the near-total of the 3rd gen market between the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800.

But there are some major points to be made that the third generation was really the systems launched circa 1982, such as the ColecoVision, Vectrex, Atari 5200, and Arcadia 2001.

I snipped this out because I know what your getting at but I think it might be a bit misguided or, and I am not aiming to offend with this comment, narrow minded. atleast in a trivial sence that has no real bearing on life just as to the subject in these two lines that I have quoted.

I agree, the 5200 is a third generation console, it falls into the time line and in line of the general progession but that puts the 7800 in a strange generational spot, it was better than the 5200 but it wasn't far enough out to be 4th generation either, almost a generation 3.5 but since it was a "lets try and save our asses from getting burned" I can imagine more companies would have tried 2 systems within the generation to keep them in business if they had that sort of money and Atari did still have money from the home computer lines at the time.

so yes Atari 5200 is 3rd generation (in my mind atleast) but heres where I am getting at the narrow part. you say "in the USA" gaming is gaming, the generations don't change outside of the US. if a 2600 comes out as a 2800 in japan its still the same thing, it doesn't change generations its still generation 2. with out systems from other countries we wouldn't have generations.

these "third generation consoles launched in 1985" like the NES started sooner as another system, the Famicom, in 1983. so technically, even though we didn't get it here till 85 it wouldn't have existed if it came out in another country in 83. so if third generation stuff came out as pretty much the same thing in another country then why did it not become 3rd generation until it got to the US? long story short, it doesn't. the NES was 3rd generation before it was even released in the US because it already existed 2 years earlier in another country and that shortens up the gap between coleco and the 5200 (amongst others).

so take that in to account as to what your saying about the 5200, coleco and all that and it effectively fixes your mid generational gap you were talking about. colecovision and 5200 isn't hanging out as an in between when the famicom comes out less than a year after it and sg-1000 shortly after that I feel that solidly makes the 3rd generation start late 82 early 83.



and if TLDR

Console generations are not just dictated by US markets

[Ozzy_98]

well when did ET come out, I know it didn't cause the crash but it is definitely a marker to when everything started to crap out at that time

It came out in December of 1992, 9 months after the other "crash-causing game", Pac-Man.

[Gentlegamer]

It came out in December of 1992, 9 months after the other "crash-causing game", Pac-Man.

Typo there

[Niku-Sama]

heh 1992

[MetalFRO]

This is a very interesting thread. I can see both sides of the argument. I'll also compliment tom on the posting of several scans, verifying at least the US market's acknowledgement of a 3rd generation with the 5200, Colecovision, et al. I would tend to lean toward the inclusion of everything from the 5200 to the SMS as the 3rd generation, rather than lumping them in with the 2nd generation, as is traditionally done. That's also as opposed to creating a generation between the 2nd and 3rd as is generally accepted now. I think Niku-Sama's line of thought tracks, in terms of the major North American consoles coming out in the 1982 timeframe, and being followed very closely by the Famicom, SG-1000, and somewhat later the Mark III/SMS. It gets trickier when you think about later, when the PC Engine came out - it was marketed in the US as a 16-bit system (the TurboGrafx-16), though it technically was not, and yet, it was an obvious advancement over BOTH the NES and the SMS, and was similarly matched with the Megadrive/Genesis in a number of ways, from a technical perspective. So was the PCE the start of the 4th gen, or would some consider it half-gen because of it's mix of processors and earlier release?

Getting back to my original thoughts, I would say 8 generations is still right, because the NES and SMS were built on technology that was released not long after the NA release of new hardware, and though they ended up being superior (or at least, had a long enough shelf life for programmers to get real performance out of them), their hardware was not vastly different from most of what comprised the earlier 3rd gen systems, save for the Vectrex.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

Revisiting this concept 7 years later.

There are three schools of thought on this one: putting the 1982 consoles (ColecoVision, 5200, Vectrex) with the 2nd generation (Atari 2600, Odyssey 2, Intellivision, et al), putting them in their own generation, or putting them with the next generation (NES, Master System, et al).

I find it ridiculous to put the ColecoVision, 5200 and Vectrex in the same generation as the Atari 2600, let alone the Fairchild Channel F or RCA Studio II.

But there is a pretty good argument for keeping the 9-generational split, and that's by putting the ColecoVision, 5200 and Vectrex in with the 3rd generation. Let's look at the timing of the systems:

1976: Fairchild Channel F
1977: RCA Studio #2, Atari 2600
1978: Magnavox Odyssey 2
1979: Intellivision
No major releases in 1980-1981, then:
1982: Atari 5200, ColecoVision, Vectrex
1983: NES (as Famicom), SG-1000 (largely based on ColecoVision hardware)
1984: Atari 7800 (initial limited test market release)
1985: Sega Master System (as Mark III)

We generally consider the Sega Dreamcast to be in the same generation as the PS2, Xbox and GameCube even though it died out around the same time those consoles were getting popular. In the same manner, the Atari 5200, ColecoVision and Vectrex died out as the market crashed in the USA, but the Nintendo vs. Sega competition (and Nintendo dominance) was heating up in Japan, and as Atari was producing the initial batch of 7800 consoles. What's generally considered the "third generation" competition started out in Japan in 1983 between the Famicom, SG-1000, and a few others (e.g. Casio PV-1000) that didn't make it. This was less than a year after the ColecoVision, Atari 5200, and Vectrex came out, although the crash cut any chance of them achieving market dominance. And we have another example of a third-generation console that didn't really make it into the third-generation heyday in the Sega SG-1000 (as well as Casio PV-1000, etc). As for the joystick/joypad argument, only the NES and Master System had joypads. The Atari 7800 stuck with a joystick, the PainLine.

On the other hand, the NES and Master System did have substantially different game types than did the ColecoVision, 5200, and Vectrex, and in large part due to enhancement chips on NES, look and sound substantially better.

[Greg2600]

I have absolutely no issue grouping the cartridge-driven systems from 1976-1982 together. It's only 7 years, and honestly the technology did not massively change in that time. The arrival of the NES in 1985, later the SMS and 7800 being re-issued in 1986, was a total shift not only in technology but also marketing and business practices. I realize that the Famicom and SG-1000 systems debuted in Japan about a year after the Colecovision, with similar technology. However, they were both a LOT more powerful than CV. The Intellivision, Astrocade, and Atari 5200 systems were designed in the 70's! They have no business being in the same generation as the NES/FAM. The 7800 and SMS do because they were developed post-crash, with more advanced technology than the prior generation. The Vectrex is kind of unique given it's vector tech, and gets lumped in with the 2nd gen because it was also doomed by the crash. I've always felt the SG-1000 was 2nd generation not 3rd, that's the only system I would move down. However, the Famicom was far ahead in capabilities of everything that came before it, it cannot be lumped in with the (gahhh 5200 or even Coleco).

After all this babbling, I went and looked and lo and behold, I had the same (more concise) opinion then!

I personally have no quarrels with the generation system as is. I think it rally makes sense. The only oddball is having the SG-1000 lumped in with the SMS and NES and 7800.

The Dreamcast is absolutely the same generation as PS2, Gamecube and Xbox, heck many titles were released on those with minimal changes.

[Niku-Sama]

i think the hesitation for some people is in their mind the 70's was soooo long ago now but the 80's werent, so its easier to group the 80's and 90's together in their minds even though a group can split a decade...
but like you said only 7 years there, i get it both ways.

[Buyatari]

At the time of release, these proposed gen 2.5 systems all felt like and were marketed mainly as 2600 competitors. ColecoVision and the Atari 5200 both offered an adapter to play 2600 cartridges. Most blockbuster titles that were released for these systems were also simultaneously released for the 2600. While these systems may have been released after the 2600 the 2600 was still going strong and in fact still outlived them all. I agree with lumping them in as the same generation as that is how it felt at that time.