The Missing Videogame Generation?

[A Black Falcon]

By now I'm sure that almost everyone knows of the seven generations of videogames, so I won't list them. My question is... why is it only seven? Or perhaps, why is one specific line drawn where it is...

Now, I know that there are some "borderline" issues commonly debated about. I'm with the majority on these -- the Turbografx is fourth generation, and the Jaguar and 3DO are fifth generation, and the Dreamcast is sixth generation, with absolutely no doubt. Just because they are early systems in their generations doesn't mean that they should for some reason be dumped in the previous generation in which they definitely do not belong.

Going back a little further, though, there's another generation line where the line doesn't make much sense to me -- that between the second and third generations.

Now, I know that when a system is released is as important for determining which generation it is in as anything else; indeed, really that is one of the most important factors. The Great Videogame Crash took down most of the industry in the US, so it makes sense that when it started up again, it'd be called a new generation. Okay, I guess.

But... I just don't get it. Why are the new consoles of 1982 considered "second gen"? Honestly, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Colecovision and Atari 5200 were both definitely "next gen" machines (and the Vectrex too, the other 1982 console). Yet, because their generation failed a year in and because their games are just upgraded second gen games, they get dumped in the second generation.

Now, I know that there is often big variation from one end of a generation to another -- TG16 to SNES, Jaguar or 3DO to N64, Dreamcast to Xbox... but in the case of the Atari 5200, it isn't just variation, it is a successor console! In no other case has a console been considered to be in the same generation as the previous machine from the same manufacturer, and that's because that idea makes no sense. The 5200 is obviously next-gen compared to the 2600, and the same for the Colecovision. Yet just because it's convenient, because of the crash, they all get dumped in together. It seems very wrong to me. I mean, yes, the games are similar, but that's fairly normal for successor systems from the same manufacturer that do not make radical changes (polygons, most notably).

Of course, the question then would be where you draw the "generation" line in the second generation... the systems of 1977-78 certainly are all second gen, but the Intellivision does seem to be a tricky one. If you put the dividing line in 1982, that leaves the Intellivision as second-gen, though there is an obvious big power difference between it and any prior system of the generation. But putting it earlier seems a bit too early... I'm not sure. Are difficult questions like this one reason why all these systems were all just lumped in together? That would be a tough line to draw. Which one gets left on the other side?

Oh, and remember -- The NES(Famicom) came out in Japan in mid 1983, only eleven months after the US release of the Colecovision and eight months after the US release of the Atari 5200. There are not many cases of systems only being divided by about a year, but being considered as part of completely different generations... in fact, I don't think I can think of any other such case. Yes, the NES was much more powerful than any system that came before it, but still.

That so many systems are in the second generation, and the third, and the fourth, but only three consoles are really in the third generation (NES, Atari 7800, Sega Master System) also is perhaps a sign of this issue, maybe... though of course that the industry collapsed and most of the older players went with it partially explains it as well, if the 1982 systems were separated from the 1977-78 systems (intentionally leaving the Intellivision's status undecided :)), it would be a less dramatic difference.

I'm not expecting anything to come of this, the generations have been chosen, though by who I have no idea (anyone know?), but this is something that has been bothering me for a while, so I thought I'd post and see if anyone else has ever considered it, and can come up with better explanations for it than I have.

Oh yeah, the Colecovision has a reputation for not being able to do scrolling, evidently, but here's an example of a game that does it, the recent homebrew title GhostBlaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lwp91w0u6c

Finally, this has nothing to do with what I thought of the second generation systems in the '80s; I didn't own any of them then. It's about comparing system power and release dates, mostly.

[Greg2600]

The NES/SMS weren't all that much different in some ways than the CV/5200. In fact, the CV and SMS shared the same main CPU (ZLOG Z80A). However, the key to the generations is that when they came out, not what hardware they had.

[slapdash]

I think they're all lumped together for all being 8-bit. So generation one is dedicated machines, generation two is 8-bit/pre-Crash. Sure the Famicom/NES and SMS were 8-bit too, and I've often said that the NES was like a Colecovision with more RAM and background tiling, but the Crash makes a nice dividing line, but pre-Crash, there's not much call to really divvy things up.

[buzz_n64]

The NES/SMS weren't all that much different in some ways than the CV/5200. In fact, the CV and SMS shared the same main CPU (ZLOG Z80A). However, the key to the generations is that when they came out, not what hardware they had.

This is true. The Zeebo is a 7th generation system released in 2009, but is less powerful than an original Xbox 6th generation console.

[A Black Falcon]

The NES/SMS weren't all that much different in some ways than the CV/5200. In fact, the CV and SMS shared the same main CPU (ZLOG Z80A). However, the key to the generations is that when they came out, not what hardware they had.

Well that was one of my points, when you look worldwide, only eight months separate the Atari 5200 and Famicom...

[Gameguy]

I don't think the Atari 5200 could be considered "next generation" when the previous generation from the same company outlasted it.

[Leo_A]

Are you considering the Pong era of dedicated consoles as the first generation?

I suspect most people ignore that since they're not reprogrammable consoles, which makes the VCS/O2/Intellivision/Astrocade as first generation consoles and the 5200/Colecovision/Vectrex/Arcadia as second generation consoles.

I agree with you, they certainly belong in their own grouping and not with the 2600 and it's contemporarys.

[AbnormalMapping]

Perhaps, instead of trying to find logic to describe why humans divide things as they do, we should look at their real reasons; no matter how absurd they may seem?

The 5200 was basically built as a 2600 with twice the power. 4 characters, 2 missiles, for twice the Pong action. Sure, it never played Pong, but it was actually using a hardware design from that era. The Colecovision had difficulty even scrolling it's backgrounds...

The NES leapt far ahead of them both, and created new types of games that console owners hadn't seen before.

In Donkey Kong, Mario can jump barrels or use a hammer for a limited time to smash them for more points. He can't progress with the hammer.

In Super Mario Bros, Mario can jump on the enemies, kill them with a fireflower, run through them with a star, knock them out in a row with a turtle shell, or punch out the block they're standing on. There are secrets everywhere: how did you get the fireworks?

Suddenly, nobody played for points anymore. Pac-Man, Defender 2, Millipede - they were all released for the NES, to almost no reaction.

Kind of like the lack of reaction to Video Olympics when it was released for the Atari 2600, despite being the most ambitious Pong game ever made...

Everyone knew there was an alien invasion to deal with.

[tom]

Actually, the Atari 5200 was a Atari 800 computer (ANTIC and GTIA, POKEY), not a '2600 with twice the power. 4 characters, 2 missiles, for twice the Pong action'.
That's the most stupid explanation ever, without even trying to get the facts or do a little bit of research, even if it is Wikipedia only.

The NES, as a matter of fact, was not more powerful than 5200.

In Mario Bros (2600, 5200), Mario can jump, Pitfall had secrets, many Colecovision games even mentioned in the manual to 'try to discover secrets' in later levels.
Adventure (2600) you didn't play for points...anything else you might think was new on NES (but we'd already seen on previous consoles anyway)?

[buzz_n64]

Actually, the Atari 5200 was a Atari 800 computer (ANTIC and GTIA, POKEY), not a '2600 with twice the power. 4 characters, 2 missiles, for twice the Pong action'.
That's the most stupid explanation ever, without even trying to get the facts or do a little bit of research, even if it is Wikipedia only.

The NES, as a matter of fact, was not more powerful than 5200.

While I am a fan of the 5200, I haven't seen any ports that look better on it than on the NES.


In Mario Bros (2600, 5200), Mario can jump, Pitfall had secrets, many Colecovision games even mentioned in the manual to 'try to discover secrets' in later levels.
Adventure (2600) you didn't play for points...anything else you might think was new on NES?

I agree. Pitfall: The Lost Caverns for the 5200 in my opinion was the first true platform adventure. Two giant complex levels, items to collect in order to progress, and an ending!

[tom]

To Leo A
Magnavox Odyssey (1972) is 1st generation, Pong can be considered 1st Gen too.

[A Black Falcon]

To Leo A
Magnavox Odyssey (1972) is 1st generation, Pong can be considered 1st Gen too.

Right. Sure, Odyssey 1 carts aren't real rom cartridges, but still, it's close enough that most people consider it a console. And it's definitely a generation behind the systems of the later '70s.


While I am a fan of the 5200, I haven't seen any ports that look better on it than on the NES.

True, but systems don't need to be equal in power to be in the same generation... 3DO or Jaguar (or Amiga CD32 or PC-FX, etc.) vs. N64, for instance... or Wii vs. PS3 or 360... the NES is definitely more powerful than those other systems, but by so much it's in a completely different generation?

Basically, the generations layout was based on the American experience where there was a several year dead gap between the crash and the rise of the NES... but when you look at actual system power, and more importantly worldwide release dates, it shows a different picture.

On that note, poor Sega, its SG-1000 released within just a few weeks of the Famicom, yet their system is considered second gen and Nintendo's third... I know, Sega had another system several years later that is put in the third generation, but I really wonder if in Japan they use anything resembling our generation breakdown. Somehow I doubt it. (Yes, the NES is definitely quite a bit more powerful than the SG-1000. Still, the closeness of the releases shows my point I think... and it's not like the early NES games showed all the power the system would later have. Super Mario Bros. was released in Japan in 1985 too, several years into the system's life...)

[buzz_n64]

True, but systems don't need to be equal in power to be in the same generation... 3DO or Jaguar (or Amiga CD32 or PC-FX, etc.) vs. N64, for instance... or Wii vs. PS3 or 360... the NES is definitely more powerful than those other systems, but by so much it's in a completely different generation?

Basically, the generations layout was based on the American experience where there was a several year dead gap between the crash and the rise of the NES... but when you look at actual system power, and more importantly worldwide release dates, it shows a different picture.

On that note, poor Sega, its SG-1000 released within just a few weeks of the Famicom, yet their system is considered second gen and Nintendo's third... I know, Sega had another system several years later that is put in the third generation, but I really wonder if in Japan they use anything resembling our generation breakdown. Somehow I doubt it. (Yes, the NES is definitely quite a bit more powerful than the SG-1000. Still, the closeness of the releases shows my point I think... and it's not like the early NES games showed all the power the system would later have. Super Mario Bros. was released in Japan in 1985 too, several years into the system's life...)

The only point I was making by that was that the NES was a better system, not anything about it's generation. I did however make this comment in an earlier post- "The Zeebo is a 7th generation system released in 2009, but is less powerful than an original Xbox 6th generation console." Time and chronology are the factors in the divide. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the generation groupings are really good, and don't need a change.

[AbnormalMapping]

Actually, the Atari 5200 was a Atari 800 computer (ANTIC and GTIA, POKEY), not a '2600 with twice the power. 4 characters, 2 missiles, for twice the Pong action'.
That's the most stupid explanation ever, without even trying to get the facts or do a little bit of research, even if it is Wikipedia only.

The NES, as a matter of fact, was not more powerful than 5200.

In Mario Bros (2600, 5200), Mario can jump, Pitfall had secrets, many Colecovision games even mentioned in the manual to 'try to discover secrets' in later levels.
Adventure (2600) you didn't play for points...anything else you might think was new on NES (but we'd already seen on previous consoles anyway)?

You're a lovely example of the Dunning/Kruger effect.

I mentioned a list of ways you can approach the enemies, huge for the time, from turtle shells to fire flowers, and all you get out of it before calling me stupid is "Mario can jump in other games too." I mention there are secrets covering every square inch pf the damn thing, from question blocks to warp zones, and you retaliate with "Other games have secrets too!".

I can't debate you, because you didn't understand a thing.

But hey, I can play your game too.

It's fun.

Streetfighter 2 didn't mean a thing because you can punch people in Yie Ar Kung Fu.

Doom didn't mean a thing because Space Invaders also had shooting.

NES era platformers weren't more popular with the American public than Golden Age shooters because the adventures of the Adventure brick and it's ducks should have been more influential.

( I mean, it's clear we're debating about an American timeline and not an international one as soon as the words "The crash" come up. )

[CRV]

I think the bigger point here is that there were plenty of games before SMB that weren't just about "playing for points" (Is any game really JUST about "playing for points?")


Pac-Man, Defender 2, Millipede - they were all released for the NES, to almost no reaction.

They probably sold better than you give them credit for. Ms. Pac-Man was supposedly the best-selling third-party cartridge on the Genesis.

[Thrillo]

While I am a fan of the 5200, I haven't seen any ports that look better on it than on the NES.

True, take Millipede or Joust for example. But then again, look at Famicom Ballblazer. It's pretty poor compared to the 5200 version, but maybe it was a rushed port, and the programmers probably weren't familiar with flexible Atari-style hardware since they were Japanese (so I presume as it's Famicom-only).
So really, it's only fair to compare 5200 games to REALLY early NES/Famicom games (from the Japanese 1983 launch to '85). And there's not many early Famicom games that are also on the 5200.

[jb143]

Does comparing gameplay really have anything to do with the somewhat arbitrary lines drawn for console generations? Playing for points and the character jumping? What does that have to do with the system itself? Sure, better hardware can lead to different gameplay but it seems like some poeple are getting worked up over nothing.

[garagesaleking!!]

I don't think the Atari 5200 could be considered "next generation" when the previous generation from the same company outlasted it.

whoop, there it is

[Ed Oscuro]

As Black Falcon's post hints at, the talk of "generations" (aside: It's a mid-'90s thing to talk about generations, must've been the Trek movie) is more the result of accidents of competition.

First off: The talk about "generations" may hide the fact that console release dates are clustered not because there is something about hardware developments that demands it. You can always create a better system with newer technology, and due to the working of patents, factories, chip fabrication, etc., the playing field is usually quite level. Components like RAM chips can go up in price but that happens to everybody - and it can't really be predicted in the long term (i.e. long enough to develop a system and target it for a certain price at a certain release date), unless there is some funny business going on.

Generations happen because companies want to be quick to market so as not to lose market share; the years between console releases are the "breather" for each company to develop a library and hopefully make some money back. So the generations are because of the economic - or political - competitions that are set up to play the game successfully. Vote for Console Y with your pocketbook! Don't get that other console, (argument developed from our price / value calculations follows here). I think if you looked at console releases from different makers, you'd find they are getting more closely packed together as you get closer to 2010, and also as they get more expensive (the cheapness of handhelds has let Nintendo play around a lot with hardware revisions). Beating the other guy for 4-5 years, and then doing it all over again, has been the long-standing game plan. (I'm not convinced the Wii really breaks out of this mold; it's a different price point, but it's still in the competition, so people judge it accordingly.)

Then again, I'm also likely to argue that the talk about "generations" of people also can obscure important differences - like baby boomers; there's a lot of difference between somebody born in 1946 and 1964, though both are called "baby boomers." But of course it's also useful to talk about "baby boomers" since there's a peak in births in that period.

But I don't think you can talk about "generations" of hardware with just a number. It does excite fanboys, but consider if we just named "generations" of people with a number. Where would you start? Some people would demand we start with the Bible and count up generations starting there; other people would say we count back from yesterday, and of course other people find that some familes have had loose morals so they have generations faster than others (lol), again thwarting a comparison.

Obviously, it makes the most sense to talk about console "generations" by what is actually seen as a group. The term "seventh generation" is familiar by now but doesn't carry any weight - on the other hand if you talk about the "xbox 360 generation" I'll at least get an idea that you mean, at least, the Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo systems (and possibly the twilight of the Phantom and the N-Gage as well).

"Next-gen" will always mean the upcoming generation (only the words can fall out of fashion, or maybe privately-owned console releases will; I kind of hope not; it's a lot cooler phrase than "X-treme.")

An example why counting "generations" by original release and hardware capabilities doesn't fly:

The release of the Turbo Grafx-16 put it into direct competition with the Genesis and the SNES, where it did admirably well under the circumstances, but it only was ahead of the game in Japan for its original 1986 release where, looking at the progression of systems, it merely fits where you'd expect it to, being neither horrible nor especially ahead of its time; everybody talks about the CD-ROM system but the availability of CD-ROM systems cheap enough to use for the device was the result of NEC's development leadership in computer devices (but that CD-ROM unit was more dollar per unit fun than Sega and Nintendo's systems at the time unless you bought enough games, I suspect; the CD-ROM addons were spendy and the early CD games have tradeoffs) , and a function of the market as a whole. They merely had the right product at the right time - but, once again, not outside Japan (where the dollars per unit fun are even worse when great games like Dracula X didn't even get a U.S. release).

it seems like some poeple are getting worked up over nothing.
Agreed.

[ubersaurus]

I usually just split the 2nd gen up into 2a and 2b, because the latter crash systems aren't providing that big a change in experience, and the crash as a dividing line works out really well. They were generally better (well, except the arcadia) but still very much providing the same sort of gameplay and indeed, games of the previous generations - which were still going!

[j_factor]

Until recently, new systems weren't all released near the same time in convenient "generations". Going back and grouping all of them that way is a bit of an anachronism.

However, if we are to group them that way, Atari 5200 was clearly intended as the 2600's successor in the same way as any "next-gen" system that any company has released. And Coleco used the term "third wave" for their console, suggesting the beginning of a new generation. Coleco was targeting people who already owned an Atari 2600 (or other console), telling them to dump their old system and make the upgrade. Whereas none of the Intellivision ads I've seen seemed to do that; they were targeting new customers, to get them to choose Intellivision over the 2600.

In any case this entire thing seems to have been invented by Wikipedia. I don't remember anyone ever saying "fourth generation" in the early 90s. We still divided systems into generations (and Sega had a cheesy promo called Sega for the 90s: The New Generation), but we didn't number them.

[k8track]

Until recently, new systems weren't all released near the same time in convenient "generations". Going back and grouping all of them that way is a bit of an anachronism.

However, if we are to group them that way, Atari 5200 was clearly intended as the 2600's successor in the same way as any "next-gen" system that any company has released. And Coleco used the term "third wave" for their console, suggesting the beginning of a new generation. Coleco was targeting people who already owned an Atari 2600 (or other console), telling them to dump their old system and make the upgrade. Whereas none of the Intellivision ads I've seen seemed to do that; they were targeting new customers, to get them to choose Intellivision over the 2600.

In any case this entire thing seems to have been invented by Wikipedia. I don't remember anyone ever saying "fourth generation" in the early 90s. We still divided systems into generations (and Sega had a cheesy promo called Sega for the 90s: The New Generation), but we didn't number them.

Very astute. I remember reading the term "third wave" (or third gen) in the magazines of the time (and I'd always thought of Coleco and the 5200 as third wave systems) and thought it was weird when Wikipedia said otherwise, though I do like Ubersaurus' elegant solution of referring to the 2nd gen as 2a and 2b.

And it does seem like Wikipedia invented the whole generation division thing. Another thing they seemed to have invented and stubbornly maintained is the "Crash of 1983" label (which I have mentioned before from time to time). Prior to Wikipedia, I had always seen it referred to as the Crash of 1984, and that is how I've always referred to it. I was there at the time and I can say that 1984 was the big year where everything just started to fall through and you could find tons of incredibly cheap 2600 games at rock bottom prices (it was like a wonderful dream and I made out like a bandit).

[AbnormalMapping]

True, take Millipede or Joust for example. But then again, look at Famicom Ballblazer. It's pretty poor compared to the 5200 version, but maybe it was a rushed port, and the programmers probably weren't familiar with flexible Atari-style hardware since they were Japanese (so I presume as it's Famicom-only).
So really, it's only fair to compare 5200 games to REALLY early NES/Famicom games (from the Japanese 1983 launch to '85). And there's not many early Famicom games that are also on the 5200.

It's due to the tile/sprite based graphics system. It's great for creating an NES style side scroller, but reveals it's handicaps in 3d. For a medium skilled programmer looking to port a game like Space Harrier, the 5200 is more powerful than an NES. The 5200 allows a programmer to take direct control of an electron beam in a raster display device as it passes over the screen, and demand each color and shade as needed. It costs almost no memory space to create a 3d background like in BallBlazer. The coding to the television itself allows for immediate display interruption, as needed, so the entire game moves at an arcade quality speed.

In order to do the same effect on the NES, without serious coding directly to the machine's processor, you need to create every frame of movement by hand, in advance, on a square tile. The machine needs to know which tiles to display, in response to which actions the player may take. It's like handcranking an old phonograph.

If the 5200 had come out with great ports of Space Harrier, Afterburner, and others, could it have been seen as the next generation by American Wikipedia editors who know next to nothing about programming videogames decades later?

The question really should be, if we know these generation divisions are worthless as they stand, why isn't anyone here attempting to edit the article?

[TheClash603]

I agree that the "generations" are useless... a simple timeline makes a lot more sense, and is far more useful.

I do agree with the original poster that the 5200 is in a generation between the 2600 and NES, if generations need to be determined... but they really do not need to be.

[A Black Falcon]

The only point I was making by that was that the NES was a better system, not anything about it's generation. I did however make this comment in an earlier post- "The Zeebo is a 7th generation system released in 2009, but is less powerful than an original Xbox 6th generation console." Time and chronology are the factors in the divide. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the generation groupings are really good, and don't need a change.

You mention time and chronology, but ignore what I said in the post you just quoted?

How about I be a little clearer about that last paragraph: The Famicom and SG-1000 released on the SAME DAY. Please explain how "chronology" puts them in different console generations. :)


I don't think the Atari 5200 could be considered "next generation" when the previous generation from the same company outlasted it.

The PC Engine outlasted the Supergrafx and PC-FX, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the PC-FX at least was definitely next-gen...


I usually just split the 2nd gen up into 2a and 2b, because the latter crash systems aren't providing that big a change in experience, and the crash as a dividing line works out really well. They were generally better (well, except the arcadia) but still very much providing the same sort of gameplay and indeed, games of the previous generations - which were still going!

I do the same thing actually, and think of the 1982 systems as generation "2.5". I do something similar for the new consoles of 1993, versus the more powerful systems of 1994-96. It's not a perfect breakdown, the PC-FX and Neo-Geo CD were 1994 systems that don't come even close to the PSX or Saturn, but still with those exceptions there's an obvious gap of power, time, and success between the earlier and later systems of that generation. But at least there all of those systems are definitely fifth generation; the problem with generation 2.5 is, I think they're really much more third gen than second.


As Black Falcon's post hints at, the talk of "generations" (aside: It's a mid-'90s thing to talk about generations, must've been the Trek movie) is more the result of accidents of competition.

As a history major, I mostly disagree with you. Even if it's messy, separating things apart into periods is useful, valid, and worthwhile. :)

Where I will agree is that the 1982-1986 period is a complete mess, extremely difficult to break up into generations. Before then and after then it's easy (yes, the TG16 was a next-gen system, no question), but during that period it's quite hard.

Really, I'm not sure if any one line in that period is going to be completely satisfactory. If you say that 1982-1986 systems are third gen, for instance, then the SG-1000 and Master System are both third gen, while the latter was obviously a big step over the former... if one of my criticisms of the current system is that the 2600 and 5200 should not be in the same generation, I shouldn't do the same thing with my alternate idea to some other manufacturer, right? But I don't know how to avoid it, honestly, other than by doing what's done now and calling the SG-1000 second-gen... but it came out the same day as the Famicom! Yes, it's less powerful than the NES for sure (look at some SG-1000 games if you haven't, much weaker graphics than the NES), like the Colecovision and 5200, but still, timewise it's not different.

So yeah, I'm not certain exactly what should be done with that period... but whatever it is, it definitely isn't what it is now -- pretending that the 1982 systems are second-gen is just ridiculous.


Until recently, new systems weren't all released near the same time in convenient "generations". Going back and grouping all of them that way is a bit of an anachronism.

Some time ago I actually made a list (not posted anywhere, unless I do in this thread or something, I at least find it kind of interesting) of almost all videogame consoles I know of sorted by release order, and you're right, in the past decade the industry has gotten much more restrictive to entry than it used to be, no question. Still, I think it is possible to separate systems apart by generation. Even before formal numbers were assigned to the generations, it was fairly clear when a system was "next-gen", I would say.


However, if we are to group them that way, Atari 5200 was clearly intended as the 2600's successor in the same way as any "next-gen" system that any company has released. And Coleco used the term "third wave" for their console, suggesting the beginning of a new generation. Coleco was targeting people who already owned an Atari 2600 (or other console), telling them to dump their old system and make the upgrade. Whereas none of the Intellivision ads I've seen seemed to do that; they were targeting new customers, to get them to choose Intellivision over the 2600.

Interesting, so Coleco called their system the "third wave"? Definitely supports what I'm saying. :)


In any case this entire thing seems to have been invented by Wikipedia. I don't remember anyone ever saying "fourth generation" in the early 90s. We still divided systems into generations (and Sega had a cheesy promo called Sega for the 90s: The New Generation), but we didn't number them.

The idea of generations goes well back, but the numbers and such? I agree, I don't remember really seeing them attached to numbers before Wikipedia put them on. Before it was the "8-bit generation" (third), "16-bit" (fourth), etc. That's really just a terminology breakdown though, the actual breakdown of which system was in which generation, for the systems from the NES on at least, was pretty much the same as now.

[j_factor]

Some time ago I actually made a list (not posted anywhere, unless I do in this thread or something, I at least find it kind of interesting) of almost all videogame consoles I know of sorted by release order, and you're right, in the past decade the industry has gotten much more restrictive to entry than it used to be, no question. Still, I think it is possible to separate systems apart by generation. Even before formal numbers were assigned to the generations, it was fairly clear when a system was "next-gen", I would say.

The 3DO and Amiga CD32 came out closer to the SNES than the N64, but they're considered in the same generation as the latter. I guess because they're 32-bit, but that doesn't really mean anything. Also, in Japan, PC Engine is closer to Mark III chronologically than Super Famicom, and the PC Engine came out in Japan the same year as the XEGS in America. I'm not saying any of these are wrong, but it is kind of arbitrary. I mean, if you look at the years each generation's systems debuted, it just looks weird. And where does the GX4000 go?

[A Black Falcon]

As I said, I did this a while ago (the file was last edited this February), but I don't remember actually posting it anywhere... this thread is as good a place as any though I guess.

The point of it is -- yes, you are right, consoles come out often. There are few years with no new console releasing somewhere. But... despite everything below, I really do think that you can for the most part easily tell where a new generation begins...


The 3DO and Amiga CD32 came out closer to the SNES than the N64, but they're considered in the same generation as the latter. I guess because they're 32-bit, but that doesn't really mean anything. Also, in Japan, PC Engine is closer to Mark III chronologically than Super Famicom, and the PC Engine came out in Japan the same year as the XEGS in America. I'm not saying any of these are wrong, but it is kind of arbitrary. I mean, if you look at the years each generation's systems debuted, it just looks weird. And where does the GX4000 go?

I mentioned in my last post that I'm not sure about the SMS/SG-1000 issue, that is a tricky one. Still though, it was designed as a competitor to the NES, a stronger one than the SG-1000 was, while the PC Engine was designed more as a successor. I think that that difference does matter, and along with the power difference (the TG16 is clearly much more powerful than the SMS), justifies why the generation line goes between those two, I think. Like with the 3DO and Jaguar (and to a lesser extent the Dreamcast) the TG16 always has been a system whose proper generation has been an issue of debate... the early systems in the generations get exceeded by later ones, leaving people unsure if they should really count as next-gen. I think, though, that their original intent as next-gen platforms, and that when they were released they indisputably were new systems much more powerful than the older ones, definitely justifies it in all those cases. Most are also successors to previous consoles, which also definitely is a factor.

As for systems like the XEGS, C64GS, and GX4000... those sort of are a separate category, aren't they, consolized computers... all are based on machines that were old when they released, so by power they go in generations before their year of release would suggest... but they released while the system they were designed to compete with (the NES, pretty much) was still number one, so that explains it really. Are they next-gen though? You have a good point that it is another grey area. The fact that all three were quite unsuccessful causes many people to just ignore them and not think about where they go, I think. But sure, they do need to be placed somewhere. :)


Video Game Consoles - Listed By First Release Date In Any Region

This list includes all major consoles and handhelds released anywhere, with their year of first release somewhere listed, in year order. Within a year specifc month/day dates are too often not available, so usually the listings within each year are not in order.

Not included: Computers.

Also not included: Set-Top Boxes and other computers that just attach to a TV. It's very hard to draw the line, but I left the XEGS, Famicom Basic Keyboard/Data Recorder (mostly because a couple of cartridge games support the tape drive for saving), Zemmix systems, Coleco Adam, Bandai/Apple Pippin, Amiga CD32, and CD-i in, but left out the Tandy/Memorex VIS (1992), Amiga CDTV (1991), and things like WebTV, those Gateway PCs designed to be attached to televisions, etc. Any thoughts on this?

Handheld LCD game systems really should be included, if they have switchable cartridges, but the only one I'm sure of is the R-Zone. The PopStation and its clones should be on this list too though, they probably count. I just don't know which ones exactly there are, and when they were released...

Finally, Cell phones and PDAs (other than the N.Gage and Zodiac, which were consoles too) are not included. That should probably be a separate list.

Non-gaming addons, or addons that do not have any games that actually require them (just having special features for that hardware are not enough, it must be an exclusive title), do not count.


Key
--
(Handheld) - Handheld console

(Educational) - System aimed only at young kids, with mostly educational software.

? after a year - Uncertain if that year is accurate (see listing for notes)

* - addon with exclusive titles (if the addon does not have games that require it, it will not be on this list -- not counting extra chips included on a cart, Super FX style...)

^ - System requires a major console (listed) in order to play games on it.


Systems I know exist, but do not have dates for yet: Palcom, Video Buddy (Educational), Fisher Price Pixter (Educational), Gakken Compact Vision, Bandai Telebiko (VHS tapes), digiBLAST, CALTIME J-401-1 (Handheld), Game BQA (Handheld), Videojet Gamemaster (Handheld), Gametronic (Handheld), Pasago Go (Handheld), iSport TV Game, Buzztime Home Trivia System, Video Mate TV Jack 5000, Tomy Kiss-Site (Karaoke only), Go Go TV Game System, Handheld TV Game Player AC 699 (unless it's a famiclonewhich it likely is), Teleng Colourstars and clones (probably late 1970s, maybe early '80s), Karvan Jeu Video TV/Societe Occitane OC2000 (one of six groupings of Signetics CPU systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different Teleng/Rowtron Television Computer System (one of six groupings of systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different shaped cartridges), ITMC MPT-05 Video Ordinateur (one of six groupings of systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different shaped cartridges) (all three of these groupings are surely from the 1976-1982 period, but when?)

See below for complete clone system listings, instead of just the main system or two in each grouping.

1972 - Magnavox Odyssey (usually considered a console, though the cards do not contain roms, only rewiring of the chips inside the system)
1975 - PC-50x family of systems (many systems, all cart-compatible clones; the system uses carts, but they are not rom carts, the carts simply have a CPU on them. They're "Pong-on-a-chip" carts.)
(Many stand-alone dedicated systems were released between 1972 and 1978. They are not consoles.)
1976 - Fairchild Video Entertainment System/Channel F (the first system which used programmable ROM cartridges)
1976 - Radofin 1292 APVS and clones (one of six groupings of Signetics CPU systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different shaped cartridges) (some clones released as late as 1979)
1977 - Atari Video Computer System/2600
1977 - RCA Studio II
1977 - Coleco Telstar Arcade
1977 - Bally (Midway) Professional Arcade/Astrovision Astrocade
1978 - Magnavox Odyssey 2/Phillips Videopac G7000 (had a "The Voice" voice addon, but no games require it, they only support it?)
1978 - Bandai TV Jack 5000 (Pong-on-a-chip carts, like the PC-50x line)
1978 - APF Imagination Machine MP-1000 (console component, can be stand-alone or can connect to the APF Imagination Machine computer, to form a hybrid system that plays both computer and console games)
1978 - APF Imagionation Machine MP-10 (computer component, combines with MP-1000 to form hybrid computer/console system)
1978 - Intertron VC-4000 (one of six groupings of systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different shaped cartridges) (designed/produced from 1974, but only released in 1978)
1979 or before - Optim Majestic EG-1001
1979 - Milton-Bradley Microvision (Handheld)
1979 - Bandai Supervision 8000 TV Jack Micro Computer System
1979 - Mattel IntelliVision (test marketed in 1979, wide release in 1980)
1980 - Voltmace/Videomaster Database (one of six groupings of systems that are mostly hardware-compatible but use different shaped cartridges)
1981 - Entex Select-a-Game (Handheld)
1981 - Epoch Cassette Vision
1981 - VTech CreatiVision (Handheld) (Educational)
1982 - Tomy Tutor (Educational, mostly)
*1982 - IntelliVoice for IntelliVision (Intellivision addon. Five games use, and require, it.)
1982 - Emerson Arcadia 2001
1982 - Coleco ColecoVision
1982 - Atari 5200
1982 - Entex AdventureVision (Tabletop system with battery or AC power options)
1982 - Milton Bradley Vectrex
1983 - Sega SG-1000
1983 - Casio PV-1000
1983 - Nichibutsu My Vision
1983 - Gakken Compact Vision
1983 - Phillips Videopac+ G7400/Odyssey 3 (only former version was released)
1983 - Nintendo Famicom/NES
*1983 - Coleco Adam (Computer/console hybrid)
*1984 - Famicom Basic Keyboard and its Famicom Data Recorder accessory (addon for the Famicom (incompatible with the NES); Data Recorder plugs into the Basic Keyboard, but is sold separately.) (computer/console hybrid)
1984 - Epoch Game Pocket Computer (Handheld)
1984 - Epoch Super Cassette Vision
1984 - Romtec Colorvision (Handheld)
1985 - Zemmix CPC-50 (MSX-compatible console)
1985 - Sega Master System
1985 - RDI Halcyon
1986 - Atari 7800
*1986 - Famicom Disk System (addon for the Famicom/NES, cannot be used at the same time as the Basic Keyboard)
1987 - Atari XE Game System
1987 - Worlds of Wonder Action Max (VHS tapes)
1987 - NEC PC Engine/TurboGrafx-16
1987 - LJN Video Art (Educational, all games are just drawing on the screen, no other 'gameplay')
1987 - Mattel Captain Power XT-7 (VHS tapes, sort of a console)
*1988 - NEC PC Engine CD/Turbo CD
1988 - VTech Socrates (Educational)
1988 - Sega Genesis/Mega Drive
1988 - View-Master Interactive Vision (Educational)
1989 - NEC SuperGrafx
1989 - Nintendo Game Boy (Handheld)
1989 - Atari Lynx (Handheld)
1990 - Amstrad GX4000
1990 - Hartung Game Master
1990 - Commodore 64 Game System
1990? - Bit Corp. Gamate (sometime in the early 1990s) (Handheld)
1990 - Zemmix CPC-61 (MSX2-compatible console)
1990 - SNK Neo-Geo
1990 - Super Famicom/Super Nintendo
1990 - Sega Game Gear (Handheld)
1991 - Philips CD-i
*1991 - Philips CD-i Digital Video Cartridge (CD-i addon)
1991 - Sega Meganet Modem (addon for Sega Mega Drive (incompatible with Genesis))
*1991 - Sega CD/Mega CD (for Genesis/Mega Drive)
1992 - Watara Supervision (Handheld)
1993 - Creatonic/Videojet/Timlex/Cougar Cougar Boy/Mega Duck (Handheld)
1993 - Fujitsu FM Towns Marty
1993 - Commodore Amiga CD32
1993 - Pioneer LaserActive (requires Sega PAC or NEC PAC to work with games, and each have separate, incompatible games)
*1993 - LaserActive NEC PAC (plays TG16/PCE, TGCD/PCECD, and LD-ROM2 games)
*1993 - LaserActive Sega PAC (plays Genesis/Mega Drive, Sega CD/Mega CD, and Mega LD games)
1993 - Sega Pico (Educational)
1993 - 3DO Company 3DO (Panasonic, Goldstar, Sanyo, and Creative Labs produced 3DO models)
1993 - Atari Jaguar
1994 - Sega Saturn
1994 - Sony PlayStation
1994 - SNK Neo-Geo CD
1994 - NEC PC-FX
*1994 - Sega Channel (Genesis/Mega Drive addon, had no real exclusives but some special modified versions of games and regional exclusives (games not sold on cart in that region)
1994 - Capcom Power System Changer
1994 - Bandai Playdia (Educational and quiz games only)
*1994 - Sega 32X/Sega Mega 32X (for Genesis/Mega Drive)
*1994? - Sega Saturn Video CD (MPEG) Card (Saturn addon, one game does require it, though it is just an upgraded version of a game that does not require it)
1995 - Nintendo Virtual Boy (Tabletop system with battery or AC power options)
1995 - Funtech Super A'Can
*1995 - Atari Jaguar CD
*1995 - Nintendo Satellaview (addon for Super Famicom)
1995 - Tiger Electronics R-Zone (Handheld)
1995 - Casio Loopy
1995 - Bandai Apple Pippin
1996 - Nintendo 64
*1996 - Sega Saturn 1MB RAM Expansion Cartridge (Saturn addon cart)
1997 - Tiger Electronics game.com (Handheld)
*1997 - Sega Saturn 4MB RAM Expansion Cartridge (Saturn addon cart)
1998 - SNK Neo Geo Pocket (Handheld)
1998 - Nintendo Game Boy Color (Handheld)
1998 - Sega Dreamcast
*1998 - Nintendo 64 Expansion Pak (Nintendo 64 addon pak, two games require it and many more support it)
^1998 - Sega VMU (Handheld, no physical media, requires a Sega Dreamcast and compatible Dreamcast games to get games onto the system)
1999 - SNK Neo Geo Pocket Color (Handheld)
1999 - Bandai WonderSwan (Handheld)
^1999 - Sony PocketStation (Handheld, no physical media, requires a PlayStation 1 or 2 and compatible Playstation 1 games to put games onto the system)
*1999 - Nintendo 64 Disk Drive (addon for Nintendo 64)
2000 - Sony PlayStation 2
2000 - VM Labs Nuon (hardware included in specific Samsung, Toshiba, and RCA DVD players)
2000 - Bandai WonderSwan Color (Handheld)
2001 - Nintendo Game Boy Advance (Handheld)
2001 - GamePark GP32 (Handheld, emulation/PMP focused)
2001 - Tapwave Zodiac (Handheld, Palm PDA based but more powerful)
2001 - Nintendo Pokemon Mini (Handheld)
2001 - Nintendo Gamecube
2001 - Microsoft Xbox
*2001 - Nintendo e-Reader (Game Boy Advance addon)
2003 - LeapFrog Leapster (Handheld) (Educational)
2003 - Nokia N-Gage (Handheld/Cellphone)
2003 - Timetop GameKing (Handheld)
2003 - Nintendo iQue (Handheld N64, no cartridges; uses flash memory cards that games are downloaded to instead)
2004 - VTech V.Smile (Educational)
2004 - XaviX XaviXPORT
2004 - Nintendo DS (Handheld)
2004 - Sony PlayStation Portable (Handheld/PMP)
2005 - Microsoft Xbox 360
2005 - GamePark GP2X (Handheld, emulation/PMP focused)
2005 - Tiger Telematics Gizmondo (Handheld)
2005 - Zap-it Game Wave
2006 - Mattel HyperScan
2007? - VTech V.Flash (may have been released in 2006?) (Educational)
2007 - "KenSingTon"/"Chitendo" Vii model 2/V-Sports
2006 - Nintendo Wii
2006 - Sony PlayStation 3
2008 - VTech V.Motion
2008 - Gemei x760+ (Handheld, emulation/PMP focused)
2009 - Nintendo DSi (Handheld)
2009 - Shenzen Dingoo Dingoo (Handheld, emulation/PMP focused)
2009 - GamePark GP2X Wiz (Handheld, emulation/PMP focused)
2009 - Zeebo Inc. Zeebo (company used to be called TecToy)

Upcoming Confirmed Systems
2009? - OpenPandora Pandora (Handheld)

--
More sources or places to look for information (note -- do NOT expect all information to be accurate, it won't be! These are just places to look. Finding out which information is accurate is a whole different question, and much harder.)
--
www.gamefaqs.com
www.mobygames.com
www.videogameconsolelibrary.com
en.wikipedia.com
www.digitpress.com
www.assemblergames.com
www.old-computers.com
www.consoledatabase.com
www.pong-story.com
darkwatcher.home.att.net/console/
www.console-picture-page.de/catalog/
http://www.handheldmuseum.com/index.html

--
Clone System Listings (licensed systems only, hopefully!)
--

--
General Instruments CPU (Teleng Colourstars, etc) Systems
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1199&st=2
--
Teleng Colourstars
Polycon PG-7
Prinztronic Micro 5500
SHG Blackpoint
Ingersoll XK-4000

--
Signetics CPU (Radofin 1292 APVS/etc) Systems
http://www.digitpress.com/faq/1292faq.txt
http://www.dieterkoenig.at/ccc/it/s_it_cartlist.htm
--

* The Interton VC-4000 sub-group
Interton VC-4000
Grundig Super Play Computer 4000
Palson CX 3000 Tele Computer
Körting TVC-4000

* The 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System sub-group
Radofin 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System
Radofin 1392 Advanced Programmable Video System
Hanimex HMG-1292 Advanced Programmable Video System
Hanimex HMG-1392 Advanced Programmable Video System
Fountain Programmable Video System (same as below?)
Fountain 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System
Fountain 1392 Advanced Programmable Video System
Fountain Force 2
Grandstand Advanced Programmable Video System
Lansay 1392
Audio Sonic Programmable Video System (same as one of the below two?)
Audiosonic PP-1292 Advanced Programmable Video System
Audiosonic PP-1392 Advanced Programmable Video System
Prinztronic VC-6000
Prinztronic Tournament (same as above?)
Acetronic MPU-1000
Acetronic MPU-2000
...and possibly Lansay 1292 (needs confirmation as to whether this
console exists) and Acetronic MPU-3000, released 1980 (compatibility
with the 1292 series needs to be confirmed).

* The Database sub-group
Videomaster Database
Waddington/Voltmace Database

* The Television Computer System sub-group
Rowtron Television Computer System

* The Video TV Game sub-group
Karvan Jeu Video TV (Karvan Video TV Game)
Societe Occitane Electronique OC-2000 (Occitane Electronic Company OC-
2000)

* The MPT-05 sub-group
ITMC MPT-05

* Unknown sub-group (Not Intertron VC-4000 group)
TRQ H-21 (Talleres Radioeléctricos Querol H-21)

--
PC-50x Group of Systems
http://www.pong-story.com/sd050.htm
http://darkwatcher.home.att.net/console/pc50xfam.htm
--
ITMC SD-050
Grandstand SD-050
Hanimex SD-050
Audiosonic PP-790
Universum Programmable TV Game
Acetronic Color TV Game
Hanimex SD-070
Prinztronic Micro 10
Prinztronic Micro 5500
SHG Blackpoint
Poppy 9015
Sanwa 9015
Unimex Mark IX
Optim 600
Palladium Tele Cassetten Game
Binatone Cablestar
Grandstand Programmable TV Game
Poppy TVG 10
Radofin Telesports 3
SECAM Jeu Video Cassette Interchangeable
Mercury Commander / Mark 3
ROLLET 4/303 'Video Secam System'
SIPO Heim-Video-Cassettenspiel
Poppy SECAM Jeu Video SD 050S
Grandstand Colour Programmable SD-070
Creatronic Program 2000 SD-050
Hanimex SD-070 couleur
Tempest Programmable TV Game SD-050C
Soundic Programmable TV Game
ITMC SD 050S Telejou Coleur
Soundic 050S
Rollet 4/303
SECAM Jeu Video SD 050S



US Released Systems Only
--
Not counting any stand-alone systems -- that is only systems which you can get new games for count, not ones where all the games come built in. Not counting cellphones. US dates and systems only. * after the name means it's a handheld. Leaving out addons.

1972 - Magnavox Odyssey
1976 - Fairchild Channel F
1977 - RCA Studio II, Atari VCS (2600), Coleco Telstar Arcade, Bally Professional Arcade/Astrovision Astrocade
1978 - APF Imagination Machine, Magnavox Odyssey 2
1979 - Milton Bradley Microvision*, Mattel Intellivision
1981 - Entex Select-A-Game*, V.Tech CreatiVision
1982 - Emerson Arcadia 2001, Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex, Entex AdventureVision*
1983 - none in the US (one addon was 1983, the Coleco Adam addon version)
1984 - Romtec Colorvision*
1985 - NES
1986 - Sega Master System, Atari 7800
1987 - Atari XE Game System, Worlds of Wonder Action Max (VHS-based), Captain Power XT-7 (VHS-based), LJN Video Art
1988 - V.Tech Socrates, View Master Interactive Vision (VHS-based)
1989 - Game Boy*, Atari Lynx*, TurboGrafx-16, Sega Genesis
1990 - Commodore 64 Game System
1991 - Neo Geo AES, Super Nintendo, Game Gear, CD-i
1992 - Watara Supervision (think it got some US distribution...)
1993 - Jaguar, 3DO, Pioneer LaserActive (Sega Genesis/CD or TG16/TGCD depending on addon, but with some new Laserdisc-based games too (that require those addons to work)), Commodore CD32 (Europe and Canada only, not the US), Sega Pico* (educational kids system based on Genesis hardware but modified a bit)
1994 - Neo Geo CD (sort of doesn't count, it's mostly just an MVS with CD games instead of carts)
1995 - Saturn, Playstation, Jaguar CD, Tiger R-Zone*, Apple/Bandai Pippin, Virtual Boy
1996 - N64
1997 - Tiger game.com*
1998 - Game Boy Color*
1999 - Dreamcast, Neo Geo Pocket Color*
2000 - Playstation 2, Nuon
2001 - Gameboy Advance*, Gamecube, Xbox, Pokemon Mini*, Tapwave Zodiac*
2002 - none
2003 - Nokia N-Gage*, LeapFrog Leapster*
2004 - NDS, XaviXPORT,V.Tech V.Smile
2005 - PSP, Xbox 360, Gizmondo*, Zap-it Game Wave
2006 - Playstation 3, Wii, Mattel HyperScan
2007 - V.Tech V.Flash
2008 - V.Tech V.Motion
2009 - DSi*
2010 - none so far

Note that the Leapfrog and V.Tech systems are for young kids only and have only educational games on them.

Also, I'd consider the GBC and DSi separate systems because there are games that only work with them and not the older models, and they have more powerful hardware than the original systems.

[tom]

So at what Gen do you put the C64GS, Amstrad GX 4000, and the XEGS, as they came after NES, but existed as computers already in the 70s/early 80s.

[A Black Falcon]

So at what Gen do you put the C64GS, Amstrad GX 4000, and the XEGS, as they came after NES, but existed as computers already in the 70s/early 80s.

I was just thinking about that, and I guess the best answer I can come up with at the moment is that they're fourth gen systems which failed because they were designed to compete with the third gen systems, but came out way too late, I guess?

I think that "consoles should be considered as part of the generation they were released in timeline-wise, even if they do not match up technologically to other systems of that generation" is reasonable.

The XEGS is a little different from the other two, because as a 1987 system it could perhaps be put in the third generation (given that while the first fourth gen system came out in Japan in 1987, in the West that generation hadn't started yet), but the other two... 1990, with third gen designs... I think my description above might work with them. I don't know, anyone else have an idea?

Looking just at the bottom portion of my list there, that is the US-only section of it, which generation would any of those 1987 and 1988 systems go in? There were several of those odd VHS-based systems in that period too -- the ActionMax, Captain Power, etc...

[MADrigal]

Creativision is not a handheld/educational console.
It's a real console/home computer hybrid, very popular in Australia and Europe. Check my CreatiVEmu website for more infos. :-)