Who Defined Which Years Formed Which Video Game Generations?

[Nz17]

I remember a few years ago, some (academic?) Web page proposed breaking video game consoles into generations along the lines of certain years. I believe the page used a tan-colored table which listed the generations and years alongside the left-hand side of the pages which each linked to more info about the game gens. At the time, it was laughed at, as most people believed 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit/CD-ROM, 64/128-bit, and current were all we needed.

Well, in the meanwhile, Internet culture and video game historians have accepted this division by generations. The breakdown goes Pre-console (Up to 1972), First (1972–1977), Second (1976–1984), Third (1983–1992), Fourth (1987–1996), Fifth (1993–2006), Sixth (1998–), Seventh (2005–), Eighth (2012–).

So what I'm wondering is, who was the first to define these generations along these lines? The earliest I can find is "A History of Home Video Game Consoles (http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141)" by Michael Miller, which is dated 2005-04-01. Are there any earlier writings from before April 2005 which defined the consoles this way? If anyone could point the way to the Web page I referred to at the beginning of this post, I believe that to be the first. But the older the better, I say!

Who defined the game generations?

[j_factor]

Whoever wrote the relevant Wikipedia articles. Seriously. They didn't invent the concept of course. But the breakdown was invented by them. Including Colecovision and Atari 5200 as the same generation as Atari 2600 etc. was pretty much invented out of whole cloth by Wikipedia. And referring to generations by ordinal numbers, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia started that as well.

[Rickstilwell1]

Yeah personally I never considered lumping the 5200 and Coleco with the 2600, but at the same time it was the console generation that didn't catch on as well. If it were me back then I would have been excited about the improvement in graphics but it just goes to show that gameplay itself is more important than graphics and those controllers for these systems didn't make it very easy to adjust. They really took a while to get used to with their side buttons after so much use of the Atari 2600 joystick. Some people didn't bother to upgrade and that made the 2600 last through this lost generation's entire lifespan.

When it comes down to it, I have a lot more fun playing the Atari 5200/8-bit computer versions of games because they just seem more polished. I even play those more than the 7800 versions of the games.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

I'm pretty sure people were using the terms before 2005, and before Wikipedia was around. I don't know where it originated, but I don't think it was written in one day. I imagine it happened piece-by-piece over the decades by multiple people, probably magazine writers. There needed to be a consistent method for writing about the past. It probably all came together in the 1990s. I'm pretty sure if I looked at my EGM collection right now, I can find references to the generations of consoles.

Lumping 5200 and Colecovision in with the Atari 2600? That seems reasonable to me. Those were pre-crash consoles. The crash was one of the defining events in video game history, so it's an excellent way to group them. It's the same way with human history, which divides things around wars, like WWII (pre-war period and post-war period)

I'm fine with the current division, and it would be a lot of trouble to change it.

[Rob2600]

Lumping 5200 and Colecovision in with the Atari 2600? That seems reasonable to me. Those were pre-crash consoles. The crash was one of the defining events in video game history, so it's an excellent way to group them. It's the same way with human history, which divides things around wars, like WWII (pre-war period and post-war period)

By that logic, the NES, Genesis, Jaguar, PlayStation, Xbox, and Wii are all post-crash consoles, and are therefore all part of the same hardware generation.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

By that logic, the NES, Genesis, Jaguar, PlayStation, Xbox, and Wii are all post-crash consoles, and are therefore all part of the same hardware generation.

There are obviously other dividing points that are needed. ONE of those dividing points has to be the crash however. It was a major event that brought the end of a whole generation of video game systems; it's the perfect place for a dividing point.

[Rob2600]

There are obviously other dividing points that are needed. ONE of those dividing points has to be the crash however. It was a major event that brought the end of a whole generation of video game systems; it's the perfect place for a dividing point.

Still makes no sense. The Atari 5200 and ColecoVision are clearly the next hardware generation up from the Atari 2600, yet all three are currently lumped into the same generation.

We might as well lump the NES and SNES into the same generation because they're both post-crash, both 2D sprite-based, and both pre-polygon era (for the most part).

[JSoup]

This comes up a lot on Wikipedia when someone disagrees with a generation grouping or it's time to add a new generation article. It seems that a lot of the information they've amassed came from A History of Home Video Game Consoles by Michael Miller and industry people randomly applying the word "generation" to their product. I'm seeing a few sources here and there stating Coleco used the term "Third Generation of Gaming" in reference to their product.

A popular opinion that pops up from time to time in discussions so to split all PONG consoles into a new article, called "0th Generation" or "Pre-Generation". The whole thing is a mess that's just gotten worse over time.

Delving into newer discussions, I'm finding that Wikipedians involved in the project are finally willing to admit that a vast majority of the generation articles are original research, something Wikipedia frowns on. Sadly, while a bunch of the terms came into being during the early days of Wikipedia, a lot of them have fallen into common use and are seen in retro articles in gaming magazines and such. The mess has gotten to the point that while, yes, the terms should be ditched for being original research, they can't be because there are enough publications using the terms to serve as a source for their own notability.

[markusman64ds]

The SG-1000 is on the articles for 2nd generation and 3rd generation. Wikipedia seems confused.

I guess we can consider the 5200 and Colecovision part of a 2.5th generation? Sort of the generation that didn't exactly take off? Most of the later pre-crash consoles like the 5200 were only out for a few years.

I wouldn't consider the NES and SNES part of the same generation. They were both sprite based, but 16-bit was another dividing point. Faster games, better graphics and one of the most notable console wars to this day. We also got more than just chiptune music, which is innovative.

Polygons and 3D games would be another dividing point. We also saw discs start to be used as the default storage media instead of being used with add-ons. 3D and more detailed levels made games play differently from the previous gen.

Next point which seperates the 5th and 6th gen I guess would be the rise of DVDs. One of the reasons the Dreamcast failed was because the PS2 could play DVD movies at a cheap price. We also saw a rise in online gaming, with the Dreamcast being the first console to have a built-in modem.

7th gen dividing point would be the high-definition graphics and motion-controlled games. More people can now get into games because of the Wii Remote.

8th gen from what it looks like will be a rise in casual gaming. Touchscreen's are becoming more common as well. The 3DS, Vita and Wii U all have them built-in. SmartGlass is coming soon too. iOS and Android are helping even more people get into games.

[Aussie2B]

I've always been served well enough by the much more natural divisions of pre-crash, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32/64-bit, previous generation, and current generation. What I'll use to refer to the PS2/GameCube/Xbox era after the next round of home consoles come out, I don't know. :P

I really couldn't care less about making distinctions among the pre-crash systems. Even with Atari having two different consoles and the Colecovision coming out fairly close to when the Famicom came out in Japan, I still don't think there were significant evolutions within the pre-crash period to warrant a ton of separations. Minor graphical upgrades aside, none of the pre-crash systems had hardware particularly friendly to full-fledge soundtracks, none had D-pad based controllers, most games consisted of static screens rather than scrolling games, most games were arcade-style with a focus on improving scores rather than reaching a distinct end of the game, and so on. These are the huge differences that separate pre-crash gaming from the 8-bit era.

[Rob2600]

To me, there are very clear differences between the Atari 2600 and the 5200/ColecoVision.

Just because the 5200 and ColecoVision only lasted two years on the market, that doesn't mean they should be lumped in with the previous hardware generation.

I'm surprised there's even a debate about this.

[substantial_snake]

To me, there are very clear differences between the Atari 2600 and the 5200/ColecoVision.

Just because the 5200 and ColecoVision only lasted two years on the market, that doesn't mean they should be lumped in with the previous hardware generation.

I'm surprised there's even a debate about this.

Probably three reasons:

A: The majority of gamers today that ever care about such things, the pre-crash days were before their time. Thus is easy to throw everything together.

B: Failure to hit it big before the crash so its easier to just lump them all in together. (honestly before I though about it I was here...but still am too young)

C: Can be argued that the 2600 was still the Coleco Visions main competitor at the time since the 5200 wasen't even too hot back then.

I define a generation by major competition between large competitors, with the exception of the first two generations. I consider things like the Vetrex, Neo Geo, and 3DO "secondary" since they either failed to take significant market share by the start of the next generation or simply didn't go after the same market and so would never reach similar sales to the "main" competitors. I think its fair to make an exception for the pre crash consoles because of the clear leap from the 2600, but I would still call it a half generation because of the crash and failure for them to really take off.

Personally it goes :
Gen 0 : Oscilloscope Era
Gen 1 : Magnavox Odyssey / Various Pong Consoles
Gen 2 : Atari 2600 / Intelevision
Gen 2.5 : ColecoVision / Atari 5200
Gen 3 : NES / SMS / Atari 7800
Gen 4 : Sega Genesis / SNES / TG-16
Gen 5 : Sony Playstation / Sega Saturn / N64
Gen 6 : Sega Dreamcast / Sony Playstation 2 / Nintendo Gamecube / Microsoft Xbox
Gen 7 : Sony Playstation 3 / Microsoft Xbox360 / Nintendo Wii
Gen 8 : Nintendo Wii U / ? / ?

The handheld generations are mostly staggered +/- 2 years to their console counterparts now and because of that I have them on their own generational scale. I don't really think really think its that complicated.

[JeremiahJT]

To me, there are very clear differences between the Atari 2600 and the 5200/ColecoVision.

Just because the 5200 and ColecoVision only lasted two years on the market, that doesn't mean they should be lumped in with the previous hardware generation.

I'm surprised there's even a debate about this.

I think the biggest reason for this is that a large number of people helping decide what constitutes a generation started gaming with the NES and sometimes think anything before the NES doesn't matter. Now I am not saying everybody that started with an NES feels that way, but a lot of them do.

I think it's ridiculous that there is not an extra generation in there, but like someone said it's all just pre-crash to many.

[j_factor]

If Atari 5200 and Colecovision aren't their own generation, they should be lumped in with the systems that followed, not the systems that preceded. The SG-1000 used extremely similar hardware to the Colecovision (hence the Telegames Dina clone that could play both), hence Sega Master System is basically an upgraded Colecovision. The Atari 5200 and XEGS also have very similar hardware. Colecovision and Atari 5200 came out one year before the Famicom. Another way of looking at it is they came out five years after the VCS and five years before the PC Engine, putting them squarely in the middle. In Japan, the MSX is seen as the Famicom's main rival and came out the same year; the MSX hardware is very similar to the Colecovision.

As far as them "not catching on", neither did the 3DO or Jaguar, but they're still generally considered with the Playstation generation, not the Genesis generation. Colecovision was much more successful than those consoles too, to put it in perspective.

[TonyTheTiger]

I've always been served well enough by the much more natural divisions of pre-crash, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32/64-bit, previous generation, and current generation. What I'll use to refer to the PS2/GameCube/Xbox era after the next round of home consoles come out, I don't know. :P

At some point it's going to become completely unwieldy no matter what. Even right now, say "fifth generation" to someone and they may have to do some finger counting before they know exactly what you're talking about. What's going to happen when we start saying "twelfth generation" and "eighteenth generation"? There's a reason why past presidents are usually discussed by name and "21st President = Chester A. Arthur" is limited to trivia in Die Hard With a Vengeance.

With the previous generation, I've actually come to use "PS2 era" as shorthand. I'll probably do the same for "360/PS3 era" or something. It's not the most academically neutral but it does the job of communicating the intent.

[slapdash]

I was a gamer pre-Crash, and still care about those systems a lot, but even I tend to lump all the pre-Crash systems together as "the Atari era" (and pre-programmables as "the Pong era"), then there's "the Nintendo era", "the 16-bit era", "the Playstation era", and "the modern era". Of course, "the modern era" just keeps getting bigger, sort of like "The Modern Age" in comics is a growing catch-all for anything that isn't "Golden Age", "Silver Age" or "Bronze Age", but that's a problem for another day.

I can also see a case for wanting to separate out the Colecovision from the Atari 2600, but perhaps that just means we should get even more specific with our terminology, and realize that we have "eras" and we have "generations" and they don't match up with any kind of certainty.

[Rob2600]

Lumping the 2600, 5200, and ColecoVision into the same general "era" is fine. I don't care about that.

What bothers me is people lumping all three of those consoles into the same hardware generation, when obviously the 5200 and ColecoVision are a generation ahead of the 2600.

I know I'm getting caught up in semantics, but I don't want younger gamers getting confused and thinking the 2600 was as powerful as the 5200 and ColecoVision.

In other words, "The pre-crash era spanned two hardware generations: the Atari 2600, followed by the 5200 and ColecoVision."


The confusion stems from people using the terms "generation" and "era" interchangeably, when those two words mean completely different things. (Another example: "There are currently three generations of iPads in the post-PC era.")

[Andy]

I agree. The Colecovision and 5200 were eye-popping advances on the 2600 at the time (and the NES was another leap ahead of those consoles). The 2600 was increasingly creaky as people were hungering for more arcade-accurate home games and the Coleco/5200 provided them with that.

[Aussie2B]

I don't think 99% of younger gamers are even going to know what the Colecovision is, let alone care, haha.

I think speaking of hardware generations is relevant for current times, but it gets less and less worthwhile the farther you go back, not unless there were significant changes between those generations, in which case the generation can be spoke of as an era as well. The 8-bit era brought about huge changes, the 16-bit era brought new forms of media and provided enough processing power to allow for genres that couldn't exist very well prior (like fighters), and the 32/64-bit era brought 3D to the mainstream. The more recent generations haven't offered such significant changes, so I don't know if the PS2, 360, and Wii U all deserve to be recognized as belonging to distinct eras but they are worth separating by generation just by virtue of being recent. Going back before 8-bit, there are multiple hardware generations in the technical sense, but beyond acknowledging that in discussions of game history, there's no particular need to separate out the pre-crash era because it didn't see significant changes like those that came in the late 80s and throughout the 90s.

[j_factor]

I don't see how the "crash" is even a relevant dividing point. It has nothing to do with hardware, it was purely a sales thing. All it means is that the Colecovision and Atari 5200 died early. As I said before, so did the 3DO and Jaguar, but nobody puts them in the same generation as Genesis. Also, the "crash" was a North America only event, if you can even call it an event.

[Aussie2B]

The crash was the catalyst for a huge shift in hardware and game design. The industry instantly switched from Western-dominated to Japan-dominated, which in turn brought completely new styles of game development. Nintendo didn't want to repeat the mistakes of the past, so they purposely sought out a different approach. And while the crash was North American, it still works as a worldwide dividing point because home console gaming was practically nonexistent in Japan prior to the Famicom anyway.

[j_factor]

The crash was the catalyst for a huge shift in hardware and game design.

I don't see how that's the case for hardware at all. As I outlined above, the Sega Master System is basically an upgraded Colecovision. The Atari XEGS is very similar to the 5200. And the NES is merely the belated import of a pre-crash console. The 7800 arguably came out during the crash. After those you're at the PC Engine, which is pretty far removed.


The industry instantly switched from Western-dominated to Japan-dominated, which in turn brought completely new styles of game development.

Instantly? There's a significant gap in between the crash and the release of the NES. And that's only the console market, not the entire gaming industry. And I don't see what any of this has to do with "completely new styles of game development". Sure, there were innovative and trend-setting games during this period, but there always are. I'm not sure what difference it makes what country a system comes from, anyway.


Nintendo didn't want to repeat the mistakes of the past, so they purposely sought out a different approach.

Could you be any more vague? What are you talking about, the lockout chip?


And while the crash was North American, it still works as a worldwide dividing point because home console gaming was practically nonexistent in Japan prior to the Famicom anyway.

Ok, except in Japan the Famicom is considered the same generation as SG-1000, which is practically identical to the Colecovision, along with MSX, which is also very very similar hardware.

[Aussie2B]

Did you read my first post in this topic? I already made perfectly clear what kinds of huge changes took place which divide pre-crash gaming from 8-bit era gaming. I think a gamer would have to willfully put on blinders to not recognize the massive difference in what games and systems were like. It seems like you read my post in the same way as you quoted it, line-by-line with zero regard for context. You're also taking things ridiculously literally. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that I didn't mean "instantly" literally in the sense that the NES came out the day after the crash. Sheesh. I obviously mean that the Western home console business didn't slowly fade away, with the Japanese slowly gaining a foothold. The Western industry crashed hard, while the NES, after debuting, had a meteoric rise to fame, with Nintendo getting an iron grip on the industry. From that point forward, Japan dominated for many, many years.

[j_factor]

Did you read my first post in this topic? I already made perfectly clear what kinds of huge changes took place which divide pre-crash gaming from 8-bit era gaming. I think a gamer would have to willfully put on blinders to not recognize the massive difference in what games and systems were like.

I think you're overstating it. Yes, gaming changed. But there isn't some bright line with this type of games on one side, and that type of games on the other. The NES still had games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong on it, while the older systems had games like Gateway to Apshai and War Room. The difference in what games were like happened gradually. If you look at, say, Commodore 64, you'll find that it has a lot of early releases with that "pre-crash style" that you're talking about, along with a lot of middle to later releases that are more along the lines of "NES style" gaming. There was a gap between Coleco/5200 and NES, but there was no gap in the C64 where no games were coming out. Same thing with the Famicom in Japan -- it started off with Donkey Kong and games of that nature, and took time to branch out to more "advanced" stuff.

I just don't see how the SG-1000 can be considered a generation ahead of the Colecovision, when the two are basically the same damn thing.

[Rickstilwell1]

That's what I was about to bring up. Back then home computers hooked up to the TV, took cartridges and joysticks, were the same power level as consoles of their time and had games of the same style. Commodore 64 was the reason for the crash. It was just considered more useful and advertised itself as a gaming machine just as well as it stated it could do more. It was like the PS3 this generation saying it can do everything. It took a while but eventually people bought in.

The Commodore 64 came out the same year as the Atari 5200 and Colecovision as well - 1982. It did a good job winning the competition during that period. So good it kicked its competition out completely. It was as if it was the PS2 and the 5200 and Colecovision were both Dreamcasts.

[j_factor]

That's what I was about to bring up. Back then home computers hooked up to the TV, took cartridges and joysticks, were the same power level as consoles of their time and had games of the same style. Commodore 64 was the reason for the crash. It was just considered more useful and advertised itself as a gaming machine just as well as it stated it could do more. It was like the PS3 this generation saying it can do everything. It took a while but eventually people bought in.

The Commodore 64 came out the same year as the Atari 5200 and Colecovision as well - 1982. It did a good job winning the competition during that period. So good it kicked its competition out completely. It was as if it was the PS2 and the 5200 and Colecovision were both Dreamcasts.

Yep, and the C64 lasted a long time and certainly held its own against the NES. And in Europe they had the Commodore 64 Game System, but it sold terribly because why not just buy a regular C64? Incidentally, Wikipedia includes the C64GS in the same generation as NES (but the C64 itself doesn't count as they don't include computers). The underlying hardware in the C64GS is exactly the same as that of the regular Commodore 64 from 1982.

[TonyTheTiger]

The concept of "generation" itself is a bit wonky since, for all practical purposes, everyone is running a different race. The competition between contemporaries is more often than not the result of mutual simultaneous success or similar market appeal rather than a universal idea of "console generation" that officiates release schedules and life cycles. It's why a lot of people tend to forget the Dreamcast is "last gen" since it's a bit hard to rationalize it as a PS2/GCN/Xbox contemporary. It being Sega's "next gen" console following the Saturn doesn't really mean much when compared to other followups. So what if the GCN was also Nintendo's follow up to the N64 when the two consoles never really faced off? Hell, it barely faced off with the PS2. Same with the Jaguar and its placement despite having lived mostly during the heyday of the SNES and Genesis. What's really the criteria here?

[j_factor]

The concept of "generation" itself is a bit wonky since, for all practical purposes, everyone is running a different race. The competition between contemporaries is more often than not the result of mutual simultaneous success or similar market appeal rather than a universal idea of "console generation" that officiates release schedules and life cycles. It's why a lot of people tend to forget the Dreamcast is "last gen" since it's a bit hard to rationalize it as a PS2/GCN/Xbox contemporary. It being Sega's "next gen" console following the Saturn doesn't really mean much when compared to other followups. So what if the GCN was also Nintendo's follow up to the N64 when the two consoles never really faced off? Hell, it barely faced off with the PS2. Same with the Jaguar and its placement despite having lived mostly during the heyday of the SNES and Genesis. What's really the criteria here?

To me the criteria is the actual hardware, and to a lesser extent, the general intent when the system was released. Dreamcast is not PSX level hardware; it is comparable to the PS2 and Gamecube. Nor was it intended to be a contemporary competitor to the PSX that rode out the twilight years of the 32-bit era; it was intended as a next-gen offering, hoping to get existing console owners to upgrade. And it was supposed to last longer.

Compare that to the aforementioned Commodore 64GS. It was released in 1990, the same year as the Mega Drive in Europe and the Super Famicom in Japan. It, too, was supposed to last longer. But, the hardware was from 1982 and was not comparable to the Mega Drive. It wasn't really intended to compete with the Mega Drive either, it was aimed at the 8-bit market.

[TonyTheTiger]

It seems like the criteria jumps around between hardware specs and relevant years. Both the CD-I and 3DO were created with the same overall intent, as a sooper dooper upgrade over the competition, which at the time was the 16 bit consoles. But Wikipedia has the CD-I as fourth gen and the 3DO as fifth. Yeah, there's a two year gap between them but the Genesis and SNES share that same gap.

It's easy enough to recognize a company's followup system as that company's foray into "next gen." But when you have consoles coming out with no real history behind them, what determines the beginning of a new generation? It seems like a lot of it happens in retrospect.

[j_factor]

The CDi wasn't really intended to be a game console. They were hoping to integrate CDi / "green book" as another compact disc standard that would be integrated with various devices. They were hoping for a future in which anything with a CD drive could play CDi discs, just like how almost all of them can play audio CDs. They made all kinds of different CDi devices, including portable CD players, stereo system components, a TV with a CDi built-in, etc. The main consolesque CDi model that most people think of, was intended to be a "multimedia box". They made very little effort in the area of games. They also sold the things through infomercials and electronics stores, not game retailers. It's more akin to the Tandy VIS than anything. Basically like a computer without being a computer. When the Turbo Duo came out, it was advertised as the first self-contained CD-ROM game console, because CDi didn't count. If one has to categorize the CDi though, I do agree with putting it in the same generation as Genesis, since it's in roughly the same league. It has a 16-bit CPU, more powerful than the Genny's, but certainly more comparable to Genesis than Playstation.

The 3DO may have had some hype about its "multimedia" capabilities, but to roughly the same extent as systems like PS2. It was intended as a game console from the beginning, and 3DO made a big investment in game development. It was also touted by 3DO and others as a next generation console compared to Genesis and SNES. When Playstation and Saturn were being talked about prior to their release, 3DO was considered their competition, and would often be talked about in the same article. 3DO is a bit weaker than Playstation or Saturn, but it's still in the same league, and it has a 32-bit CPU with an FPU. Many 3DO games were ported to Playstation and Saturn, and they're more or less in line with other games for those systems, if a bit on the low end.

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't see why any of that matters, though. Either the thing appears on a list of game consoles or it doesn't. Whether or not it was "kinda sorta" in that market should have no bearing on whether or not it ushered in a new generation so long as it's generally accepted as a console, which it is. Otherwise, why put it in any "generation" at all?

Numbering the generations just doesn't really say anything of value because it's relatively arbitrary when one starts and ends (again, since everyone is running a different race). It's pretty much just a matter of picking the earliest point at which somebody can say "this is enough of an upgrade" and pretty much doesn't end until the most successful console within that window finally bites the dust or a reasonable earlier approximation based on surrounding circumstances.

[j_factor]

I don't see why any of that matters, though. Either the thing appears on a list of game consoles or it doesn't. Whether or not it was "kinda sorta" in that market should have no bearing on whether or not it ushered in a new generation so long as it's generally accepted as a console, which it is. Otherwise, why put it in any "generation" at all?

Ok, so what's wrong with putting CDi in the same generation as Genesis and SNES? Other than having a very large color palette for the time, it's very much in line with other 16-bit systems.

[TonyTheTiger]

Because the criteria for what makes something powerful enough to qualify as ushering in or just being part of a new generation is arbitrary as hell. Especially when you consider the fact that price points are all over the place and there isn't much agreement on what aspects of a machine matter the most (CPU? RAM? Format? Etc.) The LaserActive came out around the same time as the 3DO but its gaming abilities are very much rooted in Genesis/Turbo Duo, even with the Laserdisc games. Is it fifth gen? Does it even matter?

[j_factor]

The LaserActive was just a laserdisc player, it doesn't run its own code.

[Rob2600]

My only point was that the 5200 was Atari's next generation hardware, yet people on Wikipedia have lumped it into the same hardware generation as the 2600, which makes no sense.

[TonyTheTiger]

The LaserActive was just a laserdisc player, it doesn't run its own code.

Irrelevant. Right now I can click on the online rarity guide and under "systems" click "LaserActive" and see the entire library pop up.


My only point was that the 5200 was Atari's next generation hardware, yet people on Wikipedia have lumped it into the same hardware generation as the 2600, which makes no sense.

It's absolutely silly. There's really no rational explanation for it other than people just not caring since the 2600 steamrolled through it.

[j_factor]

Irrelevant. Right now I can click on the online rarity guide and under "systems" click "LaserActive" and see the entire library pop up.

They don't run on the bare LaserActive. All "LaserActive games" are either Mega LD or LD-ROM2 and require one or the other module, which is what the games actually run on.

[TonyTheTiger]

Again, so what? It's accepted as a console. How do the intricacies of the hardware relate to the issue at hand? What are you saying, that it doesn't belong on any list at all?

Your facts are right but that you even have to drop them at all is proving my point for me. That the "# generation" thing is silly and ultimately meaningless. They're given relatively arbitrary beginnings and ends, ala the 5200 example. It literally does not matter whether the LaserActive is forth or fifth gen because saying either one tells you nothing of value about the machine whatsoever. Console specs are all over the place during a generation.

[j_factor]

Again, so what? It's accepted as a console. How do the intricacies of the hardware relate to the issue at hand? What are you saying, that it doesn't belong on any list at all?

You asked "What's really the criteria here?" I said: "To me the criteria is the actual hardware, and to a lesser extent, the general intent when the system was released." You mention the LaserActive, and I explain how it's categorized based on the criteria I stated. How is there any question of whether the hardware is relevant, when that's what I said in the first place?


Your facts are right but that you even have to drop them at all is proving my point for me.

Proving your point for you? You asked a question. I assumed you were legitimately asking, not positing a question just to lure someone into some sort of rhetorical trap.


That the "# generation" thing is silly and ultimately meaningless. They're given relatively arbitrary beginnings and ends, ala the 5200 example. It literally does not matter whether the LaserActive is forth or fifth gen because saying either one tells you nothing of value about the machine whatsoever. Console specs are all over the place during a generation.

Why did you ask "Is it fifth gen?" if you so strongly feel that "fifth gen" is a meaningless distinction? If that's your opinion, that's fine. But you could have just said from the beginning, "this is what I think, and I don't care what anyone else says."

[Rickstilwell1]

Since we're talking about the Atari 5200 generation here, the Angry Video Game Nerd would say "who gives a flying fuckernaut?" which also sounds like "who gives a flying fuck-or-not?" Well the answer to that is some people.

[TonyTheTiger]

You asked "What's really the criteria here?" I said: "To me the criteria is the actual hardware, and to a lesser extent, the general intent when the system was released." You mention the LaserActive, and I explain how it's categorized based on the criteria I stated. How is there any question of whether the hardware is relevant, when that's what I said in the first place?



Proving your point for you? You asked a question. I assumed you were legitimately asking, not positing a question just to lure someone into some sort of rhetorical trap.



Why did you ask "Is it fifth gen?" if you so strongly feel that "fifth gen" is a meaningless distinction? If that's your opinion, that's fine. But you could have just said from the beginning, "this is what I think, and I don't care what anyone else says."

I asked the question because "actual hardware" is ridiculously vague and pretty inconsistent with respect to how much power is enough power and in what areas. You're right that it's mostly the thing that seems to matter but there's no yard stick to decide how much is enough. We can see it with the CD-I. Compared to the Genesis, the CD-I has a faster processor, more RAM, can push tons more colors, etc. So what makes it not powerful enough to kick off the next gen if hardware is the primary concern?

And like I said before, when it comes to measuring hardware capability, there's no agreed upon standard. We see it whenever somebody asks if the Jaguar was really 64 bit. You'll get different takes on it based on different criteria for making these measurements and different people give more weight to different aspects. The Intellivision was 16 bit but nobody seems to suggest that the Intellivision marked the beginning of a new generation the way the PC Engine is said to despite the PCE's 16 bit-ness being the primary reason for starting the new gen. Where's the consistency?

It seems to me that the generations are measured based on a relatively arbitrary calculus that accounts for hardware capability, time period (hence why the crash somehow factors in), and whatever marketing gimmicks may have been in play at the time. I guess its good enough in a pinch to give an idea of what a particular decade was like but we may as well just say "early 90s gaming" or something and it does the same job. Or simply be specific enough to say "Genesis gaming." I don't see why we bother numbering the generations. Especially since once we start hitting double digits its going to be completely unwieldy.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

If I remember correctly, it was me who extended the 5th generation to 2006 and the 4th generation to 1996, at least one of the times it was changed anyway. I wanted to include from when first console was released to when last console was discontinued.

[Leo_A]

While some systems don't fit cleanly into this framework, as far as I'm concerned, we're in the 9th console generation.

1st - Dedicated systems
2nd - Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey 2, etc.
3rd - Colecovision, Atari 5200, Vectrex, etc.
4th - Atari 7800, NES, SMS, etc.
5th - SuperNes, Genesis, etc.
6th - N64, Playstation, Saturn, etc.
7th - DC, PS2, Xbox, GCN
8th - Wii, 360, PS3
9th - PS4, XB1, Wii U

I don't care what some nerd that lives on Wikipedia and never played pre-NES hardware has to say.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

While some systems don't fit cleanly into this framework, as far as I'm concerned, we're in the 9th console generation.

1st - Dedicated systems
2nd - Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey 2, etc.
3rd - Colecovision, Atari 5200, Vectrex, etc.
4th - Atari 7800, NES, SMS, etc.
5th - SuperNes, Genesis, etc.
6th - N64, Playstation, Saturn, etc.
7th - DC, PS2, Xbox, GCN
8th - Wii, 360, PS3
9th - PS4, XB1, Wii U

I don't care what some nerd that lives on Wikipedia and never played pre-NES hardware has to say.

I'd have to agree. The ColecoVision/5200/Vectrex clearly belong in their own generation. Those systems all launched in 1982. That's actually closer to the NES launch date than the Atari 2600 launch date! 5 years vs 3.

[parallaxscroll]

Guys, I totally agree about the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 being the next generation beyond the 2600

[Tanooki]

I'd like to know who the hell had the authority or was given it to choose these generations anyway, especially the early stuff since it's so scatter shot and clumped together. There's nothing comparable in the a/v quality of something like the Colecovision and 5200 to the 2600/Fairchild type stuff. You went from beeps and bloops with big blocky squares to some decent chip based tunes that would carry a melody and visuals with enough pixel density and quality along with color to make stuff clearly identifiable and even animated well too.

[Gamevet]

While some systems don't fit cleanly into this framework, as far as I'm concerned, we're in the 9th console generation.

1st - Dedicated systems
2nd - Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey 2, etc.
3rd - Colecovision, Atari 5200, Vectrex, etc.
4th - Atari 7800, NES, SMS, etc.
5th - SuperNes, Genesis, etc.
6th - N64, Playstation, Saturn, etc.
7th - DC, PS2, Xbox, GCN
8th - Wii, 360, PS3
9th - PS4, XB1, Wii U

I don't care what some nerd that lives on Wikipedia and never played pre-NES hardware has to say.


Yeah!

People seem to forget that their was a huge influx of dedicated systems on the market a few years before the Atari 2600, and that the original Odyssey had arrived in 1972. That generation was considered the 1st video game crash.

http://gaminghistory101.com/tag/1977/