Transitional (or ".5") video game generations

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

My opinion:

1st gen - PONG and dedicated consoles.

1.5 gen - Fairchild Channel F and RCA Studio II. Channel F was first programmable cartridges, and RCA Studio II was the only system that was a total zero - nothing good about it.

2nd gen - Atari 2600/Odyssey 2/Intellivision. The consoles that launched around 1977-1980 and reached their peaks in the early 1980s. Atari being the main driver of this generation.

2.5 gen - Colecovision/Atari 5200/Vectrex generation. Launched around 1982 and were more advanced than the previous generation. I would go so far as to split this into a different generation, only caveat is that it didn't kill off the 2nd generation.

3rd gen - This is easy. NES-dominated, with Master System and 7800. Launched 1985-1986.

4th gen - Sega Genesis (and add-ons), SNES, TG16. The 1989-1991 launch generation.

4.5 gen - The "fake" 5th gen. Atari Jaguar, 3DO, CD-i, etc. Launched circa 1993-1994.

5th gen - The classic N64 vs PSX vs Saturn battle. Launched 1995-1996.

6th - 8th gens are all clear cut, no transitional.

[MidnightRider]

Hmm... Well, by that standard, and I really loved the console, but, I'd say the Dreamcast would be a 5.5. It came out early, took on the PS1 and N64 to start, and was killed off before the 6th generation really got going.

[Tanooki]

Since when is stuff from 6 on solid black and white?

Wii -- a 2x overpowered gamecube with motion controls and definitely NOT HD like the PS3 was, suffered for it, it was a .5
WiiU -- More powerful than PS3, but marginal to the PS4, again suffering with third parties telling them to go away for not giving them what they need, a .5

Dreamcast as noted was too. Between what the N64 and the PS2/GC could do, the Dreamcast fell smack in the middle, it's a good .5 as well.


It may not have been popular but the Jag and 3DO aren't 1/2 gen fakes, the power is there to mesh right in with the PS1/N64/Saturn. The CDI though I'll give ya that as it wasn't even really a gaming machine, I had one I should know. If those are half 'fake' gens the TG16 would fit into a halfsie too since it was all 8bit but one chip on it, and it lacked the visual and audio (off CD) detail/quality of the SNES, NeoGeo, and Genesis.

[Lictalon]

I think you're right by calling "transitional" generations the "fake" ones, Sega CD being a really good example. The false starts.

[BlastProcessing402]

Hmm... Well, by that standard, and I really loved the console, but, I'd say the Dreamcast would be a 5.5. It came out early, took on the PS1 and N64 to start, and was killed off before the 6th generation really got going.

Yeah, I've always had trouble considering the DC the same gen as PS2/GC/XB, but it's clearly not the same gen as PSX/N64/Sat either. Half gen, or just an outlier, whatever, but I totally agree it doesn't seem to fit neatly, which kinda points out a flaw in this whole "generation" type of categorization.

I can see looking at the Wii U like that too, but I have trouble applying that thinking to the Wii. It came along after the gen was already underway, and while it didn't have the same processing power (though it was more powerful than given credit for, it wasn't just GC with new controls as so many slur it as being), it certainly did something new and successful, and I think that should count as much for being part of another gen as raw horsepower does.

[Gentlegamer]

Yeah, I've always had trouble considering the DC the same gen as PS2/GC/XB, but it's clearly not the same gen as PSX/N64/Sat either. Half gen, or just an outlier, whatever, but I totally agree it doesn't seem to fit neatly, which kinda points out a flaw in this whole "generation" type of categorization.

I can see looking at the Wii U like that too, but I have trouble applying that thinking to the Wii. It came along after the gen was already underway, and while it didn't have the same processing power (though it was more powerful than given credit for, it wasn't just GC with new controls as so many slur it as being), it certainly did something new and successful, and I think that should count as much for being part of another gen as raw horsepower does.

I agree, I think the Wii is something sort of like the Vectrex, where it did something weird and different and innovative despite other technological comparisons to competitors. The Wii U, despite the touch pad, isn't in the same "space" as an innovator, and is being severely limited by its generation-behind technology.

[A Black Falcon]

The CD-i is actually 4th gen, not 4.5 or 5th gen. The system released in late 1991, clearly still in the 4th generation.

Really, I understand this idea of splitting out early systems, but I think it's more fair to say that they're just early systems from teh full generation. So the "1.5" ones are just early 2nd gen consoles, the "2.5: ones are really early 3rd gen consoles, etc.

And on that note, yeah, the idea that the new systems of 1982 are somehow 2nd gen, as sites like Wikipedia or GameFAQs claim, is kind of ridiculous. They're five years removed from the Atari 2600, and 2 1/2 years removed from the last 2nd gen platform, the Intellivision. And when they released, everyone called them a new generation. But just because they all failed, their generation status got revoked? Oh come on, that's not right! Just look at something like the homebrew game Ghostblaster on the Colecovision, that's 3rd-gen-level stuff for sure. Also remember that the NES released in Japan just one 11 months after the Colecovision and 8 months after the Atari 5200. That is NOT a generational gap. The 2 1/2 years with no new systems between teh Intellivision and Colecovision is. Though the Intellivision is kind of a weird one, releasing 3 years after the first system of the generation (1976's Channel F) and 2 2/3rds years before the first system of the next generation, there were a steady stream of clearly 2nd gen consoles in the three years before, but none in the years after. That is a key difference, I think. 1976, 77, 78, and 79 all and 2nd gen consoles launch. Then there's a gap until the real next-gen platforms of 1982-1985.

Also of course, when a system releases DOES matter. So yes, even though they're a generation behind in terms of power, the Wii is a 7th gen console and the Wii U is an 8th gen console.

Now, generations with handhelds, particularly from the mid '90s to mid '00s, is MUCH messier... but on the TV console side, it's not too hard to figure out. But sure, many generations do have an "early" phase and a "later" phase, as you see each gen from the 2nd to 5th, particularly.