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" 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.