/vr/ - Retro Games

The generation numbering system is stupid and I refuse to learn it or use it.

proof?

>>8524598
Dreamcast came out five years later and is much more advanced.

>>8524605
Show me an instance of anyone using 3rd gen 4th gen 5th gen etc before 2001

>>8524598
>Dreamcast now lumped with PS2/Xbox/GameCube.

It makes sense though when you chart it.

>>8524620
But it was competing against PS1 and N64 for most of its lifespan and has many more 5th gen ports than 6th gen

>>8524603
the dumbest part by far is lumping in everything pre-NES as "second gen" including something as advanced as the Vectrex and going back to the very earliest systems with actual CPUs. total fucking idiots came up with that.

>>8524621
oh so you made it all up

>>8524620
it came out four years later. N64 is exactly halfway between PSX and DC, it's nintendo's fault it's closer to playstation in performance.

>>8524598
Why would a 128bit processor be considered the same as PS1/64. You're obviously underage and don't remember the 9/9/99 marketing which deemed DC as the next generation of video gaming.

>>8524621
I would say the numbering system didn't exist before 2010, maybe even 2015

It was the videogame magazines that started the generation numbering system which was before wikipedia existed.

>>8524629
Huh, looks like Gallagher and Park started the numbering system. But notice how their 2002 (before Wikipedia was popular) source classes Dreamcast as 5th gen. After Wikipedia went mainstream in 2005 sources started confirming to their way of putting Dreamcast in 6th gen.

I think gens make sense if looked at as what the current market was and what was meant as competition for what. Like dreamcast may have a lot of 5th gen stuff, but it was clearly designed to compete with future hardware from competitors on the horizon.

who cares? like yea people go on wikipedia for their research. osmosis does the rest
the numbering system is not even used that often. I only see 5th and 6th used often

>>8524642
Gallagher and Park (2002)

>>8524642
ok, actually, the usage seems to have changed over in 2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sixth_generation_of_video_game_consoles&diff=12066740&oldid=11769828

>>8524598
Dreamcast was absolutely competing with PS2

>>8524648
the system is used all the time here

>>8524642
Wikipedia's first articles on specific console generations were published in 2004, just check their history tabs

>>8524662
well, it didn't for long

>>8524668
check the link, the sixth generation article referred to it as the 128-bit era before mid-2005

>>8524662
Only for three months in the U.S. PS2 was released in the U.S. Oct 2000, Sega announced they were discontinuing the Dreamcast in January 2001. A whole year from Sept 1999 to Sept 2000, Dreamcast was competing against the PS1 in the U.S.

>>8524632
>most of its lifespan
That's mainly because it had a couple of years as its "lifespan"

>videogame magazines talk about the DC as SEGA's next generation console(not part of the Saturn generation) getting to the market before any of the competition
>NO IT WAS ALWAYS 5TH GEN!!!
It's a failed 6th gen console, quit trying to pretend otherwise.

>>8524675
And for 2 whole years, the Genesis was competing against the NES. Does that make the NES a 4th gen console or the Genesis a 3rd gen console? Why are DC fags so full of these retarded arguments?

the sega saturn is what directly competed against the PS1 and N64 retard.

I still don't think gen one was a real generation. All the gens are off by one. "Gen 2" is the real first generation. All previous shit is prehistory.

>>8524695
That was the Saturn, dude. DC is closer to the PS2 release date than the PS1

>>8524695
Saturn competed against PS1 and N64 for the first half of the 5th gen, but for many that console as a non factor. The Dreamcast competed with the PS1 and N64 in the second half of the 5th gen.

>>8524707
The DC library also consisted of a decent chunk of N64/PS1 multiplats so I think this theory holds true.

>>8524598
>atari-tier shit
>Nintendo
>Sega, Super Nintendo
>Playstation, 64, and, fine... Saturn
>PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast
>360, PS3, Wii
Those are the generations, from 1 to 6, mostly listed in order of importance as well (sega-snes being the most debatable).
I will not remember this list's numbering formation. You should not memorize this list.
Referring to consoles by generation is retarded.

Just say the specifc console and/or game, anyone who isn't tarded will be able to figure out the rest.
>for instance
"Dreamcast, what the deal is? That be more like PS1 or PS2?"
>example answer
Sega sucked after Genesis. Saturn was supposed to be early next gen but got btfo so hard it might as well be considered a mid-gen system. Dreamcast was just Sega proving that failing as hard as Saturn did wasn't a fluke.

>>8524694
Difference is that the Genesis didn’t die in 1991

>is a literal invention of Wikipedia
Even if it is, it's so well devised that even /vr/ uses them. No one else could be assed to organize them into proper terminology and the Dreamcast came out way too late with way too much advantage to be a valid competitor in the 5th gen.

>>8524707
Last 1/3*
Saturn and PS1 are Q4 1994, DC is Q4 98, PS2 is Q4 2000

>>8524710
>Genesis library had multiplats from the NES as well
So the Genesis was a 3rd gen console according to this anon's logic. And by this logic, both the Genesis and SNES were 80's PC's since they shared a lot of PC ports from the C64 and Atari 8-bit.

>>8524715
>if the company dies before the end of the generation, it doesn't count
Jaguar is still considered 5th gen, why must you lie?

>>8524731
You could say they were the same era, as distinct from same technological generation. When the two consoles were sold side by side and developers were making games for both consoles at the same time, it felt the same, just one was more advanced and its marketing advertised it as ahead because of being 16 bit. It's just easier to retroactively categorize things by bits than by chronology and developer activity I guess.

>>8524598
You may be right, but I can't blame them, given that company executives and PR journalists advertised the new consoles as "the next gen".
It would be unreasonable to judge consoles exclusively by their technological advancement, and not by the actual presence in the competitive market at the time.
The Dreamcast in particular was marketed as being a generation ahead of the PS1 and the N64.

>>8524712
>listed in order of importance as well
PS3 and Wii both are more significant than the original Xbox 360 in terms of defining the next gen. Wii in terms of sales and PS3 in terms of technology standards.
Reminder that the original 360 does not have bluetooth, WiFi, now-defunct HD DVD or Bluray support, or an HDMI port. It did not even support 1080p video output until 2007, which is after the PS3 launched.

>>8524910
>mostly listed in order of importance as well
>mostly
also, nobody gave a shit about nerd specs but nerds
if you're going to quote sales figure than at least display an understanding of the reason for those figures; dumb moms bought wiis for their dumb kids and other dumb moms heard about other dumb kids from their dumb kids so they got their dumb kids the new dumb toy, roll in the marketing tactics (every news station running the same "wii is the hot new console flying off the shelves" story) and you've got the console version of the April 2020 toilet paper shortage, everybody was able to wipe their ass with the same stupid bowling game then never think about the console again except for this stupid run on non-sentence

>>8524634
I'm guessing it was millennials who started gaming with Nintendo that came up with that generation numbering system. Basically all the pre-NES are lumped into two categories, Pong-clones in Generation 1 and everything else between Atari 2600 and the NES in Generation 2, including the 5200, a system that was supposed to succeed the 2600. It's only when Nintendo puts out a new console that the generation are categorized by what consoles are available at the time, yet Nintendo fans become pissy when you point that the Wii was behind the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of hardware powers or that Nintendo Switch is just a do-over of the Wii U.

>>8524662
And the Sega Genesis was competing with the NES yet no one tries to argue it was a third gen console.

>>8525046
All that shit either imploded or got rocked by Nintendo who are still around today it so makes sense to use them as the benchmark

>>8524950
I had family that used the wii as their Netflix machine for a long time. Had some shovelware but weren't gamers

>>8524716
This, unless any of you comes with a better way. This works best

>>8525075
The PS4 version of FIFA 14 had to compete with the PS2 version of FIFA 14 so PS4 is actually Gen 6

>>8524731
Point is - dividing by generations is stupid.

>>8524629
It doesn't if you mark end of life too.

>>8524716
By the way, by previous /vr/ definition Dreamcast was retro along with PS1 and N64. No one had a problem with it because it makes sense.
>>8524716
>/vr/ uses them
I don't since I can't for my life remember which number means what. I use "PS1" generation e.g. name one of the consoles.

>>8524642
Jesus fucking christ, how young are you?

>>8525195
>No one had a problem with it because it makes sense.
Except for the people who shitted up all the dreamcast threads for being "not retro." And Dreamcast was against the rules when /vr/ was first made, newfag.

>>8524621
No one said that because the only people who played on consoles back then were children and they didn't care about "generations."

>>8525262
PS1 was against the rules when /vr/ was first made.

>>8525264
Better times for /vr/. The board got worse every single expansion.

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64,
no

>>8524694
>Why are DC fags so full of these retarded arguments?
You merely adopted the cope. Segafags were born in it; molded by it.

>>8524603
fpbp

>>8525189
end of life is too vague for some consoles

>>8524598
gens going for bits, for me "next gernation" will always be ps2, xbox and cube generation.

>>8524598

>>8524598
>the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64
Ah yes, Sega famously had 2 consoles in one gen
The numbering came in to easily have distinction
People used the term next generation as early as snes going on to the 64

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64

It really wasn't. Sega lumped the Saturn in with those consoles, but always marketed the Dreamcast as the start of "net gen".

>>8524632
So was the 360 fighting the PS2 and GameCube? Same logic, its "true" competition didn't arrive until the year after.

>>8525375
>So was the 360 fighting the PS2 and GameCube? Same logic, its "true" competition didn't arrive until the year after.

I really think that the Dreamcast was the "TurboGrafx-16" of the '6th generation' of consoles. Sega jumped into that console generation first, and they were steam rolled by the PS2 hype machine.

>>8524598
I don't believe your exact version of history, but no doubt the """generation""" numbering system was created by aspie dorks who'd never played the systems they were categorizing.

>>8525407
I don’t think that’s completely true, it was originally the “8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit gen” etc
But we know that’s not sustainable nor is it really indicative of anything

>>8525412
Ah yes, the """bit""" wars. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy

>>8524598
All words are made up.

Ps1 and saturn was 5th gen while the 64bit jaguar and n64 was 6th gen

>>8524598
I remember when it was called 4 bit, 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit generations. There was always a division.
This breaks down badly when you got to 1993 or so and the systems were called "next generation ".

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64, but now it’s lumped with PS2/Xbox/GameCube.
Fucking zoomer, talking about shit that happened before you were alive. Every single gaming magazine said the next generation arrived with the Dreamcast.

>>8524598
It reminds me of early 2010s pretending to be smart because they pulled up a Wikipedia article on their phone. But only Snoysisters said PS2 was "actually" a generation ahead of everybody else

>>8524690
A magazine that called itself NEXT GENERATION, and milked the console war narrative trying to sell copies to the public, never did and never would call DC last gen hardware

What is this stupid shit? Why would Sega have two consoles in a single generation? The SATURN was competing against the PlayStation, and then later, the PS2 was competing against the DREAMCAST. It’s not that fucking difficult to understand, unless, of course, you’re a fucking zoomer who wasn’t there in the first place.

>>8524598
The divisions make enough sense, based on chronological placement and output.

>Gen6: Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Gamecube, Xbox
>Gen5: 3DO, Jaguar, Saturn, PlayStation, Nintendo 64
>Gen4: TurboGraphx-16, Genesis, SNES
>Gen3: NES, Master System, Atari 7800

>Gen2.5?: ColecoVision, Atari 5200, SG-1000 (these don't fit with systems above or below)
>Gen2: Channel F, Atari 2600, Intellivision, many others
>Gen1: those old ass systems that are custom built for a single game

>>8525684
>Genesis was launched to compete with the NES and then ended up competing with the Super NES
>Saturn and PlayStation were launched to compete with the Super NES and ended up competing with Nintendo 64
>Dreamcast was launched to compete with PlayStation and Nintendo 64 and ended up competing with PlayStation 2
Makes you think.

>>8524598
>the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64, but now it’s lumped with PS2/Xbox/GameCube.
That's fucking weird, because the Dreamcast shares some of its games with the PS1. Not the PS2.

>>8525969 It's the difference between "competitor" and "successor."
Master System was the NES competitor, and the Genesis was the successor to the Master System. You wouldn't honestly say the Genesis was competing in the same tier as the Master System (or even the SG-1000), would you?

>>8525684
You now realize Wii U and Switch are both in the same gen. As are DS and DSi.

>>8525995
>Not the PS2.
Yeah, if you just ignore all those multiplats that were on the PS2 too, sure.

https://youtu.be/W5g33W0Zafs

>>8526071
DS+DSi->3DS is objectively correct. WiiU+Switch is weird to think about, as the time between WiiU->Switch is about half that of XbOne/PS4->XBSX/PS5

>>8525360
>Ah yes, Sega famously had 2 consoles in one gen
Not that out of the ordinary to think of it this way. 32x and Sega Saturn existed side by side after all.

Nintendo 64 and the Gameboy color also existed side by side. Same era but totally different hardware generations. Actually all the handhelds throw the generations into a mess since they are all behind where the consoles were technologically but also came out after them.

>>8525995
How does it feel to be wrong?

>>8526307
SC-3000/SG-1000 and Sega Mark III/Master System could be considered part of the same console generation, since they all competed against the Famicom (in fact, the Sega Mark III was marketed as the third model of the SG-1000), but it was the Mega Drive that pushed Nintendo to make a Super Famicom.

The whole "generation" thing is totally arbitrary. It only somewhat works in a handful of instances where the major consoles all timed their releases alongside each other. But is dreamcast really in the same gen as the xbox? Is the switch in the same gen as the PS5? Is the 3DO in the same gen as the N64? Are both the atari 2600 and 5200 in the same gen? I'd say none of these really make any sense

>>8526431
The switch is a Wii u pro

>>8526476
Being the Wii U Pro implies that it's backwards compatible with the Wii U. It's not. It's the first Nintendo platform since the GameCube that isn't backwards compatible with the previous generation. Not with the Wii/Wii U and certainly not with the Nintendo DS/3DS.

>>8524598
>The console generation numbering system (4th gen, 5th gen, 6th gen, 7th gen, etc.) is a literal invention of Wikipedia editors
zoom zoom

>>8526672
It literally is a Wikipedia invention. If you browse their discussion archive, as well as older versions of some of the pages, they didn't start using the current "nth generation" nomenclature until around 2005 or 2006. The Super NES and Genesis were simply called 16-bit era consoles, the PlayStation and Sega Saturn were called 32-bit era consoles, and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Third_generation_of_video_game_consoles/Archive_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fourth_generation_of_video_game_consoles/Archive_1#'Fourth_generation'

>>8526431
>But is dreamcast really in the same gen as the xbox?
Why not? PS2 is arguably weaker than Dreamcast

Wii is weaker than PS3 and Xbox 360 but people count it as one because it competed with it

all in all, dividing systems in generations is a better idea than make up arbitrary nonesense like calling things "Retro"

>>8526498
>it’s not
>proceeds to have nearly the Wii U’s whole library
Could’ve fooled me

>>8526768
I'm still waiting for that Star Fox Zero port.

>>8526713
The PS2 had a bigger DRAM bus width.

>>8524603
>>8525290
>>8524634
How else would you do it?
From at least 3rd through 8th generation, there's a rather obvious way to group each set of (commercially relevant) home consoles. Throwing out the whole taxonomy just because it's (slightly) more murky before 1985 seems excessively retarded to me.

>>8527020
>odyssey and home pong = gen zero
>channel F, 2600, astrocade = gen one
>5200, colecovision, vectrex = gen two
there we go, fixed.

Well then anon how should we categorize the different eras in the current year? Switch breaks the numbered generations in any case.

>>8527175
It really doesn't. Nintendo fucked up with the Wii U, so they made another console in the same gen.

>>8527195
>Nintendo fucked up with the Gamecube so they made another console in the same gen

>>8527210
>Sega fucked up with the Saturn so they made another console in the same gen

>>8527195
no they didn't, the switch is a handheld.

>>8527020
You either list them by the consoles relative strength which separates older consoles better, or just list them by groups based on years of release like it does now.
>>8527175
It didn't because the switch can be considered a handheld first with TV compatibility as a bonus, ergo following the 3DS rather than the WiiU.

>>8527220
>Sega fucked up with the SG-1000 so they made another console in the same gen.
And then they fucked it up with the Mk-3 again and made yet another console before Nintendo updated theirs.

>>8527230
It launched with BotW just like Wii launched with TP, it's as much a home console as it is a portable. Nintendo pretty much dropped Wii U support the second Switch dropped while 3DS remained on support for a few years.

>>8524694
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal? That's another example of how "generations" are bullshit. Hell, only reason why the Genesis-vs-SNES thing is even a comparison is because of how ridiculously underpowered Nintendo made the thing for a console releasing in 1991.

>>8526713
Wii being in the same "generation" as PS3/360 is another example of the generation terminology being basically meaningless. It's essentially a beefed-up gamecube, let's put it on par with the original xbox. 360/PS3/PC were almost always discussed together with Wii being this other thing that just creates too many asterisks if you try to lump it in with its contemporaries. Same with Wii U and Switch for that matter.

>>8524629
Wikipedia didn't invent it, OP btfo.
Remember that Wikipedia uses citations.

>>8524642
Wonder if this post will happen with the rest of human history.

>>8527404
Most of history is just retroactively categorizing eras after the fact. I doubt people living in the bronze age were aware that they were living in the bronze age.

>>8527397
This
end of thread

>>8527512
And then he kept tampering with his own Star Wars movies.

>>8525375
>was the 360 fighting the PS2
literally yes lol.

>>8527395
Guess what? The 360 was just a beefed up DirectX Box too. I can't find articles on it anymore but I remember reading you could play some 360 launch titles on the original Xbox. They're that similar.

>>8526352
Sure, after DC already died

The generation thing makes perfect sense.
1 - consoles with built-in games, connecting to the TV.
2 - exchangeable games via cartridges
3 - sprites, tilemappers, scrolling backgrounds
4 - multiple backgrounds, hardware capable of doing digitalized graphics and voices
5 - CD playback, framebuffer based video hardware, analog controllers, focus on 3d gaming
6 - early online gaming, advanced shading modes, early pixel/vertex shaders. Hardware powerful enough to render small town sized sandboxes.
7 - HD graphics, online becoming the norm, large sandboxes possible
8 - consoles become small PCs
9 - push to 4k graphics

Each generation has some odd-one-outs (N64 has no CD, Dreamcast has no pixel/vertex shader but still does celshading and bump mapping, the Wii), but you can still see a generational gap and a clear new paradigm between each generation.

>>8527571
>but I remember reading you could play some 360 launch titles on the original Xbox

Yeah and you could play Fifa 14 on the PS2 and Fifa 97 on the SNES too, but that doesn't make them the same generation. Xbox ports of 360 games were either downgraded, or the 360 ports were heavily upgraded. That's just how multiplatform games work. In the 90s you had Mortal Kombat 2 on Genny, SNES, 32x, Saturn, Playstation, all in the span of a few years.

>>8527682
Not a port. Literally putting an Xbox 360 game disk in an original Xbox and the game running. Not well, but running.

>>8525684
>What is this stupid shit? Why would Sega have two consoles in a single generation? The SATURN was competing against the PlayStation, and then later, the PS2 was competing against the DREAMCAST. It’s not that fucking difficult to understand, unless, of course, you’re a fucking zoomer who wasn’t there in the first place.

In the US/ NA market, Bernie Stolar announced that the Saturn wouldn't be their future, and that the Dreamcast would be their 'next generation' replacement. No gaming media outlets were using the generation numbering system that did come about with Wikipedia, but there was a very clear distinction on what "next gen" was, and the Dreamcast was looked at as the start of the '128bit' consoles. Though, at that point, using 'bits' was meaningless. The Xbox has a 32bit CPU, the GameCube is 64bit, the PS2 has 32bit, 64bit and 128bit components in it. Judging CPU's by 'bits' was no longer that important when it came to CPU's. The Dreamcast did come out earlier than the PS2, and other consoles, because Sega thought they could get a head start on 'next gen' consoles. So it did come out when the PS1, N64 and even Saturn were competing. The Saturn did last longer in Japan, but it was gone before the Dreamcast arrived in 1999 in the NA market.

>>8527667
Analog controllers was rudimentary and late in 5th gen.

>>8526378
>But is dreamcast really in the same gen as the xbox?

The Dreamcast and PS2 are in the same gen,m as they were continually being compared to each other. But the PS2 hype drowned out the Dreamcast. But the Xbox, I think it was in the planning stages when the Dreamcast was in development. But it showed up around the time the Dreamcast fell out of the market.

>>8527571
>They're that similar.

Only in their software implementation. The hardware for both machines are quite a bit different. The original Xbox was powered by an x86 32bit Intel Pentium III Copermine CPU that had some customisation, The CPU was similar to what you would find in lower end PC's or laptops. The GPU is based on the GeForce 3 ti, but contains an extra vertex shader, making it closer to a GeForce 4. The Xbox 360 uses an IBM PowerPC 64bit 'tri-core' CPU. Somewhat what you would find in an Apple PowerPC system from the time. The Cell CPU in the PS3 is also PowerPC and so is the Wii CPU. The GPU in the 360 was provided by ATi (AMD) . The similarities between the Xbox and 360 come down to the Microsoft Direct X API's. It might be possible that some 360 software could run on the OG Xbox.

How the fuck is this up for debate?
Dreamcast is part of the same gen as PS2, Xbox, And gamecube. That's a fact and any argument you could possible come up with doesn't matter.

Ferrari F355 PS2 vs Dreamcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8Tsh3IggbI&t=94s
Le Mans 24 Hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaoWueD23N8&t=340s
Quake III:
https://youtu.be/zUhGh_VuuyM?t=209
Unreal Tournament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VClNjpPyP9A&t=127s
The Dreamcast was a big step up from the N64 or previous consoles before it. The hardware was competitive to early PS2 games. Though the PS2 was still had better specs overall. The Dreamcast w as like a stepping stone between generation 5 and 6 consoles. But was branded as 'next gen' by Sega.

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64
I'm gonna doubt that because I was around when the Dreamcast was released and distinctly remember it being considered part of the next wave of consoles, no matte what bullshit you pulled out of your ass says otherwise

>>8524620
>five years later
it came out 2 years after the n64
only a year after the n64 had been released in pal regions

>>8524640
>You're obviously underage and don't remember the 9/9/99 marketing which deemed DC as the next generation of video gaming.
came out a year before that in my country lol

>>8528321
You will never be Japanese, larper

>>8525964
TurboGraphx is closer to NES than SNES.

>>8528732
I know, I'm Korean lol
bought the dreamcast in january 1999 with birthday money from my grandparents

>>8527571
360 was completely different architecture and the jump in performance was that of a full generation. Meanwhile the Wii is essentially a rebranded "Gamecube Pro" at most. This is beyond silly.

>>8527667
this is just a post-hoc attempt to find things to justify the generation convention.

>>8525375
>was the 360 fighting the PS2
yea, i got a ps2 in 2004 and most of the time i spent with it, the 360 was already out

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64

>>8527880
>Analog controllers was rudimentary and late in 5th gen.
Yes, but it's where it started. Same with 3d in 4th gen or online and 6th gen.

>>8528315
>only a year after the n64 had been released in pal regions

fucking what? Over here in europe, N64 got reviews starting from late 1996. Dreamcast only started getting game tests in late 1999.

>>8527880
the dual analog (1997) was out early enough that all the peak gen 5 (1998-2001) games supported it
and i wouldn't call them rudimentary considering they remained unchanged until at least the ps4 (i've never tried a ps4 so idk if they're different)

>>8524621

>>8530109
but coleco and 5200 are considered 2nd gen. How can these generations be legitimate when the citations of them can't even agree?

>>8525189
>our console was too unsuccessful and short lived, therefore it deserves to be lumped in with the previous generation even though we had another unsuccessful and short lived console in that generation
This is your brain on SEGA.

>>8524598
It's useful in general but it's completely retarded how they categorized the Switch as "last gen" because "muh power". The gens have more or less always been about a particular time frame, so an "era" of gaming

>>8525189
This >>8525306
End of life doesn't matter. For example, the Wii still got Just Dance games until very recently, but it still was pretty much dead otherwise
The new gen is about the release of the new generation, it doesn't matter how long the old gen last

>>8530429
To be fair, the Switch has co-existed for most of its retail life with the PS4 and Xbox One, moreso than the Wii U did.

>>8524598
The way I’ve always seen it was that it was kinda muddy. I viewed the competitions like this. Left to to right being beginning to end of the subgeneration (or whatever).

Turbografx-Genesis-Snes-genny addons

3DO-Jaguar-Saturn-PSX

N64-Dreamcast

PS2-Gamecube-Xbox

The Snes tried to compete with the generation after it for a bit with things like the super fx chip games (vortex, Doom, Stunt race, yoshis island, planned starfox 2), big rpgs and the cgi games like donkey kong country. Some people think it succeeded some dont.

The Genesis did too in its own way with the shitty add-ons. But they were competing with their own next gen machine (Saturn) because Sega is reliably very stupid.

Eventually psx beat out its generation. But then n64 got released and was a lot better at 3d in some ways. Sega released the dreamcast and it had a fair share of n64 ports. Now psx was the underdog and punching above its weight like the snes was doing before it (and really the NES competed with Turbografx and Genesis for a year or two the same way)

So ps2 got released, gamecube followed making it a slightly fast generation for nintendo compared to previous. Sega killed itself in its confusion and opened up the door for xbox. This all happened around the same time so the three main players all had systems release near each other and everyone got on the same schedule for a bit. Its very murky. Idk anything about neogeo and dont want to

>>8524598
dreamcast is in the same gen as ps2 though? it just came out a year prior

>>8524598
The generation number system was being used before wikipedia existed and people acknowledged console "eras" at the time zoom-zoom with the 8-bit and 16-bit and 64-bit eras being psychologically-primed marketing terms. Dreamcast was competing directly against PS2 for sales so it's in the right generation. Do we really need some historical revisionism about Dreamcast because you're upset it flopped?

>>8530151
>but coleco
FUUUUCK
Shut up

>>8530486
there's a much bigger gap between the PS4 and One to Switch release (4 freaking years) than switch release to this current gen tho'

>>8530486
Same could be said of the dreamcast

Let's be honest here, most of this thread is just Nintendo and Sega fanboys/haters arguing over autistic categorization just to prove that the other guy's system of choice sucks.

>>8524598
>The "Pong" Generation (1972-1978)
Magnavox Oddyssey, Coleco Telstar, Pong consoles, etc.
>The "Atari" Generation (1976-1988)
Fairchild Channel F, Atari 2600/5200*, Intellivision, Oddyssey 2, Epoch Cassette Vision, RCA Studio II, ColecoVision*, etc.
>The "8-bit" Generation (1983-1994)
Atari 7800, NES/Famicom, Sega SG-1000*/Master System, Commodore 64, etc.
>The "16-bit" Generation (1987-1997)
Turbografx-16/PC-Engine*, Genesis/Mega Drive, Sega CD, SNES/Super Famicom, Neo Geo, Philips CD-i*
>The "32/64-bit" Generation (1993-2002)
3DO*, Atari Jaguar*, Sega 32X*, Sega Saturn, PlayStation, Nintendo 64
>The "128-bit" Generation (1998-2009)
Dreamcast*, PlayStation 2, Xbox, Gamecube
>The "HD" Generation (2005-2015)
Wii*, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3
>The Soulless Generation (2012-Present)
Who gives a shit not retro.

* = Consoles that blur the lines or overlap with the previous or next generation in some ways.

>>8524598
>Before Wikipedia, the Dreamcast was considered the same era as PS1 and N64, but now it’s lumped with PS2/Xbox/GameCube.
Because it flopped, it's 6th gen system, f SEGA had the money the Dreamcast would have lasted until late 2003 ~ 2004. 7th gen started in 2005.

>>8530521

Here’s my take for what its worth

1. Magnavox Odyssey - Pong
2. Atari 2600 - Fairchild Channel F - Intellivision
2.5 Atari 5200 - Colecovision - Vectrex
3. NES - SG1000 - Atari 7800 - PC Engine
3.5 Famicom Disc System - Master System - NES games with chips
4 Turbografx16 - Genesis - Super NES
5 Neo Geo - Sega CD - Super FX chip SNES games
5.5 PSX - Saturn/32X - 3DO - Jaguar
6. N64 - Dreamcast
7 PS2 - Gamecube - Xbox
8 PS3 - Wii - Xbox360

>>8530910
>Because it flopped, it's 6th gen system, f SEGA had the money the Dreamcast would have lasted until late 2003 ~ 2004. 7th gen started in 2005.

>Bernie Stolar: "We will continue producing Saturn's and the Dreamcast will be out new 'secondary pillar' for the remaining console generation. But we are still aware of Sony's PS2, and Nintendo's Project Dolphin".
> Source: Google

>>8525164
No, the PS2 just doubled as a 7th gen console because they were able to bullshit their way towards making it a Wii competitor (mostly because the PS3 shit the bed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Jaguar
>The Atari Jaguar is a home video game console developed by Atari Corporation and released in North America in November 1993. Part of the fifth generation of video game consoles, it competed with the 16-bit Sega Genesis and Super NES and the 32-bit 3DO Interactive Multiplayer that launched the same year.
How could not a reasonable person conclude that Sega Genesis and Super NES are part of the fifth generation of video game consoles?

>>8530656
>>8531313
The fact that everyone's divisions are different proves that generations aren't real.

Atari 2600, SG-1000, Famicom, Master System, TurboGraphx 16, Mega Drive, SNES, Jaguar, 3DO, PS1, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Wii
Looks like rather gradual progress to me. At no point leap is clear.

Wikipedia and a few more listing clowns in this thread list ColecoVision as 2nd gen and SG-1000 as 3rd gen when it the same fucking system, launched within a year.
https://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?32053-Colecovision-compatibility

>>8533064
Console generations are a social construct.

>>8533064
The fact that some people make mistakes or categorizing for different reasons you fail to recognize, just means that are are retarded.

Suppose you define the desert as starting at the end of the last living shrub, while others define it using annual precipitation boundaries. From that, you conclude that the desert does not exist. This is how stupid you are.

There is a great deal of fucky shit that happens at Wikipedia. It's actually - not schizo - filled with cultists and communists. The average "advanced Wikipedia editor" who "engages with the community" is universally likely a radically aligned individual. The rabbit hole is so deep, intricate and complex that the average person has no chance of understanding the weird, weird stuff that goes on there, so it goes completely unnoticed by everyone. I've seen communists revision history in their favor. I've seen satanic cultists leave coded messages and warnings. I've seen bot-automated historical revisionism. The most deplorable personal pages on the internet reside within the degenerate, cum-stained and hammer-and-sickle strewn halls of Wikipedia user pages.
It really isn't worth a deep dive fyi. It's just a bunch of schizos and basement dwellers larping and power tripping, thinking they have the power to alter history and opinion.

>>8534572
>this is not schizo but wikipedia is run by shadow communist satanic trannies
>i saw it on a youtube video once

>>8534621
I read talk and edit history on various controversial pages. You can, too. Anyone can, it's open to view unless admins hide edit history.

>>8534629
Those fucking maniacs. Doing their satanic tankie fag shit right under our noses.

>>8533069
The Wii was actually less powerful than the Xbox. It was a regression.

wikipedia is okay when you understand how the policies and guidelines work. most of the editors are chill but some get tired of explaining basic journalistic concepts to illterate retards who can't be fucked to copy and paste a URL. it's really not schizo at all compared to other websites like rateyourmusic that are true hugboxes, full of insane freaks, throw all logic out the window, and have no coherent standards or guidelines

Nth gen isn't really the invention of anyone in particular; it's the logical extension of "Next Gen" which that was well-solidified at the very least by the time the SNES was being released. If you were to ask kids of my generation, the NES was the first gen and everything else was the before-times. But that's not very categorical.

Gens 1 and 2 are very messy and putting them into two gens really undermines a lot of the complicated history of gaming. But that's the kind of thing that inevitably happens with taxonomy. And maybe Wikipedia helped initiate or at least solidify that numbering, but I doubt it that's not how Wikipedia works. It was more likely initiated by a corner or journalism lost to time.