ColecoVision is third gen, why don't you guys have it changed on Wiki

[Trebor]

I'll have to respectfully disagree here.

 

I believe you meant to disagree with the partial statement: "...the Atari 2600, ColecoVision & Intellivision went together..." only, as opposed to also quoting/disagreeing with the statement:

"...[Atari 2600, Intellivision, ColecoVision, ] game marketing [went together] for those systems."

 

Unless you are disputing the validity of the actual commercials posted.

 

Also, "There were no competition, complimentary, or comparison commercials inclusive of the ColecoVision during the 7800/NES/SMS era (Commonly referred to as 3rd Gen)."

 

You may disagree, but again the facts prove otherwise.

 

Nonetheless, so there's no misunderstanding(s), my reply was in response to the notion that the ColecoVision is third generation, as commonly referenced and referred to at such places as:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

http://segaretro.org/Generations_of_video_games

 

However, I do agree with your point though, concerning technically grouping the Atari 5200 and ColecoVision in another generation separate from the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. Although, again, grouping the ColecoVision in the same "third" generation as the Atari 7800/NES/SMS would be off.

 

I tend to agree more with the (early generations) classification/groupings here:

 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141

 

Atari 5200 and ColecoVision is in its own (third) generation, which bumps the 7800/NES/SMS to a new (forth) generation. The rest of the article's groupings, I don't necessarily agree with the grouping. To clarify further, my thoughts on the matter follows this way:

 

Generation 1:

Channel F

Odyssey

Pong(s)

Studio III

 

Generation 2:

Bally Arcade

Atari 2600/VCS

Intellvision

O2

 

Generation 2.5:

Vectrex

 

Generation 3:

Atari 5200

ColecoVision

 

Generation 4:

Atari 7800

NES

SMS

 

Generation 4.5:

TurboGrafx-16

 

Generation 5:

Genesis

NEO-GEO

SNES

 

Generation 5.5:

3DO

CDi

 

Generation 6:

Atari Jaguar

Saturn

Playstation

N64

 

Generation 7:

Dreamcast

GameCube

PlayStation 2

Xbox

 

Any "x.5" generation system, I can see swinging to either the earlier or later generation. I'm really torn on the Vectrex being either 2nd or 3rd Generation. It truly falls in the middle for me. Nevertheless, I tend to group the TurboGrafx-16 more with Generation 5 than 4 (So perhaps "4.75" would be accurate for me) concerning it. Also, regarding the 3DO and CDi, I would lean more towards Generation 5 than 6 (So perhaps a "5.25" would be accurate for me) respecting those two systems.

[Noah98]

 

I believe you meant to disagree with the partial statement: "...the Atari 2600, ColecoVision & Intellivision went together..." only, as opposed to also quoting/disagreeing with the statement:

"...[Atari 2600, Intellivision, ColecoVision, ] game marketing [went together] for those systems."

 

Unless you are disputing the validity of the actual commercials posted.

 

Also, "There were no competition, complimentary, or comparison commercials inclusive of the ColecoVision during the 7800/NES/SMS era (Commonly referred to as 3rd Gen)."

 

You may disagree, but again the facts prove otherwise.

 

Nonetheless, so there's no misunderstanding(s), my reply was in response to the notion that the ColecoVision is third generation, as commonly referenced and referred to at such places as:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

http://segaretro.org/Generations_of_video_games

 

However, I do agree with your point though, concerning technically grouping the Atari 5200 and ColecoVision in another generation separate from the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. Although, again, grouping the ColecoVision in the same "third" generation as the Atari 7800/NES/SMS would be off.

 

I tend to agree more with the (early generations) classification/groupings here:

 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141

 

Atari 5200 and ColecoVision is in its own (third) generation, which bumps the 7800/NES/SMS to a new (forth) generation. The rest of the article's groupings, I don't necessarily agree with the grouping. To clarify further, my thoughts on the matter follows this way:

 

Generation 1:

Channel F

Odyssey

Pong(s)

Studio III

 

Generation 2:

Bally Arcade

Atari 2600/VCS

Intellvision

O2

 

Generation 2.5:

Vectrex

 

Generation 3:

Atari 5200

ColecoVision

 

Generation 4:

Atari 7800

NES

SMS

 

Generation 4.5:

TurboGrafx-16

 

Generation 5:

Genesis

NEO-GEO

SNES

 

Generation 5.5:

3DO

CDi

 

Generation 6:

Atari Jaguar

Saturn

Playstation

N64

 

Generation 7:

Dreamcast

GameCube

PlayStation 2

Xbox

 

Any "x.5" generation system, I can see swinging to either the earlier or later generation. I'm really torn on the Vectrex being either 2nd or 3rd Generation. It truly falls in the middle for me. Nevertheless, I tend to group the TurboGrafx-16 more with Generation 5 than 4 (So perhaps "4.75" would be accurate for me) concerning it. Also, regarding the 3DO and CDi, I would lean more towards Generation 5 than 6 (So perhaps a "5.25" would be accurate for me) respecting those two systems.

Actually, you made my point far more eloquently than I did. ?

 

I agree, the Colecovision was not ever in the conversation with the SMS and NES. I neglected to clarify that the Atari 5200 and Colecovision should have been the sole generation 3, and that the NES, 7800, and SMS should be generation 4.

 

The only part of your post that I disagreed with is that the Atari 2600, Intellivision, and Colecovision went together. The rest of your post was spot on so I should have only quoted that part. My overall point is that even though commercials and marketing compared the three, they were not technologically of the same generation. To me the Colecovision can only fairly be compared to the Atari 5200, not the 2600 or NES.

 

Your groupings are perfect. The .5's account for those transition consoles quite well!

Edited September 14, 2014 by Noah98

[high voltage]

 

I believe you meant to disagree with the partial statement: "...the Atari 2600, ColecoVision & Intellivision went together..." only, as opposed to also quoting/disagreeing with the statement:

"...[Atari 2600, Intellivision, ColecoVision, ] game marketing [went together] for those systems."

 

Unless you are disputing the validity of the actual commercials posted.

 

Also, "There were no competition, complimentary, or comparison commercials inclusive of the ColecoVision during the 7800/NES/SMS era (Commonly referred to as 3rd Gen)."

 

You may disagree, but again the facts prove otherwise.

 

Nonetheless, so there's no misunderstanding(s), my reply was in response to the notion that the ColecoVision is third generation, as commonly referenced and referred to at such places as:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

http://segaretro.org/Generations_of_video_games

 

However, I do agree with your point though, concerning technically grouping the Atari 5200 and ColecoVision in another generation separate from the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. Although, again, grouping the ColecoVision in the same "third" generation as the Atari 7800/NES/SMS would be off.

 

I tend to agree more with the (early generations) classification/groupings here:

 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141

 

Atari 5200 and ColecoVision is in its own (third) generation, which bumps the 7800/NES/SMS to a new (forth) generation. The rest of the article's groupings, I don't necessarily agree with the grouping. To clarify further, my thoughts on the matter follows this way:

 

Generation 1:

Channel F

Odyssey

Pong(s)

Studio III

 

Generation 2:

Bally Arcade

Atari 2600/VCS

Intellvision

O2

 

Generation 2.5:

Vectrex

 

Generation 3:

Atari 5200

ColecoVision

 

Generation 4:

Atari 7800

NES

SMS

 

Generation 4.5:

TurboGrafx-16

 

Generation 5:

Genesis

NEO-GEO

SNES

 

Generation 5.5:

3DO

CDi

 

Generation 6:

Atari Jaguar

Saturn

Playstation

N64

 

Generation 7:

Dreamcast

GameCube

PlayStation 2

Xbox

 

Any "x.5" generation system, I can see swinging to either the earlier or later generation. I'm really torn on the Vectrex being either 2nd or 3rd Generation. It truly falls in the middle for me. Nevertheless, I tend to group the TurboGrafx-16 more with Generation 5 than 4 (So perhaps "4.75" would be accurate for me) concerning it. Also, regarding the 3DO and CDi, I would lean more towards Generation 5 than 6 (So perhaps a "5.25" would be accurate for me) respecting those two systems.

 

PERFECT

[Bill Loguidice]

OK, I'll bite. The .5's seem arbitrary. If you're doing .5's then you have to place the Dreamcast in 6.5 and move the Jaguar to 5.5. You also may as well remove 2.5 and place it in generation 3. It's also difficult to tell if you're going by system power or release date, or some combination thereof. Either way, I'd move the Neo Geo up a .5 and then bump everything else up after it. Also, if you really are doing .5's, the baseline has to be the original Odyssey. You can't group it with anything else. So that could be a .5, or just recalibrate the whole system so that starts at 1.

[Bill Loguidice]

By the way, as one point of reference as to why I'm a bit ambivalent towards the whole idea of a simple classification, here's a blog post I did from 2006: http://www.armchairarcade.com/neo/node/1086 that takes less of a platform-centric approach to the idea of eras. I think it was around that time that I decided there were too many ways to slice and dice the information and we'd never get a true consensus on the right approach. I tried a similar approach around that same time for genres, which again, I think of as more or less meaningless these days as most games span multiple genres: http://armchairarcade.com/neo/node/1088 . I'm not saying we shouldn't try, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily something quite so cut and dry. That's probably why I just ultimately went with an internally consistent grouping of three major eras for the book, "Vintage Game Consoles," for my most recent attempt at such a thing.

[Greg2600]

You cannot do 1/2's, that looks even worse!

[akator]

Generation 2.5:

Vectrex

 

How did you come up with that? Nothing about the Vectrex hardware or software makes it a transitional system. Unique, sure, but not transitional. It fits perfectly into your 3rd generation systems. Set up a Vectrex next to all of these other systems, play it, and it is clearly not in the same grouping as the 2600 and Intellivision. Everything about it is closest to the ColecoVision and 5200.

 

Generation 5.5:

3DO

CDi

 

Generation 6:

Atari Jaguar

Saturn

Playstation

N64

 

Contrary to what some may say in the Jaguar subforum, it is closer to being a transitional system in 5.5. It is a very good transitional system, but still closer to the 3DO than to the systems that were released later.

 

Generation 7:

Dreamcast

GameCube

PlayStation 2

Xbox

 

I would make the Dreamcast 6.5 because it has all of the hallmarks of a transitional system. It competed in markets between generations. It shared similarities, including hardware and software, to multiple generations. Like other transitional systems, it also underperformed in the US market... like other transitional systems.

 

 

OK, I'll bite. The .5's seem arbitrary. If you're doing .5's then you have to place the Dreamcast in 6.5 and move the Jaguar to 5.5. You also may as well remove 2.5 and place it in generation 3. It's also difficult to tell if you're going by system power or release date, or some combination thereof. Either way, I'd move the Neo Geo up a .5 and then bump everything else up after it. Also, if you really are doing .5's, the baseline has to be the original Odyssey. You can't group it with anything else. So that could be a .5, or just recalibrate the whole system so that starts at 1.

 

Yeah, baby. Let's get this right

[akator]

I tend to agree more with the (early generations) classification/groupings here:

 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141

 

...

 

Generation 2.5:

Vectrex

 

Ah... I see what happened. Trebor didn't come up with putting the Vectrex in that category, some guy named Michael Miller at InformIT website did.

 

 

Vectrex was a vector-based (as opposed to sprite-based) game system that had its own black-and-white monitor over which plastic colored inlays could be placed to add "color" to games. It had two built-in controllers that were shaped kind of like the future Nintendo NES controllers, but with more buttons. Graphics for some games were superior to sprite-based systems, but only a limited number of games could use vector graphics. Released for the 1982 Christmas season, Vectrex didn't achieve widespread support from a public now accustomed to color game consoles that attached to their living-room television sets, and the system was declared dead less than two years later.

 

Um... uh... what? So... it's classified that way because it was B&W? And because "only a limited number of games could use vector graphics." Right...

 

This is an example of writing about something without the necessary background, be that research or even playing Vectrex in an emulator. The titles in the Vectrex game library, let alone the gameplay, immediately puts the Vectrex closer to the CV and 5200.

 

Perhaps many years ago, before I had experienced the Vectrex, I might also have had a similar (and misinformed) opinion as Mr. Miller. I saw one once on display sometime around 83-84, but I didn't actually touch and play one until several years ago. Thankfully I didn't write articles pretending to know about the Vectrex when I didn't.

 

[/rant]

[Trebor]

 

Ah... I see what happened. Trebor didn't come up with putting the Vectrex in that category, some guy named Michael Miller at InformIT website did.

 

No, actually I did put the Vectrex in that [2.5] category. As I stated: "I'm really torn on the Vectrex being either 2nd or 3rd Generation. It truly falls in the middle for me."

 

For the record, my first encounter with the Vectrex was either Summer of '83 or '84 at one of my best friends' home. Many hours on hot summer days were spent in his cool basement with Spike, Clean Sweep, Star Trek, Blitz!, Heads-Up, Mine Storm, Scramble, Armor Attack, and Berzerk. You really need to see a live, in-action unit, to fully appreciate it. Like many other vector based systems/games, they just aren't completely or properly emulated on today's modern displays.

 

Nonetheless, I do love Vectrex emulation too; however, the overlays need to be badly scanned at a much higher resolution. The popular and widely distributed ones were done ~15-20 years ago and were fantastic when 1024x768 was still a very common display resolution and storage/bandwidth was much less. We need overlays at a much higher resolution to furnish more justice for the beloved system...But I digress...

 

OK, I'll bite. The .5's seem arbitrary. If you're doing .5's then you have to place the Dreamcast in 6.5 and move the Jaguar to 5.5. You also may as well remove 2.5 and place it in generation 3. It's also difficult to tell if you're going by system power or release date, or some combination thereof. Either way, I'd move the Neo Geo up a .5 and then bump everything else up after it. Also, if you really are doing .5's, the baseline has to be the original Odyssey. You can't group it with anything else. So that could be a .5, or just recalibrate the whole system so that starts at 1.

 

I don't have to anything...Thanks for sharing what you would move...The baseline does not has to be your thoughts...I can group it according to my thoughts.

 

 

Bill and akator, appreciate your thoughts and opinions on the matter. Certainly (and evidently) some will agree one way, others another way. I posted two other references, along with a third, that does not 100% agree with all of anyone's opinion expressed in the thread. No one is under the delusion that a person's opinion here is definitive or authoritative over another.

[Bill Loguidice]

Thanks for highlighting the "you have to" and other wording in red. That's quite helpful for emphasizing what was already clearly my opinion.

[+Gemintronic]

NO PROBLEM!

[Trebor]

Thanks for highlighting the "you have to" and other wording in red. That's quite helpful for emphasizing what was already clearly my opinion.

 

Actually, the emphasis in red was not to denote your opinion, rather a correlation as to what my sentences that followed were in response to specifically.

[freewheel]

I think people underestimate the impact of the Crash. Pre-Crash, game systems were coming out constantly. Slight graphics upgrades, slight ROM size improvements, etc, happened every few months it seemed. Can you imagine the market being anything like that today? For 20-25 years now, the big companies specifically line up their systems to target their current competition. And by pseudo-mutual agreement, a new generation happens almost simultaneously. Back in the early 80s, it was nothing like this. Just check the release dates from 1976-1983 - it's complete chaos. The concept of "generation" could have been measured in months sometimes, as opposed to today where we're talking 5-6 years.

 

Post-Crash, we saw a much more structured "generation" system. Companies, and more importantly consumers, knew exactly what competed against what. Generations lasted long enough that it was obvious what fits where. This is why you'll see everyone (for the most part) agreeing on the SMS/NES generation vs the Genesis/SNES/TG16 generation. And consoles started to have much longer lifespans. The 2600 was an anomaly for its time in that it lasted for more than a handful of years. It's the only pre-Crash console that really stuck around at all - partly due to being the earliest success, and partly due to critical mass. Otherwise most consoles lasted a handful of years at most, and in many cases 2-3 years or less.

 

This is why I lump everything PONG-ish as gen1, and Fairchild/2600/O2/INTV/5200/Coleco as gen 2. And the only reason there is a difference there is that it was a HUGE change in how game systems were designed (integrated vs cart games). Gen 3 really is all the immediate post-crash stuff (SMS/NES) and from then on it's obvious for the most part.

 

I'll give that the Colecovision was a bit of an oddball due to its capabilities, but it still was positioned squarely in the early 80s trifecta of 2600/INTV/Coleco. In terms of market presence, consumer awareness/desire, type of games on it, it was basically a 2600 with really, really good graphics. But it was still a system designed and utilized to play mostly arcade ports and clones - basically the games you play for a few minutes, in order to achieve a high score. Nothing about Coleco games are really all that different than 2600 games, just higher resolution. Yes, the same argument could be used to describe the early Famicom, but I think we need to look at a console's entire lifespan here. Let's face it, the NES and its generation brought about an entirely different style of gameplay. Save games. Checkpoints. Long games with goals beyond a high score. These were the hallmarks of that generation, and while some attempts at this existed on the INTV and Coleco, the vast majority of their games were not like this.

 

Gen2, as I describe it, is certainly the "messiest" - but to me I don't understand why Coleco would be separate from INTV. To me, the INTV is as much of an improvement over the 2600 as the Coleco is over the INTV, so unless you're going for 3 generations there.. which everyone would describe as silly... But it's just better graphics. Still the same arcade ports, still the same "get a high score" mentality, and it was still the Golden Age - the Wild West of video gaming in many ways. It just logically fit into a single generation back then and my memory still views it this way.

Edited September 16, 2014 by freeweed

[cimerians]

Back then in that small time frame (70's - mid 80's) they categorized things by generation or waves but it sort of ended with the crash. Lots of folk now just think of things in a more broader scope and just lump everything into one category or come up with mixed results like what you see in Wikipedia.

 

There's different ways that you can break it down and I wouldnt say any of them are entirely correct.

 

Its hard to do but I look at it by one or two dominating consoles and what comes next (next generation) with other consoles least successful stuck within generations. Sometimes technology is invented so quickly whatever comes next is still within the dominating systems lifespan etc. The Dreamcast, Wii and Wii U are good examples of tech thats better than whats there or weaker but sort of in between dominating systems.

 

Pre-Atari

Atari\Intellivision --> Colecovision\5200

NES\SMS --> SNES\Genesis

PS1\Saturn\N64 --> GC\XBox\PS2

Xbox360\PS3 --> XBoxOne\PS4

 

Notice I didnt include the TurboGrfx, DC, Wii and the Wii U above.

 

That's just me, its the way I look at it.

[akator]

For the record, my first encounter with the Vectrex was either Summer of '83 or '84 at one of my best friends' home. Many hours on hot summer days were spent in his cool basement with Spike, Clean Sweep, Star Trek, Blitz!, Heads-Up, Mine Storm, Scramble, Armor Attack, and Berzerk. You really need to see a live, in-action unit, to fully appreciate it. Like many other vector based systems/games, they just aren't completely or properly emulated on today's modern displays.

 

Nonetheless, I do love Vectrex emulation too; however, the overlays need to be badly scanned at a much higher resolution. The popular and widely distributed ones were done ~15-20 years ago and were fantastic when 1024x768 was still a very common display resolution and storage/bandwidth was much less. We need overlays at a much higher resolution to furnish more justice for the beloved system...But I digress...

 

Yeah, the Vectrex is special. Emulation is definitely better than nothing, but the real thing has to be experienced to fully appreciate how fundamentally different it is than everything else. The controller is also unique, a mini arcade controller with a self-centering analog joystick.

 

...

 

In regard to the "generation" thing, my opinion has changed drastically over the years. I now believe we have experienced only 2 generations, the generation dominated by 2D and the one by 3D. It isn't really about the graphics, but the gameplay and how the player interacts with the virtual world of the game.

• From Pong to Super Mario, the player moves 2 dimensionally in a 2 dimensional world. It doesn't matter if the player is shooting, flying, platforming, these are all basically the same movements with different graphics. Replace all representational graphics and break it down completely to gameplay and it all becomes very similar.
• The 3D generation is superficially about polygons and textures, but the gameplay radically changes to add a 3rd dimension. The player actually has to think differently, much like how Kirk beat Kahn by thinking about 3D chess instead of 2D chess.

Of course, there were massive hardware and software achievements, but these can really be broken down by the evolution of technology. Improvements in processing, presentation tech (graphics and audio), storage, and distribution eventually all came together to make the 3D generation possible. However, no single one of those tech achievements defines the overall generational shift in gaming.

 

For example, there were multiple generations of distribution.

1. Built-in Software
2. Programming distributed via ROM
3. Programming distributed via Magnetic Media
4. Programming distributed via Optical Media
5. Programming distributed via Network

Each of these brought new capabilities. Each worked with other advancements in tech, but no single thing is capable of defining a game generation.

 

But what about 2D games made after the 3D generation started? They might be brand new, but those games are still in th2D generation. When a new generation is born, everything from the previous generation doesn't immediately fall over and die