Why the fuck is Diablo 1 listed in pre 70s? Am I seeing this pic wrong? Was there an original Diablo that Blizzard copied?

I think we should all chill. National Geographic is an American company and they aren't gaming related in the 1st place. They got a lot of things wrong but it's not like Microsoft paid for this. This is the view of the "history of gaming" from an uninformed Western viewpoint (I mean come on, it's National Geographic) can't blame them.

Though that being said, there are a TON of things wrong with this list, but there are better timelines out there from much more informed people.

kain should just admit that this isn't the best of timelines and the rest of us should not get all worked up about this. Again, it's National Geographic, not really majorly influential or informed in the gaming world.

I don't know about mainstream, as they are clearly missing things that the mainstream would know about, but you are definitely right about the American part.  It's like they were on a role until 1990.  Then MS threw them some money for the rest of the list.  No mention of the 16-bit era and the console warz?  No mention of PS1 making disc media and dual analogs a standard?  The PS2, the best selling console ever, only gets a small bullet point?  The 360 (and Kinect, which should have been part of a smaller bullet point with Eye Toy, Wiimote, and Move) gets the entire focus of this gen, even though it will finish 3rd?  And while there is nothing wrong with Halo being on here, they give it a section by itself with absolutely no mention of DOOM?  Like I said, this whole list went to crap after 1990.

You are right. National Geographic's list sucks.

No Final Fantasy VII? C'mooonn :/

It's not.  It looks like they were going to have qoutes from different games all over the list, but abandoned that idea half way through.  You'll notice Pro Wrestling falls between '71 and '72, but it was released in '86.  The Mario qoute just so happens to fall beside its game mention.  Lol, further proves that the list went to crap after 1990.

Considering that in the OP I questioned why Halo was included and Doom was not and why Sonic was absent altogether, I think I made it clear that I don't think the timeline is a complete view of gaming. I do think that people are acting like it's the worst "list" of top gaming stuff just because they couldn't find their favorites on the list. It's a snapshot of where gaming started and its evolution to today. The entries aren't necessarily the most important stuff. The entries are the big ones that regular NatGeo readers will be familiar with. It's not a timeline for super nerd gamers to argue over, it's a brief overview for the average NatGeo reader.

Yeah. Not a great list but nothing to get mad about.

lol... That shouldn't have confused me but it did. You know what would have been more relevant? Putting the quotes in the actual decade the game was published... Just further confirms that this list is crap. Not a good sign to use a 90s game quote in the pre 70s bracket.

I get that, but the timeline is missing so many major moments. Final Fantasy saving Square-Soft being a big one, Sony entering the market in 1994, the death of Sega, etc.