Hi All!

I saw the Generation Elimination Game (great idea by the way)  and starting thinking:  what is the definition of a gen?  The thing that really bothers me is how Gen 2 Consists of both the Atari 2600 AND the Atari 5200.  This would be like if both the dreamcast and the Saturn were considered part of the same gen, or if the Playstation 2 and 3 were considered part of the same generation.  There is both a significant time difference between the two consoles, the 5200 has a significant hardware imporvement over the 2600, they each have unique a unique game library  (not a DS/DSi Scenario), and they each had a different set of competitors.  Why are they considered the same Generation?

I propose what is currently now called "generation 2" should be split into 2 seperate and distinct generations: One with the Atari 2600 (VCS) and its competitors( Intellivison, odyssey^2, Channel F) starting in 1978 and ending in 1982 (let's call this generation 2A) , and another with the Atari 5200 and its competitors (ColecoVision, Vectrex, Emmerson Arcadia 2001) starting in 1982 and going through the video game crash until the start of the next generation in 1985 (lets call this generation 2B).  

So, In Summation:

What is the definition of a gen?

based on this definition, should 2A and 2B be considered seperate generations?

How were these grouped together in the first place? (today there would not be a situation where a PS3/4 got grouped in the same gen)

Side Note: in the Gen elimination game, gen 2a would be considered one of the best gens, whereas 2b would be considered one of the worst gens

Dude, check out what Sega did with their gens.

If gen 2 gets split in half, we should also have a Gen 4.5 for the early 90's. The 16-bit era began in 1987 and 1988 with the PC Engine and Genesis, so certain systems released from 1991 to 1993 stand out in terms of power and types of technology used, especially CD-ROMs. These include the Neo Geo, 3DO, Jaguar, CD-i, Pippin, and arguably the 32X.

I believe the term "generation" implies the existence of a healthy market. Since the Atari 5200 and Colecovision failed to create that kind of market, they are grouped with generation 2, and are considered a failure to make the true leap. Likewise, the 3DO and Jaguar failed to ever be part of a healthy console market, and are thus not considered part of the 5th gen proper.

The borderline between being a part of a healthy or failing market is a bit hard to make out. Though the Dreamcast sold well, one can argue that its 1998 release and short lifespan make it as much of a 5th generation console as a 6th generation console.

Ultimately though, the entire concept of a console "generation" is more psychological than actually based on hardware. Generations describe what other consoles a system was competing with on the market and in the minds of consumers. The reason the Atari 5200 is considered part of the second generation is that it was never able to find its own spot, not already taken by 70's era machines.

Segas Gens seem to line up with the current model of Gens with MS in gen 3, Genesis in gen 4, Saturn in Gen 5, and dreamcast in gen 6...

The only think off I can think of with sega is all of there add-ons (CD, 32X), those might cause some confusion in our current Gen Structure...

The 3DS to New 3DS (N3DS) transisition reminds me of the transition from DS to DSi, updated hardware with a few new features and exclusives, but not ultimately a seperate generation because the difference did not split the player base.  aka DS and DSi are still 'DS'es and 3DS and N3DS are both '3DS'es.  

Atari on the other hand split its player base.  it had seperate games for each system, and the only way for backwards compatibility was to buy an adaptor.  the 5200 was designed to sucede the 2600, but becaue of the market crash that didnt happen...

I have never thought of a Generation 4.5 before... I usually considered Neo Geo to be in 4th Gen and the others to be in 5th gen (Neo Geo almost falls outside of the whole definition of a Gen though, with its long active lifespan), and the other consoles to be in fith Gen (maybe it was 2d vs 3d graphics or catridges vs CDs)  I will have to reconsider this in the future.  

4.5 might also not have been well established because it pretty much consists of all newcomers to the console world (atari being the exception).  It is much easier to define a gen based upon the mainstream consoles of the time and their direct competitors.  since these consoles fall in between  the 16 bit era (SNES and Genesis) and the 32/64 bit era (saturn, playstation, N64), and dont fit in really well with either of them,  its harder for them to be classified.  

I agree that the 5200 was unable to find its unique niche, but I feel as though the ColecoVision definitely was able to.  In Gen 2A it was 2600 versus Intellivision, inGen 2B it was 5200 Vs ColecoVision.  If a game system in securely established to be of a certian Gen, does that make its direct competitors also  in the same Gen?