The_Liquid_Laser said:
You are actually right, because you are old enough to remember this stuff. Wikipedia gets Generations 2 and 3 horribly wrong, and so they put the C64 in Gen3 and Atari 5200 in Gen 2 even though the C64 launched first. What really happened was the video game crash in North America was really its own generation, a "Lost Generation". It should be more like this: Gen 2, 1977-82: Atari 2600, Intellivision The Atari 5200 was meant to replace the Atari 2600. It was "next gen". But in 1983 customers decided they didn't want any Atari system, so sales plummeted. Retailers panicked and got rid of all consoles. This basically took Colecovision and Vetrex down with Atari even though those systems probably would have been more successful if given the chance. In the absense of consoles, the C64 became the dominant platform during the crash. The NES actually competed with the Amiga. The Amiga launched in 1985 and was the successor to the C64. The belief at the time was that consoles were a fad and computers would replace them permanently as the sole home gaming platform. Then the NES came along and kicked its ass. That is why the Amiga was not nearly as successful as the C64. |
The Crash Gen is an interesting idea, and it works really well actually. I really wanted an Amiga, and it did have some decent software, but never did get one. Price was definitely a factor there. No doubt about the NES comparison though. Once I got one, I didn't really care much about the Amiga anymore.
- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."