Playstation Vs. Nintendo 64 Vs. Sega Saturn Vs. 3DO Vs. Atari Jaguar! Consolewar

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

In that 5th gen list, I think I may have left out a few others as well (like the Sanyo and Goldstar versions of 3DO, as pointed out before).

By the way, a few of the consoles you listed are not actually 2nd gen... The Pong & Odyssey clones are 1st gen, while the Sega SG-1000 and Telegames Personal Arcade are 3rd gen.

The thing about the 2nd gen itself, however, is that it was more like two completely seperate console wars:

"Gen 2.0" War (all released during 1977-1979)

• Fairchild Channel F
• Atari 2600
• Bally Astrocade
• RCA Studio II
• Magnavox Odyssey 2
• Intellivision

"Gen 2.5" War (all released in 1982)

• Arcadia 2001
• ColecoVision
• Atari 5200
• Vectrex

As you can see, there is a fairly big gap between the "Gen 2.0" war and the "Gen 2.5" war, so I wouldn't really consider them to be part of the same continuous console war, as was the case with the 5th gen (where there was a continuous stream of consoles released from 1993 to 1996).

Jag85

Except there's no such thing as a 2.5 gen, you just completely made that up. A lot of those "gen 2.0" systems as you called them, were still being produced and new games still being made for them. So they were still in the same generation. Heck, during that entire era, Atari 2600 was doing the best out of all of those system sales-wise and number of games released.

BTW, the Sega SG-1000 is a 2nd gen console, the Master System (or Sega Mark III in Japan) was Sega's 3rd gen system. The Telegames Personal Arcade is definetly a 2nd Gen system too, it plays ColecoVision and SG-1000 games, it doesn't have original games.

As for the 1st gen system, yeah, most of those are 1st gen systems. But many electronics and toy companies continued to make them far into the 2nd generation, as well, which is why I included them. The whole point of this was talking about how crowded some generations were.

I don't mean to go off-topic, but...

I didn't make anything up other than maybe the name "Gen 2.5"... In 1982, the ColecoVision, Atari 5200, Arcadia 2001 and Vectrex were all marketed as "next generation" consoles, but that attempt at starting a next generation was cut short by the 1983-1984 crash. It seems clear to me that there is a forgotten "crash" generation that we're missing here.

By the way, according to your own reasoning, if the SMS is the next gen after the SG-1000... then wouldn't that make the Atari 5200 next gen after the 2600? If anything, the gap between the 2600 and 5200 (five years) is much wider than the gap between the SG-1000 and SMS (two years). But the reason why I said SG-1000 is 3rd gen (despite being a gimped ColecoVision) is because its main competitor was the NES (they were both released on the same day), not the previous 2nd gen consoles. Also, the SG-1000 and NES were both more or less seen as "2nd gen" consoles in Japan (which was a bit late to the console game), so that also kind of messes things up a bit. But the point is that the SG-1000 was part of the NES console war, not the Atari 2600/5200 war (due to different geographic locations).

And finally, I'm well aware the 2nd gen was one of the most overcrowded console wars, along with the 5th. But to me, it just feels like two seperate console wars, since the ColecoVision's main competitor was the 5200, not the 2600... In fact, the ColecoVision even had an official add-on that could play 2600 games! It would be like saying the Dreamcast as a 5th gen console just because it was around at the same time as the PS1 and N64. Anyway, I'm not trying to say we should re-categorize the generations, but I think it's important to recognize that there was a separate "Gen 2.5" of some kind (which the SG-1000 might also belong to).

Yeah, you made that up. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it, but you did make it up. Nowhere else in all my years of gaming have I seen a "2.5" gaming generation. Generations have been clearly defined in a number of books, magazines, and websites for years.

Here's a list to explain things to you, which includes the SG-1000 in the 2nd Generation:

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

Yeah, you made that up. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it, but you did make it up. Nowhere else in all my years of gaming have I seen a "2.5" gaming generation. Generations have been clearly defined in a number of books, magazines, and websites for years.

Here's a list to explain things to you, which includes the SG-1000 in the 2nd Generation:

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

Emerald_Warrior

Like I said, I did make up the name "2.5", but everything else I've said is not made up in any way whatsoever. Just go read any gaming magazines or ads from 1982 and you'll see most of them refer to the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 as "next generation" consoles or even "3rd generation" consoles. How can I make something up that already exists?

Nowhere did gaming magazines at the time ever consider the ColecoVision or 5200 as part of the same generation as the 2600... And yet decades later that's how we've ended up classifying them, in a way that contradicts what gamers of that time were saying.

And by the way, another more specific Wikipedia article on the 2nd gen doesn't include the SG-1000 at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation)

...But instead the SG-1000 is classifed as 3rd gen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation)

In other words, Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source. Either way, the SG-1000 is up for debate. The SG-1000 is technically just a gimped ColecoVision (kind of like what the Wii is to the GameCube) yet it's main competitor was the NES, so it could fit right into either the 2nd or 3rd generations and it wouldn't make much difference.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Yeah, you made that up. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it, but you did make it up. Nowhere else in all my years of gaming have I seen a "2.5" gaming generation. Generations have been clearly defined in a number of books, magazines, and websites for years.

Here's a list to explain things to you, which includes the SG-1000 in the 2nd Generation:

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

Jag85

Like I said, I did make up the name "2.5", but everything else I've said is not made up in any way whatsoever. Just go read any gaming magazines or ads from 1982 and you'll see most of them refer to the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 as "next generation" consoles or even "3rd generation" consoles. How can I make something up that already exists?

Nowhere did gaming magazines at the time ever consider the ColecoVision or 5200 as part of the same generation as the 2600... And yet decades later that's how we've ended up classifying them, in a way that contradicts what gamers of that time were saying.

And by the way, another more specific Wikipedia article on the 2nd gen doesn't include the SG-1000 at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation)

...But instead the SG-1000 is classifed as 3rd gen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation)

In other words, Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source. Either way, the SG-1000 is up for debate. The SG-1000 is technically just a gimped ColecoVision (kind of like what the Wii is to the GameCube) yet it's main competitor was the NES, so it could fit right into either the 2nd or 3rd generations and it wouldn't make much difference.

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.

I see what you're saying. And I did give you credit for putting a lot of thought into it. It is a stange oddity in gaming history that a lot of people have pondered over. But this 2.5 thing isn't classified anywhere that I've seen. If you can show it to me somewhere other than in your own posts, please do.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Yeah, you made that up. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it, but you did make it up. Nowhere else in all my years of gaming have I seen a "2.5" gaming generation. Generations have been clearly defined in a number of books, magazines, and websites for years.

Here's a list to explain things to you, which includes the SG-1000 in the 2nd Generation:

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

Emerald_Warrior

Like I said, I did make up the name "2.5", but everything else I've said is not made up in any way whatsoever. Just go read any gaming magazines or ads from 1982 and you'll see most of them refer to the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 as "next generation" consoles or even "3rd generation" consoles. How can I make something up that already exists?

Nowhere did gaming magazines at the time ever consider the ColecoVision or 5200 as part of the same generation as the 2600... And yet decades later that's how we've ended up classifying them, in a way that contradicts what gamers of that time were saying.

And by the way, another more specific Wikipedia article on the 2nd gen doesn't include the SG-1000 at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation)

...But instead the SG-1000 is classifed as 3rd gen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation)

In other words, Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source. Either way, the SG-1000 is up for debate. The SG-1000 is technically just a gimped ColecoVision (kind of like what the Wii is to the GameCube) yet it's main competitor was the NES, so it could fit right into either the 2nd or 3rd generations and it wouldn't make much difference.

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.

I see what you're saying. And I did give you credit for putting a lot of thought into it. It is a stange oddity in gaming history that a lot of people have pondered over. But this 2.5 thing isn't classified anywhere that I've seen. If you can show it to me somewhere other than in your own posts, please do.

Again, you're missing the point. My point is that the 2nd gen consists of two separate sub-generations of its own, not whether it should be called "2.0" or "2.5".

And if you want a reference, I can refer you to any of the 1982 issues of Electronic Games, the leading North American gaming magazine of that era, and you can see for yourself how the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were classified as "next generation" consoles at the time.

Gaming journalists today usually lump the 2600 and 5200 together under the same generation, but the reality is that gamers in the 80's saw it as two seperate generations, regardless of what labels we refer to them as (whether we call it the same generation, different generations, sub-generations, 2.0/2.5, different console wars, etc.).

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Like I said, I did make up the name "2.5", but everything else I've said is not made up in any way whatsoever. Just go read any gaming magazines or ads from 1982 and you'll see most of them refer to the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 as "next generation" consoles or even "3rd generation" consoles. How can I make something up that already exists?

Nowhere did gaming magazines at the time ever consider the ColecoVision or 5200 as part of the same generation as the 2600... And yet decades later that's how we've ended up classifying them, in a way that contradicts what gamers of that time were saying.

And by the way, another more specific Wikipedia article on the 2nd gen doesn't include the SG-1000 at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation)

...But instead the SG-1000 is classifed as 3rd gen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation)

In other words, Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source. Either way, the SG-1000 is up for debate. The SG-1000 is technically just a gimped ColecoVision (kind of like what the Wii is to the GameCube) yet it's main competitor was the NES, so it could fit right into either the 2nd or 3rd generations and it wouldn't make much difference.

Jag85

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.

I see what you're saying. And I did give you credit for putting a lot of thought into it. It is a stange oddity in gaming history that a lot of people have pondered over. But this 2.5 thing isn't classified anywhere that I've seen. If you can show it to me somewhere other than in your own posts, please do.

Again, you're missing the point. My point is that the 2nd gen consists of two separate sub-generations of its own, not whether it should be called "2.0" or "2.5".

And if you want a reference, I can refer you to any of the 1982 issues of Electronic Games, the leading North American gaming magazine of that era, and you can see for yourself how the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were classified as "next generation" consoles at the time.

Gaming journalists today usually lump the 2600 and 5200 together under the same generation, but the reality is that gamers in the 80's saw it as two seperate generations, regardless of what labels we refer to them as (whether we call it the same generation, different generations, sub-generations, 2.0/2.5, different console wars, etc.).

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

PS1>N64>>Saturn>>3DO>>Jaguar.

Though there are quite a few genre's I prefer on N64.

Saturn has:

Best version of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, best version of Mega Man 8, best version of Mega Man X4, best version of the original Resident Evil, best version of Hideo Kojima's Policenauts, best version of Street Fighter Alpha 2, best versions of X-Men vs. Street Fighter and Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter, also Sega brought out new IPs for the Saturn like Panzer Dragoon, Virtua Cop, Wachenroder, Burning Rangers, Virtual On, Deep Fear, Daytona USA, and The House of the Dead. Not too bad, eh?GSJones1994

Sorry but I really have to warn people about this post.

Symphony of the Night is ropey as hell on Saturn and has loads of slowdown.

Resident Evil has poorer texturing, non-existant lighting, and loads of dithered transparencies on Saturn

Mega Man X4 has poorer FMVs, and dithered transparencies on Saturn (this one is arguable-ish due to 1 background effect)

Don't notice any problems with the other games you listed, pretty sure every multiplat 2D fighter is superior on Saturn

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Like I said, I did make up the name "2.5", but everything else I've said is not made up in any way whatsoever. Just go read any gaming magazines or ads from 1982 and you'll see most of them refer to the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 as "next generation" consoles or even "3rd generation" consoles. How can I make something up that already exists?

Nowhere did gaming magazines at the time ever consider the ColecoVision or 5200 as part of the same generation as the 2600... And yet decades later that's how we've ended up classifying them, in a way that contradicts what gamers of that time were saying.

And by the way, another more specific Wikipedia article on the 2nd gen doesn't include the SG-1000 at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(second_generation)

...But instead the SG-1000 is classifed as 3rd gen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(third_generation)

In other words, Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source. Either way, the SG-1000 is up for debate. The SG-1000 is technically just a gimped ColecoVision (kind of like what the Wii is to the GameCube) yet it's main competitor was the NES, so it could fit right into either the 2nd or 3rd generations and it wouldn't make much difference.

Jag85

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.

I see what you're saying. And I did give you credit for putting a lot of thought into it. It is a stange oddity in gaming history that a lot of people have pondered over. But this 2.5 thing isn't classified anywhere that I've seen. If you can show it to me somewhere other than in your own posts, please do.

Again, you're missing the point. My point is that the 2nd gen consists of two separate sub-generations of its own, not whether it should be called "2.0" or "2.5".

And if you want a reference, I can refer you to any of the 1982 issues of Electronic Games, the leading North American gaming magazine of that era, and you can see for yourself how the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were classified as "next generation" consoles at the time.

Gaming journalists today usually lump the 2600 and 5200 together under the same generation, but the reality is that gamers in the 80's saw it as two seperate generations, regardless of what labels we refer to them as (whether we call it the same generation, different generations, sub-generations, 2.0/2.5, different console wars, etc.).

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.

I see what you're saying. And I did give you credit for putting a lot of thought into it. It is a stange oddity in gaming history that a lot of people have pondered over. But this 2.5 thing isn't classified anywhere that I've seen. If you can show it to me somewhere other than in your own posts, please do.

Emerald_Warrior

Again, you're missing the point. My point is that the 2nd gen consists of two separate sub-generations of its own, not whether it should be called "2.0" or "2.5".

And if you want a reference, I can refer you to any of the 1982 issues of Electronic Games, the leading North American gaming magazine of that era, and you can see for yourself how the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were classified as "next generation" consoles at the time.

Gaming journalists today usually lump the 2600 and 5200 together under the same generation, but the reality is that gamers in the 80's saw it as two seperate generations, regardless of what labels we refer to them as (whether we call it the same generation, different generations, sub-generations, 2.0/2.5, different console wars, etc.).

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Again, you're missing the point. My point is that the 2nd gen consists of two separate sub-generations of its own, not whether it should be called "2.0" or "2.5".

And if you want a reference, I can refer you to any of the 1982 issues of Electronic Games, the leading North American gaming magazine of that era, and you can see for yourself how the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were classified as "next generation" consoles at the time.

Gaming journalists today usually lump the 2600 and 5200 together under the same generation, but the reality is that gamers in the 80's saw it as two seperate generations, regardless of what labels we refer to them as (whether we call it the same generation, different generations, sub-generations, 2.0/2.5, different console wars, etc.).

NationProtector

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

How could that be when the CD-i was originally planned as an add-on for the SNES? That's how CD-i got rights to some of Nintendo's licenses.

[QUOTE="NationProtector"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

Emerald_Warrior

How could that be when the CD-i was originally planned as an add-on for the SNES? That's how CD-i got rights to some of Nintendo's licenses.

And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.Emerald_Warrior

Actually numerous books disagree with the way Wiki sets out its generations.

Before that Wiki page there wasn't really an agreed status quo, wiki just popularised that particular set-up.

Funnily enough that whole thing was clearly against Wiki policy in the 1st place (original research), but so many magazines have taken on Wiki's numbering system due to the ease involved that Wiki can now just cite later articles as sources anyway.

Seriously, read through the Wiki talk page for History of the 2nd generation, its far from unanimous agreement.

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

Emerald_Warrior

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't think we need to rename the generations, but my point is that they were "sub-generations", or two separate console wars, within the wider generation. The 2nd gen is the most obvious example of this, but the add-ons war in the latter 16-bit era could be considered another example of this to an extent.

Lol wait, your using TS's links and arguments now?NationProtector

What I'm saying here isn't any different to what I was saying in this forum last year about how there were different "step ups" within the 2nd and 3rd generations...

And by the way, just drop the act already... Some of us already know you and TigerSuperman are just Another48Hours sock puppet accounts.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

And again, I see what your point is. It makes sense. The same could be said for the 4th generation when CD-Rom add-ons and consoles like Sega CD and CD-i were being produced. But it's just not how the generations are classified, regardless.

Jag85

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't think we need to rename the generations, but my point is that they were "sub-generations", or two separate console wars, within the wider generation. The 2nd gen is the most obvious example of this, but the add-ons war in the latter 16-bit era could be considered another example of this to an extent.

Lol wait, your using TS's links and arguments now?NationProtector

What I'm saying here isn't any different to what I was saying in this forum last year about how there were different "step ups" within the 2nd and 3rd generations...

And by the way, just drop the act already... Some of us already know you and TigerSuperman are just Another48Hours sock puppet accounts.

^ Wow, you have some serious anger issues there, Another48Hours/TigerSuperman/NationProtector... Anyway, whatever you have to say about that Shenmue rant, go post it over there. Stop trying to derail this thread by ranting about a completely different thread that has nothing to do with this topic.

^ Wow, you have some serious anger issues there, Another48Hours/TigerSuperman/NationProtector... Anyway, whatever you have to say about that Shenmue rant, go post it over there. Stop trying to derail this thread by ranting about a completely different thread that has nothing to do with this topic.

Jag85

know you and TigerSuperman are just Another48Hours sock puppet accounts.Jag85

both nation protector and jag85 shut up and bow down to the nintendo 64;)

The Playstation has MegaMan Legends 1 and 2, Official imported version of Battle and chase, MegaMan X4-6, MegaMan 8, MegaMan in Marvel Vs. Capcom, High Quality port of X3, too much i am faint. So many games to play. Playstation had Final Fantasyand soul reaver. Such system had many great games.MegaManReverse

you speaka engliss???

[QUOTE="Jag85"]^ I'm sorry, man, but it just had to be said... The uncanny resemblance between you and TigerSuperman (who you felt the need to bring up in this thread) and A48 is just too much to ignore...

But if it makes you feel any better, I'll try not to bring them up any more. Happy now?NationProtector

???

:lol: backfire city. I think that's enough pointing out your flaws for now, thread needs to get back on topic, and I am tired of your rambling.

____________________________________________________________________

19, 11, and 9, for the Playstation, N64, and Saturn (in that order) so far, I am slightly surprised the other two don't have votes, especially since the JAG has such a large hombrew base, and they sell quite well to, for indie standards.

Nice try at trying to cover your tracks, but you've failed big time...

Lol wait, your using TS's links and arguments now?NationProtector

Gee, I wonder who this TS is if it isn't none other than TigerSuperman?

Anyway, with that concluded, I'll just let this thread continue as usual...

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.Domino_slayer

Actually numerous books disagree with the way Wiki sets out its generations.

Before that Wiki page there wasn't really an agreed status quo, wiki just popularised that particular set-up.

Funnily enough that whole thing was clearly against Wiki policy in the 1st place (original research), but so many magazines have taken on Wiki's numbering system due to the ease involved that Wiki can now just cite later articles as sources anyway.

Seriously, read through the Wiki talk page for History of the 2nd generation, its far from unanimous agreement.

After all this discussion between me and Jag, and then this post as well. I went and did a little research in my collection. I'm quite a bit interested in the history of gaming and I own quite a bit of stuff on it. It seems that most of the stuff agreed with what I was saying, but not all of it.

The History of Electronic Gaming I already pointed out. It doesn't necessarily list generations, but it seperates the book into sections that seem to insinuate as much. They have basically everything before the Famicom, Master System, Atari 7800 as 2nd Generation. This book is published by McGraw-Hill, who makes text-books. So I would imagine their fact-checking is pretty precise.

The article from Electronic Gaming Monthly pretty much has the Wikipedia page, verbatim. So it was probably researched from Wikipedia.

However, possibly the best book I have on the subject, and the most complete (as it pertains to consoles themselves) is a book I have called "Game Machines: 1972-2012: The Encyclopedia of Consoles, Handhelds, & Home Computers"; is completely different than the rest. It's a great book that covers so many freaking consoles, even some of the most rare examples. But this book has anything released from 1972-1981 listed as the first generation, anything from 1982-1984 listed as second generation, and anything that's 16-bit and released from 1984-1990 as third generation. It also has the CD-Rom stuff that was pointed out already listed as the 4th generation.

So yeah, not exactly an across the board agreement out there. But Wikipedia seems to be the source most people are citing from nowadays.

As is mentioned on Wiki "A History of Home Video Game Consoles" has Colecovision & Atari 5200 in their own gen.

Magazine's of the time all refered to Colecovision and Atari 5200 as next gen consoles.

Electronic Games called them "the third wave"

[QUOTE="Domino_slayer"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]And you are a more reliable source than Wikipedia? I could also have you look it up in books like "The Electronic History Gaming," or on countless other websites and magazines.Emerald_Warrior

Actually numerous books disagree with the way Wiki sets out its generations.

Before that Wiki page there wasn't really an agreed status quo, wiki just popularised that particular set-up.

Funnily enough that whole thing was clearly against Wiki policy in the 1st place (original research), but so many magazines have taken on Wiki's numbering system due to the ease involved that Wiki can now just cite later articles as sources anyway.

Seriously, read through the Wiki talk page for History of the 2nd generation, its far from unanimous agreement.

After all this discussion between me and Jag, and then this post as well. I went and did a little research in my collection. I'm quite a bit interested in the history of gaming and I own quite a bit of stuff on it. It seems that most of the stuff agreed with what I was saying, but not all of it.

The History of Electronic Gaming I already pointed out. It doesn't necessarily list generations, but it seperates the book into sections that seem to insinuate as much. They have basically everything before the Famicom, Master System, Atari 7800 as 2nd Generation. This book is published by McGraw-Hill, who makes text-books. So I would imagine their fact-checking is pretty precise.

The article from Electronic Gaming Monthly pretty much has the Wikipedia page, verbatim. So it was probably researched from Wikipedia.

However, possibly the best book I have on the subject, and the most complete (as it pertains to consoles themselves) is a book I have called "Game Machines: 1972-2012: The Encyclopedia of Consoles, Handhelds, & Home Computers"; is completely different than the rest. It's a great book that covers so many freaking consoles, even some of the most rare examples. But this book has anything released from 1972-1981 listed as the first generation, anything from 1982-1984 listed as second generation, and anything that's 16-bit and released from 1984-1990 as third generation. It also has the CD-Rom stuff that was pointed out already listed as the 4th generation.

So yeah, not exactly an across the board agreement out there. But Wikipedia seems to be the source most people are citing from nowadays.

That's a pretty interesting way to categorize the generations. First time I've seen such a categorization before. I'm kind of curious to check out that Game Machines book now...

As for The History of Electronic Gaming, that appears to have originally been published in 2002, before Wikipedia had any pages on console generations. If that really does categorize the generations that way, then it may very well be the source of the current generation categorization we use...

As is mentioned on Wiki "A History of Home Video Game Consoles" has Colecovision & Atari 5200 in their own gen.

Magazine's of the time all refered to Colecovision and Atari 5200 as next gen consoles.

Electronic Games called them "the third wave"

Domino_slayer

I guess it comes down who's authority you're gonna subscribe to, then. Magazines from the time period, or writers looking back from today's point-of-view?

Either way, my only point in my original post that started this discussion was to point out that the 2nd generation was a crowded generation just as the 4th was (or 5th by your point of view). And it still is. It has a bit more than the average "big 3" and a handful of failed consoles, even if you do consider ColecoVision, Atari 5200, and SG-1000 to be third-generation.

PS1>N64>>Saturn>>3DO>>Jaguar.

Though there are quite a few genre's I prefer on N64.

[QUOTE="GSJones1994"]Saturn has:

Best version of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, best version of Mega Man 8, best version of Mega Man X4, best version of the original Resident Evil, best version of Hideo Kojima's Policenauts, best version of Street Fighter Alpha 2, best versions of X-Men vs. Street Fighter and Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter, also Sega brought out new IPs for the Saturn like Panzer Dragoon, Virtua Cop, Wachenroder, Burning Rangers, Virtual On, Deep Fear, Daytona USA, and The House of the Dead. Not too bad, eh?Domino_slayer

Sorry but I really have to warn people about this post.

Symphony of the Night is ropey as hell on Saturn and has loads of slowdown.

Resident Evil has poorer texturing, non-existant lighting, and loads of dithered transparencies on Saturn

Mega Man X4 has poorer FMVs, and dithered transparencies on Saturn (this one is arguable-ish due to 1 background effect)

Don't notice any problems with the other games you listed, pretty sure every multiplat 2D fighter is superior on Saturn

The fifth Generation of Videogame consoles. The 32bit - 64 bit era. Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation, 3DO (32 bit) and Nintendo 64 and Atari Jaguar (64 bit) even though Atari used creative math to get the 64bit billing.

The 5th Generation seemed like a dawn of a new fantasic era into 3D gaming. In a way this was the generation of renewed creative advancement in games. Games on CD Rom were a big deal back then. The 90's did introduce some great game franchises. One of the more packed console wars.

Won by Sony first Playstation by quite a large margin over everyone else combined. 103 Million original Playstations/PSone

Jaguar be TRIPPING! You check it though: They done just take a crayon and write Jaguar on the side, that some bootleg crunk right there. they must been poorer than me after I paid my car in full hoho. Playstation slayed everyone like they stole they mommas purse! That was not even slaying that was HOMICIDE-FIRST-DEGREE-MURDAPhotonikTronik

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

[QUOTE="PhotonikTronik"]Jaguar be TRIPPING! You check it though: They done just take a crayon and write Jaguar on the side, that some bootleg crunk right there. they must been poorer than me after I paid my car in full hoho. Playstation slayed everyone like they stole they mommas purse! That was not even slaying that was HOMICIDE-FIRST-DEGREE-MURDAluckykoopsie

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

[QUOTE="PhotonikTronik"]Jaguar be TRIPPING! You check it though: They done just take a crayon and write Jaguar on the side, that some bootleg crunk right there. they must been poorer than me after I paid my car in full hoho. Playstation slayed everyone like they stole they mommas purse! That was not even slaying that was HOMICIDE-FIRST-DEGREE-MURDAJakandsigz

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

all I'm saying is ps1 is overrated. simple as that.

[QUOTE="PhotonikTronik"]Jaguar be TRIPPING! You check it though: They done just take a crayon and write Jaguar on the side, that some bootleg crunk right there. they must been poorer than me after I paid my car in full hoho. Playstation slayed everyone like they stole they mommas purse! That was not even slaying that was HOMICIDE-FIRST-DEGREE-MURDAluckykoopsie

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

[QUOTE="PhotonikTronik"]Jaguar be TRIPPING! You check it though: They done just take a crayon and write Jaguar on the side, that some bootleg crunk right there. they must been poorer than me after I paid my car in full hoho. Playstation slayed everyone like they stole they mommas purse! That was not even slaying that was HOMICIDE-FIRST-DEGREE-MURDAJakandsigz

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

both?? you mean jaguar and Psx??

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"][QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Ps1 is overrated peice of junk hardware that does such terrible 3d it makes my eyes bleed

luckykoopsie

both?? you mean jaguar and Psx??

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

nameless12345

nah the jaguar was poopy

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

nameless12345

I don't really see the Jaguar as competition for the Saturn or PS1, but rather as competition for the 3DO. Remember, the initial 32/64-bit battle of that generation was between the 3DO and Jaguar, a year before the Saturn and PS1 launched. And like with the Saturn and PS1, the Jaguar was the better 2D machine and the 3DO was the better 3D machine, but they both lost their technical advantages once the Saturn and PS1 launched.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

Jag85

I don't really see the Jaguar as competition for the Saturn or PS1, but rather as competition for the 3DO. Remember, the initial 32/64-bit battle of that generation was between the 3DO and Jaguar, a year before the Saturn and PS1 launched. And like with the Saturn and PS1, the Jaguar was the better 2D machine and the 3DO was the better 3D machine, but they both lost their technical advantages once the Saturn and PS1 launched.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

Jakandsigz

I don't really see the Jaguar as competition for the Saturn or PS1, but rather as competition for the 3DO. Remember, the initial 32/64-bit battle of that generation was between the 3DO and Jaguar, a year before the Saturn and PS1 launched. And like with the Saturn and PS1, the Jaguar was the better 2D machine and the 3DO was the better 3D machine, but they both lost their technical advantages once the Saturn and PS1 launched.

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

I don't really see the Jaguar as competition for the Saturn or PS1, but rather as competition for the 3DO. Remember, the initial 32/64-bit battle of that generation was between the 3DO and Jaguar, a year before the Saturn and PS1 launched. And like with the Saturn and PS1, the Jaguar was the better 2D machine and the 3DO was the better 3D machine, but they both lost their technical advantages once the Saturn and PS1 launched.

Jag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"] Really?Jakandsigz

Based on their technical specifications, it seems the 3DO didn't have any hardware support for 2D sprites but had to software render them using 3D graphics (kind of like the PlayStation), whereas the Jaguar had a blitter chip that could simulate a 2D sprite engine through hardware (kind of like the Amiga).

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"][QUOTE="Jag85"] ?

Jag85

Based on their technical specifications, it seems the 3DO didn't have any hardware support for 2D sprites but had to software render them using 3D graphics (kind of like the PlayStation), whereas the Jaguar had a blitter chip that could simulate a 2D sprite engine through hardware (kind of like the Amiga).

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"] I was wondering how the Jaguar was the better 2D gaming machine compared to 3DO. 3DO got perfect and better arcade ports of games with crisp visuals that were clear. Rayman is the only good looking 2D games I can think of on the Jag.Jakandsigz

Based on their technical specifications, it seems the 3DO didn't have any hardware support for 2D sprites but had to software render them using 3D graphics (kind of like the PlayStation), whereas the Jaguar had a blitter chip that could simulate a 2D sprite engine through hardware (kind of like the Amiga).

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Based on their technical specifications, it seems the 3DO didn't have any hardware support for 2D sprites but had to software render them using 3D graphics (kind of like the PlayStation), whereas the Jaguar had a blitter chip that could simulate a 2D sprite engine through hardware (kind of like the Amiga).

Jag85

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I still think Jaguar could be competitive to Saturn and PSX would they give it a more logical setup and a CD drive from the get-go. (& a better controller)

But they also needed far better support.

Let's say Super Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat II would get ported over to the Jag and have the best graphics and sound compared to SNES and Genesis/MD versions - those would have been "killer-apps" for the system easily, considering it was selling at an competitive price.

Throw in there some improved 3D performance (fast texture-mapper engine) and ports of games like The Need For Speed and Road Rash would have seemed very appealing too.

Jag85

I don't really see the Jaguar as competition for the Saturn or PS1, but rather as competition for the 3DO. Remember, the initial 32/64-bit battle of that generation was between the 3DO and Jaguar, a year before the Saturn and PS1 launched. And like with the Saturn and PS1, the Jaguar was the better 2D machine and the 3DO was the better 3D machine, but they both lost their technical advantages once the Saturn and PS1 launched.

Well, 3DO was a impressive system for 1993/1994.

It was just too expensive, not advertised enough and not the best developer support.

If that's the case, its odd hardware set-up most have prevented it from having better 2D games then.Jakandsigz

The Jaguar has a Motorola 68000 in it as a manager (the designers joked that it was there to control the joystick ports).

The 68000 was a very popular, well known CPU (there's one in the Sega Genesis). Most of the developers ended up using the 68000 to run their games instead of the actual main chips as they were already familiar with it and wanted to rush their product to market.

There are few examples of properly programmed Jaguar games, usually homebrew games are better than the offerings of the major companies.

Having zero interest from developers and not being taken seriously as a commercial console prevented it from having better games.