Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[ElkinFencer10]

I'd say the C64 was an NES contemporary, so it's firmly in the 3rd gen. Its period of success is squarely in that gen, although I think it launched a year earlier than GameFAQs lists the generational boundaries.

I consider C64 to be second gen since it released the same year as the Vectrex, Atari 5200, and Colecovision, and those are all pretty solidly second gen.

[Gunstar Green]

I'd say the C64 was an NES contemporary, so it's firmly in the 3rd gen. Its period of success is squarely in that gen, although I think it launched a year earlier than GameFAQs lists the generational boundaries.

I consider C64 to be second gen since it released the same year as the Vectrex, Atari 5200, and Colecovision, and those are all pretty solidly second gen.

I think its splitting hairs to definitively call it one or the other. You can define it by the release date or you can define it by the type of games in its library and the years when it was most prevalent.

So you could say it launched during the late second generation but was active throughout the third generation, making it both.

Or you could say it's the first third generation system, ColecoVision comes damn close as well and could have definitely been part of the third gen if its library wasn't arcade-centric and it had survived longer.

For Europe especially the C64 was one of that generation's major devices. It's a very Japan/American focused viewpoint to focus on the NES as the start of the third generation. The really early Famicom stuff is practically 2nd gen in style as well. It was more the game design shift which came later that caused what we perceive as that particular generational leap more than the hardware.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not very clear because it was a time before we had fallen into the modern cycle of hardware generations.

[Sarge]

I think the survival time of the console has a lot to do with it. Had the Colecovision gone a bit further, it might have been considered early 3rd gen. Since it flamed out, though, it's usually lumped in with the 2nd gen. Hardware-wise, it's got aspects that could put it in either.

I could see an argument for the Colecovision going either way, honestly.

[alienjesus]

I think the survival time of the console has a lot to do with it. Had the Colecovision gone a bit further, it might have been considered early 3rd gen. Since it flamed out, though, it's usually lumped in with the 2nd gen.

I feel like the Dreamcast was in a similar scenario though, but people always class that at 6th gen despite it's main competition for most of its lifespan being the N64 and PS1

[Sarge]

Yeah, the Dreamcast is in the same boat. The hardware had more in common with the sixth generation, although it was more contemporary with the fifth generation (with the PS2 killing it off). To be consistent, I think GameFAQs should probably put the Colecovision in the third gen.

[ElkinFencer10]

I think the survival time of the console has a lot to do with it. Had the Colecovision gone a bit further, it might have been considered early 3rd gen. Since it flamed out, though, it's usually lumped in with the 2nd gen.

I feel like the Dreamcast was in a similar scenario though, but people always class that at 6th gen despite it's main competition for most of its lifespan being the N64 and PS1

Dreamcast definitely is similar. As I've said before, I look at release date more than anything else. I also look at things from a pretty North American perspective. Yeah, 1999 was earlier than the rest of the 6th gen consoles, but far enough past the rest of the 5th gen that it counts as an early entry into the next gen for me. Same with C64; it was definitely active during the 3rd gen, but its release with other systems I consider to be 2nd gen and how far before other 3rd gen consoles it was released (again, from my US perspective) puts it in 2nd gen.

At the end of the day, "generation" is a very subjective measure of time for technology in general, especially game consoles. It's very much subject to individual interpretation, so it's not unreasonable for Sarge to call the C64 3rd gen at the same that I call it 2nd gen; we look at things from different perspectives with a different dominant criterion.

[Sarge]

The interesting part is when you throw in the Japanese release dates, particularly for the Famicom, there's only a year's difference between the two. So I can totally see the argument for late 2nd or early 3rd for the C64.

[ElkinFencer10]

The interesting part is when you throw in the Japanese release dates, particularly for the Famicom, there's only a year's difference between the two. So I can totally see the argument for late 2nd or early 3rd for the C64.

Yeah, that's why I decided to specify that I look at generations from a North American perspective - regional release dates make it a convoluted mess.

[marlowe221]

For some inexplicable reason, I have a hard time thinking of the various home computers of the 80s and 90s in terms of generations in the same way we talk about consoles.

It's like an entirely parallel stream of hardware in my mind, totally unrelated to home consoles.

(I know it's not really like that, it's just my weird brain doing it's thing.)

[Sarge]

Well, I can't disagree with that sentiment to some degree. It's a bit like how I tend to see handhelds as a parallel track, too.