What is the best second Generation console?

[NIAD]

Oh sorry, I thought Nintendo pretty much started the 3rd gen

Nah. The ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were referred to in numerous magazine publications and even Ads by their manufacturers as "Third Wave" or "Third Generation" back in the early 80's. There was even a very lengthy discussion, that at times got a little heated, about how all the systems where classified that I think is in this "Classic Gaming General" forum.

 

The modern day breakdown lists these consoles as 2nd Generation as it simplifies the grouping, but the historically correct classification is indeed 3rd Generation.

[NIAD]

From a games perspective, I'm going to say Intellivision. People are saying Atari for the sheer number of games, but I think they're forgetting that all those games can also be run on an Intellivision through the System Changer. Intellivision library + Atari VCS library = slam dunk in my book.

Ah, but let me one up you then if we are talking about Adapters that let one console play another consoles games. The ColecoVision has the Expansion Module #1 which allows it to play almost all of the VCS/2600 lineup and if you were lucky enough to get the free Cart Extender Adapter from Coleco, then I think the number is near 100%.

 

Now, if you are one of the very few, and I do mean very few as in at most 4, to be in possesion of the Intellision Adapter for the ColecoVision, then the CV can also play all of the Intellivision games as well.

 

Just saying.

 

 

There are plenty of things I like very much about each of these consoles, though. Even the Studio II.

Here hear!

[NIAD]

The 2600 stomped on its competitors for at least two "generations" and it ruled the budget roost for a third. It has also wreaked some havoc in the Jakks style built in games market recently. Just look at the sales figures for every other system that was made during the time the 2600 was also made and you'll see all the proof you need.

 

Oh, as for hardware? The 2600 was the meager little console that "could". Superior hardware rarely wins out at the retail counter.

The 2600 is indeed the "beast" of the videogame consoles when it comes to overall and sustained sales, but during the ColecoVision's rise in late '82 through mid '84, I think the historical records would show that the CV outsold the 2600. I'll be honest that I'm going from memory of some videogame magazine articles and have not done the research to verify this, but I'm pretty confident that I am remembering this right.

 

BTW, if you haven'y already realised, I'm placing my vote for the ColecoVision and the Vectrex right behind it. I still haven't taken the leap into Vectrex ownership, but boy do I remember all the great games that my friends and I used to play at a local MusicLand where the five top systems of the time (2600, 5200, CV, Inty and Vectrex) where lined up next to each other for demoing purposes. Those were the days!

Edited May 7, 2013 by NIAD

[NIAD]

That's like asking when was the first generation of humans...

If you believe in the Old Testament which a lot of religions do, then the answer is: Adam and Eve.

 

If you do not believe in the above, then the answer has to be: When alcohol was created for consumption.

[BassGuitari]

Now, if you are one of the very few, and I do mean very few as in at most 4, to be in possesion of the Intellision Adapter for the ColecoVision, then the CV can also play all of the Intellivision games as well.

 

Just saying.

 

 

Eh, sorry, but you don't get to throw out something that essentially doesn't exist (the Intellivision adapter) as an argument for the Coleco's superiority. Hypothetically, you could probably build a Colecovision adapter for Intellivision and it'd be the same effect. It's like saying "The Intellivision is the best because it could theoretically use the Keyboard Component" or "The Bally was the best because of the Z-Grass expansion."

 

Of course, the point is moot since the Colecovision isn't a Second Generation console anyway.

[NIAD]

Eh, sorry, but you don't get to throw out something that essentially doesn't exist (the Intellivision adapter) as an argument for the Coleco's superiority. Hypothetically, you could probably build a Colecovision adapter for Intellivision and it'd be the same effect. It's like saying "The Intellivision is the best because it could theoretically use the Keyboard Component" or "The Bally was the best because of the Z-Grass expansion."

Yeah, a prototype device is a bit of a stretch to use, isn't it! I just couldn't resist.

 

Of course, the point is moot since the Colecovision isn't a Second Generation console anyway.

My man! :thumbsup:

[sqoon]

5200 was 2nd gen, and the best of the lot IMHO.

[shadow460]

The 2600 is indeed the "beast" of the videogame consoles when it comes to overall and sustained sales, but during the ColecoVision's rise in late '82 through mid '84, I think the historical records would show that the CV outsold the 2600. I'll be honest that I'm going from memory of some videogame magazine articles and have not done the research to verify this, but I'm pretty confident that I am remembering this right.

 

I won't doubt you here, as the ColecoVision definitely was a worthy console for a few years. It boasted some very good arcade ports, and in my short time of owning one, I've lost countless hours of sleep playing those ports.

 

Where was it in 1991?

[BassGuitari]

Of course, the point is moot since the Colecovision isn't a Second Generation console anyway.

 

The more I think about it, even the Intellivision should probably be considered more of a Gen 3 (actually Gen 4...more on that below) system than a Gen 2. I think it has a lot more in common with the Atari 5200 and Colecovision than with the Fairchild, RCA, Atari VCS, Odyssey 2, Bally, APF, or those European Radofin 1292 consoles.

 

For instance (and this is perhaps superficial, but it's a thought I had), interaction with the software is done entirely with the controller on the Inty, Coleco, and 5200. All those other ones required you to play with switches and keys on the console. The Intellivision -or maybe even the APF- marked a paradigm change in the interactive function a console needed to serve. It was no longer the "computer-esque" center around which all interactivity revolved (which is somewhat ironic considering the computer add-on mania of the time), if that makes any sense. The only thing keeping the console three feet away from you now where the frickin' 3-foot controller cords.

 

Even in terms of audio-visuals, the Intellivision is closer to the 5200 and Coleco than earlier systems, although the Bally gave it a run for its money, and the VCS caught up pretty well in later years (see: Solaris vs Space Battle).

 

I'd even go so far as to say the first few generations of the current model are mildly horsed up and suffer from too many ambiguities. I'd also argue that the original Odyssey is a generation unto itself since it's such a one-of-a-kind system (being a hybrid of video and board games), and that the dedicated, self-contained consoles that followed would be second generation. Which then bumps everything else up. If I were to reorganize the generations, they would look something like this:

 

Gen 1: Odyssey

Gen 2: Odyssey 100-3000, Pong (and sequels), Telstar (and sequels), etc.

Gen 2.5: Odyssey 4000, Video Pinball, Stunt Cycle, Combat, Speedway/IV (also Telstar Arcade?)

Gen 3: Fairchild, RCA, Atari VCS, Bally, M/P1000, Odyssey 2, Arcadia 2001*

Gen 4: Intellivision, Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex, SG-1000, DINA, Videopac G7400, Creativision, Atari XEGS**

Gen 5: NES/Famicom, Master System, Atari 7800

Gen 5A: RDI Halcyon, Action Max

Gen 6: TurboGrafx-16, TurboGrafx-CD, Genesis, Super NES, NeoGeo

Gen 7: CD-i, 3DO, Sega CD, 32X, Jaguar, Jaguar CD, CD32, NeoGeo CD, Pippin (also CDTV?)

Gen 8: Saturn, Playstation, Nintendo 64

Gen 9: Dreamcast, Playstation 2, Xbox, Nuon, Gamecube

Gen 10: Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Wii

 

*Though it was released during what I'm calling Gen 4, it's really what I'm calling Gen 3 hardware.

** " " " " " " " " Gen 5, " " " " " Gen 4 ".

 

Of course, that's a little more convoluted than the current model, but I think it's a little more accurate.

[Atariboy]

The timing of release is just as important I think as technical capabilities are in creating a logical list of groupings (Although I think when the system is discontinued is irrelevant unlike some in this thread that are using that as a basis for lumping the 2nd and 3rd generation together). Have to take both into account since some of these are odd situations like the XEGS where the timing is significantly later. Despite essentially being a repackaging of earlier hardware, how can it belong to the same generation when said generation was essentially dead upon its release?

 

The Intellivision is kind of an oddball like the PC Engine where it almost straddles two generations. But I think since it went head to head against the Atari 2600 and Odyssey 2 during its heyday that most would consider it a contemporary of those two. It was old news by 1982 and Mattel themselves was developing a replacement to compete against the Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex, the Odyssey 2 replacement, etc (Until the crash ended those plans).

 

I think it's going a bit far trying to develop distinct generations or sub-generations for the earliest era of videogaming with dedicated consoles. And I don't think two obscure consoles that barely registered a blip on the radar make sense to be singled out. Nor do I see any logic in listing enhancement attachments for an earlier console as next generation game consoles. Particularly the Neo Geo CD where the only change was the game medium.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Atariboy

[akator]

I used to be in the camp that thought 5200, CV, Vectrex, etc. were 3rd and not 2nd. Then I got tired of arguing with people about it and decided to let them mislabel 3rd gen consoles into 2nd gen consoles all they wanted.

 

Now I'm leaning towards fewer and not more console generations, defined by when the following were adopted as standards by the industry and consumers:

 

game pads

optical media

3D co-processing

networking

mass storage

 

I'm not fully certain about networking and mass storage being separate, since they really need each other to reach full potential. Not sure what the title of that shift would be, nor the full outcome, but we're witnessing it now.

[BassGuitari]

I think it's going a bit far trying to develop distinct generations or sub-generations for the earliest era of videogaming with dedicated consoles. And I don't think two obscure consoles that barely registered a blip on the radar make sense to be singled out.

 

I feel like you're taking this too seriously.

 

It is going a little far, I suppose. It's just a question of where you draw the line, I guess. That "Gen 2.5" stuff could just as easily go into "Gen 2," even though there is a legitimate argument to be made that they are distinct, a sort of bridge between the dedicated systems and programmable systems.

 

The RDI and Action Max, I was kind of thinking aloud where they -and things like them- might go. They don't really fit anywhere. They're interesting sidesteps that went nowhere.

 

Nor do I see any logic in listing enhancement attachments for an earlier console as next generation game consoles. Particularly the Neo Geo CD where the only change was the game medium.

 

Then leave them off. I admit I didn't really know that about the NeoGeo CD. I just assumed it could run more advanced stuff since it was released three or four years later. (I'm not a NeoGeo guy.)

 

The logic was that the Sega CD and 32X (I assume these are what you're referring to?) could run games the Genesis alone could not (nor could the SNES in many cases), and which were comparable to "next gen" systems like 3DO. They may not have been as good, but they were a step in that direction.

[Atariboy]

I feel like you're taking this too seriously.

 

 

How so? Beyond being ever so slightly annoyed when I see the consoles that were hitting the marketplace in 1982 lumped in with those from several years earlier, I really don't mind one way or another.

 

I just found it an interesting conversation. But I don't have to debate if you don't want me to.

[akator]

I've revised my "new theory of console generations." These are the paradigm shifts, things that changed gaming permanently once they were adopted by the majority of industry and consumers. I think these make a lot more sense than the generally accepted generational definitions.

paddles/rotary

cartridges

joysticks

game pads

optical media

3D co-processing

networking

mass storage

 

Obviously, consoles started with paddles and rotary then stayed with that for years. Carts and joysticks showed up close to each other, but one was input and the other storage, programming, and distribution. Blah, blah, blah, you get the gist of it. These are the changes that make everything after noticeably and functionally different from what came before.

 

I'd love to hear criticism and flaws, since I'm sure there is something I'm missing.

[BassGuitari]

How so? Beyond being ever so slightly annoyed when I see the consoles that were hitting the marketplace in 1982 lumped in with those from several years earlier, I really don't mind one way or another.

 

You mind ever so slightly enough to bring it up. And you minded ever so slightly enough to pick apart my other post.

 

I assume you're talking about the Arcadia 2001 here. Regardless of its release date, it was not a 'Vision-Generation piece of hardware. I think a reasonably strong case could be made for that argument. I don't think release date alone defines a generation. At least, it shouldn't. It just happens that they generally coincide.

 

I just found it an interesting conversation. But I don't have to debate if you don't want me to.

 

It's a free country; say what you like!

 

Just consider, perhaps, that beginning a counterargument with lines like "Nor do I see any logic..." is not conducive to a conversation.

[Greg2600]

Going by the Wikipedia definition, the 2600 is my favorite hands down. The wealth of games does it, plus the great play control. 2nd is a tossup between CV, 5200, and Vectrex. I have little or no interest in the rest, including the Intellivision.

[NIAD]

I won't doubt you here, as the ColecoVision definitely was a worthy console for a few years. It boasted some very good arcade ports, and in my short time of owning one, I've lost countless hours of sleep playing those ports.

 

Where was it in 1991?

Waiting for all the great Homebrewers to start coming around like they eventually did in 1996 with Kevin Horton. Since then, it is one of the best supported retro videogame consoles.

[Serious]

You can't compare the Colecovision to the 2600. One was released in 1977, and the other in 1982 (5 years apart).

 

Its like comparing the Colecovision to an Amiga (which was actually only 3 years apart).

 

 

Computer and gaming hardware was advancing faster back then than it does now.

[Manoau2002]

I think some systems cross over into multiple generations. Video hardware is a factor. But so are the types of games being released for the system and the controllers. Also how long the company continued to officially support the console. Also the year it came out. I would arrange it as:

 

Generation 2

Atari 2600

Odyssey 2

Fairchild

 

Generation 3

Atari 2600

Intellivision

Colecovision

Vectrex

Atari 5200

Atari 7800

 

Generation 4

Atari 7800

SG-1000

NES

 

I have included the Atari 2600 in Generation 2 and 3 because of its long life span and the similarity in controls between it and consoles that existed in both generations. I feel that the Atari 7800 belongs in both the 3 and 4 generations. Because the Atari 7800 game library wise has more in common with the Colecovision than it does with the NES. But it came out much later than the other systems.

[AtariLeaf]

Colecovision is probably the best, but the 2600 is my favorite. Doesn't make sense? Don't care.

[RangerG]

My old thread links to this one, good topic:

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/149682-major-and-minor-consoles-of-the-classic-era/page__fromsearch__1

[jetset]

Atari 2600 is clearly the best, with the 5200 second. Atari made the best games. The 2600 was the innovator, and had the most games. The 5200 had a small library but most games were arcade hits and had much better graphics than anything else available in the pre-crash era.

[Atariboy]

Here is how I would group things based upon the timing of their release and their capabilities (With perhaps the exception of the Neo Geo where I'm almost strictly looking at the timing of its release since it had advanced 2D capabilities than even consoles of the following generation couldn't match).

 

Generation 1: The dedicated gaming era.

Generation 2: The first wave of reprogrammable gaming consoles including the Atari 2600, Odyssey 2, and Intellivision (Which while more advanced and slightly later was still going head to head against these consoles during its heyday, was significantly weaker than the systems that would start to be released a few years later, and was slated for replacement by a more advanced but backwards compatible console to compete against the likes of the 5200).

Generation 3: The Vectrex, Atari 5200, Colecovision, etc.

Generation 4: The NES, 7800, & SMS.

Generation 5: The Neo Geo, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, TurboGrafx-16 (There's an argument here for it being a generation 4 console, particularly from the point of view of Japanese gamers, but it's significantly more powerful, was released at the very end of the 1980's over here, and was viewed as a competitor of the new 16 bit consoles).

Generation 6: The Atari Jaguar, the 3DO, the Playstation, the Saturn, and the Nintendo 64.

Generation 7: The Sega Dreamcast, Playstation 2, Xbox, and GameCube.

Generation 8: The Wii, Xbox 360, and Playstation 3.

Generation 9: The Wii U, Xbox 720, and Playstation 4.

 

I'm not counting enhancement add-ons, I'm not counting CD drives, I'm not counting multimedia devices, I'm not counting repackings of earlier consoles, and I'm not counting obscure consoles that had zero impact on the console world. Even the more mainstream of these oddities I'm not going to bother to include for simplicity's sake and since so many of them are difficulty to classify (Although I'm including the Vectrex).

 

The RCA Studio II for instance, which while from 1977 when that era started and with the major feature that sets that generation apart from the previous (Being reprogrammable with game cartridges), it lacked proper controllers and the games in many ways seem more primitive than many of the better dedicated consoles from the first generation. So I'm not even going to try with the less mainstream consoles of which there are dozens of obscure pieces of hardware out there not even mentioned here yet.

 

I'm also not including attempts to consolize existing computer hardware by stripping it down to the bare essentials to play games and then calling it a console with accessories like keyboards sold separably to restore their computer capabilities. Particularly since I'm at a loss on how to categorize the XEGS. I'm including the Atari 5200 because despite its nature, it still was a full fledged home console attempt, couldn't be used as a computer, and it was more than just a reskinning of a computer and had significant changes to adapt it for dedicated home console use despite the similarity of its guts and quite a few games being identical to their computer counterparts.

 

The XEGS by its capabilities is strictly Generation 3, but by its timing of release, is Generation 4. So I'm not going to even try.

 

You mind ever so slightly enough to bring it up. And you minded ever so slightly enough to pick apart my other post.

 

I find it an interesting conversation. That doesn't mean that I was getting annoyed or bothered like you seemed to be implying.

 

I really don't mind one way or another how you or anyone else wants classify things if we insists on grouping consoles into generations. But that doesn't mean I don't have my own opinions or don't find the topic interesting.

 

Just consider, perhaps, that beginning a counterargument with lines like "Nor do I see any logic..." is not conducive to a conversation.

 

Perhaps, but I knew you weren't taking things seriously, right?

 

All kidding aside, I really didn't mean anything with that. I merely meant that I don't see a basis for it like I did with your Intellivision argument where I think you have some valid points. But since they're not even consoles and instead are add-ons, I don't agree with including them.

 

So while when I play something like the Supercharger version of Frogger I see something that fits far closer to new 1982 systems than I do the 1977 vintage Atari 2600 and can understand by virtue of the games themselves, I'm not about to include it with the next generation simply because it's not a standalone console but rather an upgrade accessory for an earlier game system.

 

So to me, including something like the the Sega CD as a next generation game console makes about as much sense as including a 8th generation backwards compatible Playstation 3 in my 6th and 7th generations as well by virtue of its compatibility with the game library of the Playstation and Playstation 2.

 

But maybe that's just me. We're talking about opinions here so while I disagree, I'm not saying you're wrong.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Atariboy

[ilovethevectrex]

i would have to say the 2600 because i dont have that much experience with the intellivision and colecovision

[ConsoleGeek]

Probably the 2600 for sheer game selection.

 

Exact same reason I prefer the 2600 over its competition.