|
|
|
|
|
|
by sneed_chucker
964 days ago
|
|
|
> Rather than the author, I would say that it's everybody else - a general consensus - making that claim. Sure, I guess I'm just disappointed that the author didn't take his argument to the logical conclusion and say that actually the 3rd generation of consoles began earlier, but that it was distorted in the US due to the 1983 video game crash (which was really only a thing in the US). I think it comes down to online discussions of video game history often being very US and Nintendo centric, and the concept of a "generation" being quite flawed (the author does mention that). |
|
|
> Six years after the start of the Second Generation, a new generation of consoles appeared (...) For reasons that are not entirely clear, they are considered part of the Second Generation.
As well as in last paragraph:
> (...) ‘What to call this so-called “Lost Generation?’” Should it be renamed to the Third Generation, and the Third to the Fourth and so forth? That would be confusing. While I like the term “Lost Generation,” and it lends well to how these machines were (...) doomed by the console market crash, (...) I suggest calling it the 2.5 Generation; this avoids any renaming and places it in the correct chronological order.