
There's been some resurrected discussion today on the subject of "video game console generations", primarily based on a month-old Bluesky post from a member of the Video Game History Foundation describing them as largely unhelpful, and something that serious video game historians don't rely on at all. He posited that "generations" were made up by a Wikipedia editor in the early 2000s, and people have just sort of accepted them as "gospel" ever since.
As another part of the discussion, others have objected to descriptors like "8-bit", "16-bit" and suchlike for similar reasons.
My feelings on the subject are relatively straightforward. I agree that the "generation" thing isn't necessarily helpful — if someone uses it, I always have to look them up and check which one is which, particularly when people like EA attempt to redefine what the "generations" were, as they did around the start of the PS4 era — but I don't have a problem with "8-bit", "16-bit", "32-bit" and the like — up to a point. Dreamcast was the last console that people really referred to in terms of its "bits" ("128-bit") and that didn't really catch on; after that people just sort of… gave up, perhaps because console architecture became a bit more complicated. I don't actually know why we stopped talking "bits", but we did.
Anyway, one area where I do disagree a little with what appeared to be emerging as the popular consensus is that I think it is helpful to stratify computer and video gaming technology in terms of rough contemporaries, because while numbering generations isn't necessarily helpful, saying that the Atari 8-bit, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Apple II, Amstrad CPC and numerous others all coexisted at the same point in history — though some endured longer than others — is useful.
If you consider rough contemporaries, you get into some interesting overlapping territories, too, such as where the Commodore 64 and Spectrum were happily coexisting with the Atari ST and Amiga, or where the Super NES was still holding its own against early PlayStation games. Those are interesting periods of history to talk about, not least because the "outgoing" hardware tends to have thoroughly fascinating (and often quite hard-to-come-by) games released during those curious times of overlap. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the "generations" of home computers work a bit differently to those of the consoles, especially since it pretty much went "8-bit, 16-bit, PC" and then sort of stopped when "PC" became a thing unto itself.
I think it is also helpful to distinguish distinct groups of computer and gaming hardware by their capabilities, also. Again using the home computers as an example, there is an obvious technological leap between the ZX Spectrum and the Amiga. There's another massive difference between the NES and Super NES. Those differences aren't all down to the "bits" of course — in most cases, it's more about the custom hardware and its capabilities, hence how the "8-bit" PC Engine is more commonly considered as a contemporary and rival of something like the Mega Drive rather than the NES — but there are clear moments when the industry has gone "we're releasing something new now, and it's going to be way more impressive than anything you've ever seen before".
I actually think it's somewhat easy to forget quite how fast things moved in the '80s and '90s, since today's technological advancements, particularly in terms of visual fidelity, have slowed to a crawl. There was another good post recently about how you could have released a game from ten years ago (like Metal Gear Solid V) today, completely unchanged, and no-one would know it wasn't a brand new game. That certainly wasn't the case ten years ago, and not at any point prior to that, either. Things were moving just so quickly that it was kind of mindblowing to see.
And it's easy to forget how surprisingly early some of these advancements happened, too. The Atari ST and Amiga came out in 1985, when the 8-bit home computers were still thriving — hence the considerable years of crossover. The PlayStation came out (late in) the same year as Super Metroid, Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Earthbound and Donkey Kong Country, all games that most would probably agree were released while the SNES and Mega Drive were in their absolute prime.
So yes. Numbered generations are kind of stupid. But I do think there's value in looking at the things that were coexisting at a given moment — and at the notable leaps forward computer and gaming technology was taking throughout the 1980s and 1990s in particular.
I guess, as with everything, the real value is in just saying what you actually mean rather than trying to find a catch-all shorthand — if only because that catch-all shorthand often assumes knowledge that not everyone has. Same reason I don't like using "Metroidvania" or "JRPG"; much better to be specific about these things and say what you really mean. In an age of attention-deficit "short-form content", being verbose and detailed can actually make you stand out quite a bit. In a good way.
At least I hope so, because I'm not changing.
Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.
If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.









