>4th gen >5th gen >6th gen >7th gen >9th gen >8th gen >3rd gen >2nd gen >1st gen
In this order.
9th gen is basicly ps4 pro pro and xbone XX
Aside from a few exceptions 3rd gen and older were just not that fun and with very little variation
Are we including arcades and PCs?
If we are, then:
4 > 5 > 6 > 3 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 2 > 1
I know it's mildly controversial to say this, but the 1st and 2nd gen is so rudimentary that 90% of games in the former barely count as games (since they're just pong variations) and 90% of games in the latter are dogshit not worth $10, let alone the $40+ they were charging in the late 70s/early 80s.
If we're not including PCs and arcades, then:
5 > 4 > 6 > 7 > 3 > 8 > 9 > 2 > 1
This is based on the age of the medium (Earlier gens get a bump because the medium was in its infancy), the subjective quality of games compared to their predecessors, and personally my amount of playtime with games in each generation. I find myself regularly playing 3rd through 6th gen games and only occasionally playing later titles or just playing very specific ones, so in terms of my interest to each generation they don't rank as high as the others.
5th gen is pretty phenomenal when you look back at it. A TON of long running franchises got their start in the gen, several older ones were revitalized and hit their stride, and the entry to 3D for consoles brought about a renaissance with a bigger install base than PC at the time and a cheaper barrier to entry. There was shovelware in the gen same as any, but if you reached your hand into a bin of 5th gen games and pulled one out, you were far more likely to get an enjoyable by today's standards game than any other gen. Not to mention there were just a whole lot of games in the PSX's library (Less so the 64, but I feel like it was a little better curated because of it).
I think the 6th gen PS2 captured a lot of that to, but the 5th gen gets more props for doing it first. I'd say that while I respect 4th gen for having some of the greatest games of all time which is why I'd rank it higher than 6th, the 6th gen had the similar consistency to 5th whereas the 4th was carried hard by a few games that are pinnacles of their genres.
This graph is absolutely moronic, the last time any games were actually made for PS2 was in 2010 and we're talking stuff like a Despicable Me tie-in.
Samefor 5th gen and the last time anyone made games for it being 2002 so why the ever-loving frick is it dragged arbitrarily into 2007?
Just to make the modern, never-ending generations look normal?
Not even 3rd worlders were playing on PS-fricking-1 when Crysis was rolling around.
>the last time any games were actually made for PS2 was in 2010
Pretty sure it's going up to the last game released for each console, and the last PS2 game was a Fifa or PES game in 2013.
Those aren't new games, though. They're both 200X games with a roster update.
Which would make it absolutely moronic as a metric but valid in some form.
However, even this pigfeed does not extend into 2007 for PS1. The very last PES/FIFA/NFL release on PS1 was in 2004, so this graph is huffing some paint.
Yea, now that I'm looking at it, both 3rd and 4th gen are fricked, I can't think of a single NES/SMS game that released after 2000, so I'm not sure what the frick is going on there.
Even going by the SNES/MD, I'm not sure why that extends to 2004 either.
>Even going by the SNES/MD, I'm not sure why that extends to 2004 either.
Yeah, I don't know if I can recall anyone who was playing an SNES by the time the N64 released. N64 overlapped the Sega Genesis/Saturn a bit, but SNES was something that most families had probably traded in to Funcoland or something at that point, unless they were just broke and wouldn't buy a new console.
Just cast from your pc to your tv.
You can just use a wireless controller.
Those cheap sticks never run that well and this way you can play newer consoles too.
I'm not using the stick anymore (I mean, it's technically hooked up, and it does the job well enough for something you have minimal expectations for). I've had an Xbox controller on my PC for a long time for playing Souls games and such, so now it just does all the emulation stuff too.
I would love to be able to stream to my TV, but my TV is kind of in a really shitty spot in my room. It's high up on my wall and very awkward to look at unless you're on the other side of the room. Also it's not that much bigger than my monitors anyway.
I started out playing games on an Atari and a Commodore. The last consoles I owned were a Gamecube and a PS1 (the smaller one). It was basically just PC gaming after that (so like, 2004 onwards). I don't have enough experience with Xbox or PS2 onwards as consoles to rate the experience, just general knowledge about gaming from those gens.
What I will say, is that I just randomly got the urge to put some effort into setting up an emulation build (originally kicked off by buying one of those shitty $20 Gamesticks for your TV from Amazon). So right now, I'm neck deep in all kinds of games, some I'm playing out of nostalgia and lots I just never got a chance to play. And it's reminded me that man, the fricking early 2000s, N64, Gamecube, PS1 era, is fricking GOLD. There's just so much good stuff here. It's the perfect balance between not being a flood of 2D side-scrollers or SMUPS (which is basically 90% of the library of the NES era), but also not being burdened by graphics being the only thing that matters. The games are different, they're interesting, and they're fricking FUN.
Am I going to finish Baldur's Gate 3 and Armored Core? Yes. But I'm also going to finish Pikmin 1, 2, and 3, and then probably Viewtiful Joe, and then who knows what the frick else. There's just too much good shit.
So yeah. That's my pick, I guess it'd be called the 5th, maybe 5.5th Gen.
Just cast from your pc to your tv.
You can just use a wireless controller.
Those cheap sticks never run that well and this way you can play newer consoles too.
#9: 1st because it's literally just single-game machines
#8: 2nd (though there is genuinely some great stuff here)
#7: 9th (hasn't been around long enough, but I think it'll eventually place top 5 if it keeps up its current quality level)
#6: 8th (rarely replay anything from this gen)
#5: 7th (rarely replay anything from this; could maybe switch around this and 8th gen)
#4: 3rd (NES is great, but the rest sucked)
#3: 5th
#2: 6th
#1: 4th (this and 6th could be switched around, but either way it's definitely these at the top)
So here's my thought: Sega Genesis absolutely did not carry that console generation, it was kind of just a meme at the time and was kept afloat mostly by Sonic games. SNES had a lot of good, but too much shovelware shit. Unless you were super plugged-in (which most kids were not for obvious reasons), most people never played most or any of the great games on SNES. You were more likely to be sold or rented garbage.
In hindsight, both great consoles with a few standout titles, but as an actual generation for people who were there, I can't see how anyone can say Genesis/SNES and Gameboy were better than the PS1/N64 era.
Yeah, Anon, in the era where Microsoft owns everything and the only exclusives that exist are sports games and the occasional Nintendo title, you're missing a ton by not owning a fricking PS4. Just an absolute treasure trove of exclusive things that will just never ever be ported.
4th gen was the peak
9 > 8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
just shit pc's
xbox if you want to play 360 games
ps5 if you want to play one of the 3 exclusives
>4th gen
>5th gen
>6th gen
>7th gen
>9th gen
>8th gen
>3rd gen
>2nd gen
>1st gen
In this order.
9th gen is basicly ps4 pro pro and xbone XX
Aside from a few exceptions 3rd gen and older were just not that fun and with very little variation
Good: 3/4/5/6
Shit: 1/2/7/8/9
Are we including arcades and PCs?
If we are, then:
4 > 5 > 6 > 3 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 2 > 1
I know it's mildly controversial to say this, but the 1st and 2nd gen is so rudimentary that 90% of games in the former barely count as games (since they're just pong variations) and 90% of games in the latter are dogshit not worth $10, let alone the $40+ they were charging in the late 70s/early 80s.
If we're not including PCs and arcades, then:
5 > 4 > 6 > 7 > 3 > 8 > 9 > 2 > 1
9th gen only been out for less then 3 years?
And it hardly has anything to show for it.
Now i skipped 8th gen so for me it's fine but i can imagine people being really disappointed with it.
Probably something like
>Peak tier
4th/5th gen
>Great tier
Later 3rd gen
6th gen
>Ok tier
7th/9th gen
Early 3rd gen
>Disappointing tier
8th gen
>Prototype tier
1st/2nd gen
This is based on the age of the medium (Earlier gens get a bump because the medium was in its infancy), the subjective quality of games compared to their predecessors, and personally my amount of playtime with games in each generation. I find myself regularly playing 3rd through 6th gen games and only occasionally playing later titles or just playing very specific ones, so in terms of my interest to each generation they don't rank as high as the others.
My exact ranking. Props for putting respect on 5th gen.
5th gen is pretty phenomenal when you look back at it. A TON of long running franchises got their start in the gen, several older ones were revitalized and hit their stride, and the entry to 3D for consoles brought about a renaissance with a bigger install base than PC at the time and a cheaper barrier to entry. There was shovelware in the gen same as any, but if you reached your hand into a bin of 5th gen games and pulled one out, you were far more likely to get an enjoyable by today's standards game than any other gen. Not to mention there were just a whole lot of games in the PSX's library (Less so the 64, but I feel like it was a little better curated because of it).
I think the 6th gen PS2 captured a lot of that to, but the 5th gen gets more props for doing it first. I'd say that while I respect 4th gen for having some of the greatest games of all time which is why I'd rank it higher than 6th, the 6th gen had the similar consistency to 5th whereas the 4th was carried hard by a few games that are pinnacles of their genres.
5 > 4 > 6 > 7 > 3 > 8 > 9 > 2 > 1
This graph is absolutely moronic, the last time any games were actually made for PS2 was in 2010 and we're talking stuff like a Despicable Me tie-in.
Samefor 5th gen and the last time anyone made games for it being 2002 so why the ever-loving frick is it dragged arbitrarily into 2007?
Just to make the modern, never-ending generations look normal?
Not even 3rd worlders were playing on PS-fricking-1 when Crysis was rolling around.
>the last time any games were actually made for PS2 was in 2010
Pretty sure it's going up to the last game released for each console, and the last PS2 game was a Fifa or PES game in 2013.
Those aren't new games, though. They're both 200X games with a roster update.
Which would make it absolutely moronic as a metric but valid in some form.
However, even this pigfeed does not extend into 2007 for PS1. The very last PES/FIFA/NFL release on PS1 was in 2004, so this graph is huffing some paint.
Yea, now that I'm looking at it, both 3rd and 4th gen are fricked, I can't think of a single NES/SMS game that released after 2000, so I'm not sure what the frick is going on there.
Even going by the SNES/MD, I'm not sure why that extends to 2004 either.
>Even going by the SNES/MD, I'm not sure why that extends to 2004 either.
Yeah, I don't know if I can recall anyone who was playing an SNES by the time the N64 released. N64 overlapped the Sega Genesis/Saturn a bit, but SNES was something that most families had probably traded in to Funcoland or something at that point, unless they were just broke and wouldn't buy a new console.
I'm not using the stick anymore (I mean, it's technically hooked up, and it does the job well enough for something you have minimal expectations for). I've had an Xbox controller on my PC for a long time for playing Souls games and such, so now it just does all the emulation stuff too.
I would love to be able to stream to my TV, but my TV is kind of in a really shitty spot in my room. It's high up on my wall and very awkward to look at unless you're on the other side of the room. Also it's not that much bigger than my monitors anyway.
7>6>5>4>8>3>9>2>1
I started out playing games on an Atari and a Commodore. The last consoles I owned were a Gamecube and a PS1 (the smaller one). It was basically just PC gaming after that (so like, 2004 onwards). I don't have enough experience with Xbox or PS2 onwards as consoles to rate the experience, just general knowledge about gaming from those gens.
What I will say, is that I just randomly got the urge to put some effort into setting up an emulation build (originally kicked off by buying one of those shitty $20 Gamesticks for your TV from Amazon). So right now, I'm neck deep in all kinds of games, some I'm playing out of nostalgia and lots I just never got a chance to play. And it's reminded me that man, the fricking early 2000s, N64, Gamecube, PS1 era, is fricking GOLD. There's just so much good stuff here. It's the perfect balance between not being a flood of 2D side-scrollers or SMUPS (which is basically 90% of the library of the NES era), but also not being burdened by graphics being the only thing that matters. The games are different, they're interesting, and they're fricking FUN.
Am I going to finish Baldur's Gate 3 and Armored Core? Yes. But I'm also going to finish Pikmin 1, 2, and 3, and then probably Viewtiful Joe, and then who knows what the frick else. There's just too much good shit.
So yeah. That's my pick, I guess it'd be called the 5th, maybe 5.5th Gen.
Just cast from your pc to your tv.
You can just use a wireless controller.
Those cheap sticks never run that well and this way you can play newer consoles too.
>What generation was it when Ganker was a kid?
#9: 1st because it's literally just single-game machines
#8: 2nd (though there is genuinely some great stuff here)
#7: 9th (hasn't been around long enough, but I think it'll eventually place top 5 if it keeps up its current quality level)
#6: 8th (rarely replay anything from this gen)
#5: 7th (rarely replay anything from this; could maybe switch around this and 8th gen)
#4: 3rd (NES is great, but the rest sucked)
#3: 5th
#2: 6th
#1: 4th (this and 6th could be switched around, but either way it's definitely these at the top)
objectively correct
9TH GEN INCLUDES SWITCH. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A homosexual.
5 > 6 > 4 > 8 > 7 > 3 > 9 > 2 > 1
7>6>5>8>9
Can't remember most of the garbage before that
So here's my thought: Sega Genesis absolutely did not carry that console generation, it was kind of just a meme at the time and was kept afloat mostly by Sonic games. SNES had a lot of good, but too much shovelware shit. Unless you were super plugged-in (which most kids were not for obvious reasons), most people never played most or any of the great games on SNES. You were more likely to be sold or rented garbage.
In hindsight, both great consoles with a few standout titles, but as an actual generation for people who were there, I can't see how anyone can say Genesis/SNES and Gameboy were better than the PS1/N64 era.
>6
>4
>5
>7
>8
>3
>9
>2
>1
>1st gen
4/10
>2nd gen
5/10
>3rd gen
10/10
>4th gen
10/10
>5th gen
6/10
>6th gen
10/10
>7th gen
7/10
>8th gen
5/10
>9th gen
2/10
Where is pc?
IBM PC was released in 1981, so that would be Gen 2.
Notice how OP said "CONSOLE generations".
I literally have not touched anything from the 8th generation onwards, I am missing out?
Yeah, Anon, in the era where Microsoft owns everything and the only exclusives that exist are sports games and the occasional Nintendo title, you're missing a ton by not owning a fricking PS4. Just an absolute treasure trove of exclusive things that will just never ever be ported.