It seems to me that we are constantly waiting for the next great system to come out. What makes a great system is purely subjective, but for this article I am talking about consoles that are the most prolific with the most well rounded library. Right now I feel as if we are in a console recession with our current generation of machines. Why is this? What is causing this lackluster generation?

I guess I should preface this with the fact that I don't have a 360 or a PS3, but to counter that, besides for a few titles, there is nothing driving me to sell a kidney to pay for them their games and their service. And while I like my Wii, its just not getting the job done.

If you look at this timeline a few pop out to me as truly epic consoles along with an epic library of games.


The Atari 2600 with its huge library was the first true home system. The SNES, while the NES was great and brought us out of the video game crash, the SNES was the machine that had the superior gameplay and library. The PS2, also with an amazing library and hardware.

So if I look at those consoles on the timeline something sticks out to me. It seems that I could draw two different theories from my selections:


Theories
1. Every other generation of consoles either is lacking or lets us down.
2. The second console that a manufacturer makes will be their best.





Theory 1: Every other generation there is a recession.
First Generation:
Wikipedia claims there was a generation before the Atari 2600, but I am not buying it. There might have been systems, but no one had them, and they didn't do well.

Second Generation:
The Atari is what I and many others of my age cut their teeth on. For its time, the 2600 was unmatched in games and market acceptance. In the next generation the NES ruled supreme.

Third Generation:
The NES and Master System (I won't bother including the 7800 in here) were really good systems, with good games. The NES might have been even better than the Atari as far as number of sales and playtime, however the Atari did something the NES could not, and that was to spawn the medium we enjoy so much today. While this wasn't a huge slump in console gaming these systems I think were just building up to the next generation

Forth Generation:
The SNES was a beast of a machine pumping out a library of games that makes my wallet hurt. The games that were on the SNES are unmatched in terms of gameplay and ability to still capture people today. The amount of great games on the SNES can't be touched by the generation before or after it.

Fifth Generation:
The following generation, I think were some of the darkest times in my gaming life, and also in the industry. This generation of consoles didn't excite me enough to ditch my PC gaming ways for their goodness, or lack there of. I mean look at what we had to choose from: Jaguar (yeah right Atari, your timing was a bit off.), Saturn, PSX, and N64. Personally when I saw the graphics on these systems, I thought they were shit, and still do. I got no love for any of these consoles. While there were some good games this was definitely a time of awkwardness as the industry tried to transition to 3d.

Sixth Generation:
The PS2, while getting off to a slow start took hold and dominated. The PS2 still could be considered a current platform with its extensive library. It probably has the largest library out of all the systems. This system was the nail in the coffin for Nintendo, and it kept Microsoft at bay. I say this now, as I was a huge Nintendo fanboy, and refused to buy one. Now looking back, I missed out on a ton of games, and that makes me cry at night.

Seventh Generation:
This brings us to our current generation. The Wii has been a let down. It was supposed to be Nintendo's rebirth. While the Wii may be bringing Nintendo back to life, it is doing nothing for me one of their longest running fans (I remember subscribing to and getting the first Nintendo Power with that awesome playdough Mario and Bowser on the cover.). The 360 has gotten my attention, but between the RRoD's and it seeming to be a FPS only machine it has kept me from drinking the Microsoft Kool Aid. The PS3 was shit at launch, I don't care about playing High Def DVD's, and I can only pick a handful of games I want to play (although LBP might be a console buying game for me).

Following this theory... this generation is going to be blah. It seems to be in this weird state of "We need better graphics" or "We need to be different" but its really expensive and awkward to get this accomplished. None of the systems will seem to emerge the victor, and none will put out an epic library of games, and none will make me come back for more later on. Or will they...





Theory 2: A manufacturer will succeed with their second console.
Lets get the holes in this theory out of the way...

Ok so the 2600 doesn't really fit this theory, but they technically released the pong system first. Besides that they get a pass as being the first home console on the market that had a chance. Taking price and market conditions into account.

Sega, poor, poor, Sega... they made the mistake of getting into the market during the same generation as Nintendo did. I would theorize if they would have waited, and started with the Gensis that they might have succeeded more long term. But since they were competing with Nintendo at the same time, one had to be the victor, sealing Sega's fate. If they would have waited one generation I think the Saturn would have been a better machine and could have filled in where Nintendo failed with the 64.

Now on with the rest of the theory...

The first system seems to be a "testing the market" piece of hardware. It is used to gather information about what works and what doesn't, from both a hardware and a software standpoint. You see the same thing with games like Mega Man 2 was way better than the original.

This allows the company to really put forth an awesome second release product. This after they learned what not to do from the first product. I also think that they realize how much money there is to make if they dominate the generation. This means, if they have it, the money will be spent more wisely in coming up with the hardware and the software.

After the success of the second system, the company gets cocky, and starts putting out shit, because they think their brand will carry them through anything. This opens the door for the competition to pounce. This happened with Nintendo when Sony came along. The N64 was not able to hold the brand. Nintendo's crappy support of 3rd parties allowed Sony to enter the market without that many problems. This enabled Sony to learn the ropes and push out a kick ass system in the PS2, of course by this time Sony had gotten pretty cocky themselves with the success of the PSX that the PS2 launch wasn't very smooth. Over time they were able to build and immense library that is still worth playing.

During this time Microsoft entered the market. Making the 360 their second system. While it isn't the clear winner, if they keep having success's in other markets like Japan, their library will fill out and become more well rounded. And like the PS2 the 360 may just be starting off slow. Only time will tell if this generation will keep people coming back for more.

If we take this theory to the next generation... I see the Wii as a first release for Nintendo. Nintendo is trying to gauge the market with it, just like they did with the NES. However this time, they have the knowledge gained from five generations of product launches. Also if you were to look back at the NES, it was much more of a casual/family gaming machine. If the Wii mark 2 could do for the industry what the SNES did back in the day, I would... well... lets just say... many spontaneous orgasms would explode out of my body (was that subtle enough?)