Any book on video games needs to have a history section at the start. Most of those potted histories will talk about console generations. It’s a useful idea, because it reflects the fact that new games consoles were usually released in waves, so that companies would limit the custom lost to gamers already committed to a near-identical competing console that had already established itself in their homes. It’s also commercial propaganda.

First of all, arranging your entire notion of video game history into these generations ignores everything outside of console gaming - PCs, handheld, mobile etc. - or at least subordinates them to consoles. Which means that when console gaming dies out and future readers look back at what you wrote, you’re going to look very dated.

Secondly, focusing on generations means that the basis for your entire image of video game history rests on hardware. Which is strange if your main area of interest is game design. I’m not going to argue that hardware specifications were irrelevant to game design changes, but they weren’t sufficient cause for them. Graphics chips don’t make games. Game developers make games.

Finally, ‘generations’ naturalises the calculated, commercial decisions of a small number of massive companies into the language of evolution. The effect is that people treat marketing strategy like it’s just a force of nature, which limits your ability to think critically about the world. Consoles, like women, are not born but made.