The most promising system?

[godslabrat]

Virtual Boy. I honestly think a lot of its weaknesses could have been turned into strengths.

[Atarifever]

If Sega had pushed it like they pushed the Dreamcast, maybe a little more, then it would have been a more memorable system and not what it is.

 

I'm confused. What? It could have been more memorable and not what it is? What it is is so incredibly awesome that the gaming industry continues to give Sega games huge coverage, magazine cover stories, and all kinds of props, even though they haven't made a good console game since the Dreamcast. Let's see, outside of Europe, the Master System flopped. Outside of Japan, the Saturn flopped. The Dreamcast only lasted two years before Sega announced it had to give up on hardware. The 32X was a huge flop. The Gamegear was not successful enough to produce a follow-up. Sega's entire history produced one console so amazingly good that they have been given the benefit of the doubt for over a decade since.

 

 

Also, what's with the coat tails of Nintendo thing. They beat Nintendo for awhile with the Genesis; something it had appeared impossible to do. They didn't ride Nintendo's coat tails, unless you count stepping on them while kicking them in the ass. They produced a gaming legacy specifically by beating Nintendo by doing, basically, none of what Nintendo was doing. That's not riding coat tails anymore than the 360 is riding the coat tails of the Wii.

[Christophero Sly]

Had it been released on schedule, the 7800.

[vdub_bobby]

Sega[...hasn't] made a good console game since the Dreamcast.

Yes they have.

They've released a lot of well-received sports games as well as games like:

Super Monkey Ball Deluxe

Otogi: Myth of Demons

Otogi 2: Immortal Warriors

Astro Boy: Omega Factor

Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution

Panzer Dragoon Orta

Sonic Advance

Sonic Advance 2

Rez

Gunstar Super Heroes

OutRun 2006: Coast 2 Coast

Virtua Fighter 5

Etc.

 

Sega's entire history produced one console so amazingly good

Well, that isn't entirely unprecedented - let me introduce you to...Atari!

[akator]

Let's see, outside of Europe, the Master System flopped.

 

That statement is a bit extreme. While the SMS never had the popularity of the NES, it still had a fan base. It was sold in the US from 1985-1992 -- I count that as seven years -- which makes it far from a flop. If the SMS was a flop, it would have driven Sega out of the console business.

 

The SMS is still being sold in Brazil. That means the hardware and games have been actively produced and sold for for 23 years.

 

Perhaps instead of "flopped" you meant "less successful than Nintendo"? Or "less of a fad"?

 

The Gamegear was not successful enough to produce a follow-up.

 

I have a Sega Nomad in my collection. It is a Sega handheld made after the Game Gear; as the Game Gear was based on the SMS, the Nomad was based on the Genesis, so even the philosophy is similar; by my definition that would be a "follow-up." It could perhaps even be called a "sequel."

 

While the Game Gear wasn't successful by Game Boy standards, it was far more successful than the Atari Lynx. With over 300 game titles in the library, software manufacturers didn't consider it a failure or they wouldn't have produced games.

 

It appears that your concept of success is only for whomever is #1. A financially lucrative #2 or #3 doesn't seem to fit within your definition of success. I don't think success is exclusionary, and I suspect agree.

[Reaperman]

of course dreamcast comes to mind first. But it did have a great (though short) run.

-----------------------------

to go a slightly different direction from 'abandoned by 1st party' to just 'never met potential', I've got two systems in mind.

 

even though it had a massive and fairly successful lifespan, I think neo geo could have been so much more than a purebred arcade machine. For a 16-bit system--it had some ponies under the hood and could have made any genre 'omg beautiful', but cost kept a lot of home-console exclusive games from comming out.

 

nintendo DS is very successful too, but it has so few games that really work with all of its strengths. Whenever I play it, I can't help but feel that its games are all square pegs trying to fill round holes as best they can.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Reaperman

[Atarifever]

Let's see, outside of Europe, the Master System flopped.

 

That statement is a bit extreme. While the SMS never had the popularity of the NES, it still had a fan base. It was sold in the US from 1985-1992 -- I count that as seven years -- which makes it far from a flop. If the SMS was a flop, it would have driven Sega out of the console business.

 

The SMS is still being sold in Brazil. That means the hardware and games have been actively produced and sold for for 23 years.

 

Perhaps instead of "flopped" you meant "less successful than Nintendo"? Or "less of a fad"?

 

 

Actually I meant in the three major markets, and by flopped I mean got something like 10% of the market, maybe. I know because I hate the NES, and have hated it ever since I got my Master System at the end of that generation, and realized what a piece of garbage I'd had up to that point.

[Atarifever]

I have a Sega Nomad in my collection. It is a Sega handheld made after the Game Gear; as the Game Gear was based on the SMS, the Nomad was based on the Genesis, so even the philosophy is similar; by my definition that would be a "follow-up." It could perhaps even be called a "sequel."

 

While the Game Gear wasn't successful by Game Boy standards, it was far more successful than the Atari Lynx. With over 300 game titles in the library, software manufacturers didn't consider it a failure or they wouldn't have produced games.

 

It appears that your concept of success is only for whomever is #1. A financially lucrative #2 or #3 doesn't seem to fit within your definition of success. I don't think success is exclusionary, and I suspect agree.

The Nomad tanked, and was not a separate handheld line (like say the Linx, Gamegear, Gameboy, Neo Geo PC, PSP, DS, Wonderswan, etc.). Sega did not release a follow-up handheld system after the Game Gear, and splitting hairs by saying they released a Genesis 4 that tanked, is hardly going to make that untrue. I love Sega possibly more than Atari. I have loaned the Wii out, and in it's place on my TV is the Saturn, which I love. I have a decent Master System collection, and got rid of my NES one. I gave away my old SNES, but still play both my Genesis and 32X. I am hardly trying to argue against Sega products here. However, I was responding to a post (originally) that said the Genesis could have been so much more, and that it was riding Nintendo's coat tails. So much more than what? Than a company's best product ever that allows them to remain relevant even today, despite having met pretty much nothing but 10-20% market penetration with every other system? Better than launching franchises that still see installments 20+ years later? Better than being number one for awhile after stealing that spot from a giant, who today is back at #1 again?

 

I'm not arguing the other Sega systems (which I love) weren't great. But anyone arguing that a system with 10% of the market, a handheld line that ended after one generation, a system rapidly replaced after only three years, and a system from a dying company that sadly failed to revive it is somehow a pile of great success stories is being, at best, delusional. I am arguing that the fact that a company with those systems plus one, that is still a household name did something very, very right with the one system that apparently lends them their relevance, and that the quote that it was a coat tail rider that could have been more, could not be more wrong.

[nathanallan]

Maybe it was just where I lived, then. At the time, Nintendo was the big deal, and Genesis wasn't. All the kids wanted to play Nintendo and the guys with the Genesis consoles were sad. This was just where I lived when I was like, 13.

 

I LOVE my Genesis games, and never really got enough exposure back then, so I think I missed out. About the unrealised potential, though, the network games part would have ruled anything else and it would have been the high tech system IF Sega had gone that route and stuck to it. I'm actually working on something for it now.

 

Don't want to get into a bashing war about who was the most loved or the most successful, not worth it. Good points, Atarifever, not starting a fight here.

 

Nathan

[accousticguitar]

I would go with Genesis as well. They needed some innovation in game design instead of trying to out-Nintendo Nintendo. There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

[Artlover]

I think Sega's problem was the fact that they were either to early or to late in launching their systems.

 

SMS came out two years after the NES, but yet wasn't really any better all in all.

 

Genesis came out two years before the SNES. It did do better then other consoles that came out at the same time, like the TG16.

 

<Inset goofy Genesis niche market addons for a couple years that converted the thing into a heaping pain in the butt monstrosity>

 

Saturn came out the same time at the PS1 and two years ealier then the N64. Problem at this point in time was multi fold. Sega seemed almost caught off guard on what the PS1 was going to be and be able to do. PS1 was a pure 3d machine, where Sega still based it on a 2d system with 3d capabilites added on. Plus, everyone was starting to become tired at this point after the SegaCD and Sega32X's. Problematic niche products that were just flat out abandonded after a very stort term.

 

Dreamcast came out like a 1 year before the PS2, 2 years before the Cube & Xbox. Lowest powered machine of the generation, and the small storage propriatory media didn't help either. Now throw their past abandondment issues in.

 

It's not that Sega made bad hardware (exclusing genesis add-ons), they just didn't seem to know when the release the stuff. So they ended up either being behind or ahead of their time. Both of which equals a bullet in the foot.

[Atarifever]

There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

You mean like Beyond Oaisis, Shining Force, After Burner, Space Harrier, Columns, Ecco the Dolphin, Eternal Champions, or any of the ton of Genesis games that don't fit your rather broad "side scroller" category. Also, here's a fact, Nintendo didn't invent the side scroller, so even if Sega did have a pile of them, it's hardly an attempt to out-Nintendo Nintendo. Side scrollers did well at the time, so Sega made some. Hard as it is to believe, Super Mario Bros wasn't the first side scroller. It wasn't even the first good one. It wasn't even in the same generation as the first good one.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Atarifever

[Blues_Bloody]

There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

You mean like Beyond Oaisis, Shining Force, After Burner, Space Harrier, Columns, Ecco the Dolphin, Eternal Champions, or any of the ton of Genesis games that don't fit your rather broad "side scroller" category. Also, here's a fact, Nintendo didn't invent the side scroller, so even if Sega did have a pile of them, it's hardly an attempt to out-Nintendo Nintendo. Side scrollers did well at the time, so Sega made some. Hard as it is to believe, Super Mario Bros wasn't the first side scroller. It wasn't even the first good one. It wasn't even in the same generation as the first good one.

 

Not to mention that the Genesis' library of sports game was a main selling point back in the day.

[Atari5200]

I'm going to throw out a few new ones here.

 

#1. Neo-Geo CD. With a 2x or 4x cd drive, this system could have killed anything in the era. Most of the early games only need 1 load due to the size of the memory, but for the larger games, faster drive or more memory, and I mean more than the CDZ, could have easily made this a contender.

 

#2. 3do. that's right, who knows where EA would be now if this system cost about $400 less at launch, still, this system had some promise to it, and definitely could've had the software since it was EA's introduction into the console business.

 

#3. Watara Supervision. This system could've probably been the best bet to compete with the Gameboy. With a low price point and low price games, cost wasn't an issue, the problem was with quality. Support never took off so the system was left with basically a bunch of no name games. A little extra management and a better sell of the product to would be developers, and you could've had a Gameboy killer.

[Seob]

It all depents on where you live.

Amiga a flop, not in Europe. It had a long run here in the Netherlands.

Same with the sms and genesis both where very succesfull in europe.

I would say the vectrex could have been more if it wasn't hit by the crash.

[vdub_bobby]

There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

You mean like Beyond Oaisis, Shining Force, After Burner, Space Harrier, Columns, Ecco the Dolphin, Eternal Champions, or any of the ton of Genesis games that don't fit your rather broad "side scroller" category. Also, here's a fact, Nintendo didn't invent the side scroller, so even if Sega did have a pile of them, it's hardly an attempt to out-Nintendo Nintendo. Side scrollers did well at the time, so Sega made some. Hard as it is to believe, Super Mario Bros wasn't the first side scroller. It wasn't even the first good one. It wasn't even in the same generation as the first good one.

Ok, first of all - isn't Ecco a side-scroller?

 

2nd, what's the first good side-scroller that was in a previous generation? Nothing's coming to mind, though I'm sure I'm just blanking.

[games-video]

There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

You mean like Beyond Oaisis, Shining Force, After Burner, Space Harrier, Columns, Ecco the Dolphin, Eternal Champions, or any of the ton of Genesis games that don't fit your rather broad "side scroller" category. Also, here's a fact, Nintendo didn't invent the side scroller, so even if Sega did have a pile of them, it's hardly an attempt to out-Nintendo Nintendo. Side scrollers did well at the time, so Sega made some. Hard as it is to believe, Super Mario Bros wasn't the first side scroller. It wasn't even the first good one. It wasn't even in the same generation as the first good one.

Ok, first of all - isn't Ecco a side-scroller?

 

2nd, what's the first good side-scroller that was in a previous generation? Nothing's coming to mind, though I'm sure I'm just blanking.

 

 

Nothing beats The Tail of Beta Lyrae, top game. That's A8, BTW.

Edited August 20, 2008 by games-video

[fiddlepaddle]

2nd, what's the first good side-scroller that was in a previous generation? Nothing's coming to mind, though I'm sure I'm just blanking.

 

Defender, Scramble, Choplifter...

[games-video]

on second thought, maybe he means platform side scrollers....plenty of those on C64, Apple ][ or A8.....

Edited August 20, 2008 by games-video

[Atarifever]

There is more to video games than side-scrollers.

You mean like Beyond Oaisis, Shining Force, After Burner, Space Harrier, Columns, Ecco the Dolphin, Eternal Champions, or any of the ton of Genesis games that don't fit your rather broad "side scroller" category. Also, here's a fact, Nintendo didn't invent the side scroller, so even if Sega did have a pile of them, it's hardly an attempt to out-Nintendo Nintendo. Side scrollers did well at the time, so Sega made some. Hard as it is to believe, Super Mario Bros wasn't the first side scroller. It wasn't even the first good one. It wasn't even in the same generation as the first good one.

Ok, first of all - isn't Ecco a side-scroller?

 

2nd, what's the first good side-scroller that was in a previous generation? Nothing's coming to mind, though I'm sure I'm just blanking.

1) That's why I considered the definition broad. In 2D, pretty much 90% of games could be labeled side-scrollers. There weren't a lot of 3D games on 16 bit consoles. Claiming making them is copying Nintndo is like saying that every 3D game is just copying Id.

 

2) Others have already answered this above.

 

As for Sega making too many side scrollers, as has been pointed out, their biggest selling point was sports games. If anything, they were out Intellivisioning the Intellivision. Also, they were pretty big into fighting games. As well, they were much, much more into shoot-em-ups than Nintendo, but that's handily taken care of by claiming Nintendo owns every game genre where 2D characters move on a screen. If Ecco, where you are as likely to go down or up as to the side, where the end of the level may turn out to be about three feet from where you started, and where you get echo location from every single direction is a side scroller, then everything in 2D must be considered a side scroller.

 

Whoops, just noticed I'm talking to two different people here. I have slightly modified my post accordingly.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Atarifever

[Atari5200]

Plus the fact that Nintendo barely owned anything other than Mario. It was the 3rd parties that released the other styles of game. They had what, Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Star Fox at the time of SNES?? Maybe a couple others like F-Zero??

 

Sega had Sega Sports, what did Nintendo have..nothing, up until the Mario Sports series, which is a total joke, they had nothing.

 

Sega had first party games all over the spectrum of gaming, something that Nintendo to this day can't even figure out. But hey, I can't blame them. If I was making billions of dollars on joke franchises, why would I stop?

[thegamezmaster]

I'd have to say the Colecovision. Too bad they never came out with the Super Game Module. Instead they came out with the Adam, yuck! Also the Sega CD. If memory serves me, wasn't the 32X originally supposed to be in the Sega CD but due to cost they left it out?

[bones]

I'd like to remind everyone that Sega does what Nintendon't...at least in the 80s and 90s

 

Agree on many of the consoles mentioned, tho my vote is for the Dreamcast. Great, great system that was killed off much too early.

[Artlover]

Also the Sega CD. If memory serves me, wasn't the 32X originally supposed to be in the Sega CD but due to cost they left it out?

IIRC, no.

 

No, the 32x is a result of an internal company request to make a 32bit cartridge based system to be ready by 4th q of 1994. This was going to be the Sega Jupiter. During initial development, the cart was replaced with CD and became the Saturn. The 32x came out to extend the life of the genesis/sega-cd in the new comming 32bit era until the Saturn was complete and able to develop it's own userbase.

 

Because of the cost and technical/mechanical problems of the 32x, they came up with the Neptune which was just a Genesis+cd+32x all built into one single unit, But by the time this was completed, the Saturn was complete and ready for release so it was dropped.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Artlover

[dreamcastrip]

I just bought a 32x only ten minutes ago off ebay! It comes with Star Wars Arcade, Doom and Virtua Racer.