7800 - what did Atari wrong?

[Atarifever]

I'm sorry, but did I catch you at that time of the month or something?

 

Nice - the ladies must love you.

My wife does, and I don't really care beyond that.

 

I don't think the context I threw that number out in implied statistical analysis had been conducted by me to arrive at a number accurate at alpha = .05 or anything.

 

Sorry dude, but whether you meant to or not, you came across as to me as suggesting that markets that weren't US or Japan were 'miniscule and irrelevant' in an effort to prove your point. The world is a big place, with lots of users, some of which do actually play video games.

 

i'm assuming you didn't mean it the way it came across.

 

 

 

So successful enough, if not really ever a global leader.

Rest assured, I agree that all Sega's systems were great. I am playing Phantasy star 1 right now for a reason. I LOVE Sega. I am also up to 70 Emblems in the 360 Live Arcade version of Sonic Adventure, and am currently fighting it out in the "real" ending (stupid Perfect Chaos!). I am also playing Sonic 4 for time (I am trying to see if all levels can be doen under a minute each). I think Sega's systems were all great. I also think Sega is still incredible. that's how I ended up in this argument to begin with.

 

Only Nintendo or Sony fanboys think Sega was never important or good. I prefer the SMS to the NES by a lot (I've said so on here a ton of times). I prefer the Genesis to the SNES (which is so slow it hurts to play). I prefer the Saturn by a mile over the N64, and by light years over the ugly, slow, PS1. I think the Dreamcast having to die early is the worst thing to happen in any console war, ever (Vectrx dying early ties). So there is no point when Sega made a console where I do not prefer it over its contemporaries (although skipping the entire PS1 generation means I didn't buy anything that generation, which makes me guilty of not buying a Saturn too).

[DracIsBack]

My wife does, and I don't really care beyond that.

 

Good answer! Just don't use that comment on her. Will result in a lumpy night on the couch!

 

Only Nintendo or Sony fanboys think Sega was never important or good.

 

Sadly. But that's fanboyism.

 

Strangely - after all this debating, it appears we actually agree on appreciation for Sega.

[Atarifever]

[

Strangely - after all this debating, it appears we actually agree on appreciation for Sega.

Yeah it was weird debating with another Atari fan, also from Atlantic Canada, who also really, really likes the 7800, and who also really loves Sega, about mid to late 80s game systems, and not be agreeing. I think we struck the one piece of one topic we wouldn't instantly agree on.

[Lynxpro]

Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people.

 

 

Not true at all. The Dreamcast had great games for it. However, Sega was being manipulated by Microsoft [a la dropping 3dfx for NEC's PowerVR at NEC's behest], a lot of gamers held out for the PS2 because of hype, and at the end, Microsoft pushed Sega under the bus in order to make way for Microsoft's own Xbox.

 

While I didn't own any Sega consoles, I had much respect for them; of course, I really respected Sega in the arcade and being my second favorite arcade company behind Atari Games in terms of pushing the envelope while operating in a sea of mediocrity for the most part...

Edited February 16, 2011 by Lynxpro

[kool kitty89]

Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people.

 

 

Not true at all. The Dreamcast had great games for it. However, Sega was being manipulated by Microsoft [a la dropping 3dfx for NEC's PowerVR at NEC's behest], a lot of gamers held out for the PS2 because of hype, and at the end, Microsoft pushed Sega under the bus in order to make way for Microsoft's own Xbox.

I'm going to go back through the other posts later (and I really didn't want to turn this into a Sega discussion -especially one that's been done many times in far more detail over at Sega-16), but the MS issue is a bit overstated though it was a factor to some extent. (they probably had their most significant role in how the SD was discontinued -though SoJ had the main say in that)

The piracy threat due to the GDROM dumping and CD-ROM booting exploits were also not really that bad, but something Sega couldn't afford given their position with limited funds and Sony's massive hype. (they'd managed to shed the 5th gen stigma for the most part with the awesome marketing and launch in the US -the sort of marketing/timing/launch that could have MADE the Saturn in spite of the cost/hardware issues)

 

PowerVR was awesome and so was the overall developer tools. (and with some technical superiority over the PS2 -let alone FAR greater nominal superiority due to the tools and architecture that meshed better with PC/console contemporaries)

The windows CE deal was a very smart move as well: something MS paid them for and something that made porting PC games (liek pod racer and MDK2) easier and smoother in general.

 

 

The biggest issues were Sony's hype, Sega's financial situation from the previous mid 90s mess with the Saturn (and to lesser extent, 32x -plus screw ups with the Genesis late gen that cost them a lot of revenue/profit), and the fact that the Dreamcast only got the marketing push it needed in the US. Japan had strong initial demand, but got quickly crushed by the PS2 hype (and DVD -which Sega could never had afforded), plus that initial demand couldn't be met (shortages) and pushed a premature launch with limited software.

Europe OTOH had all the situational advantages of the US, but also a somewhat less horrible situation over the Saturn, but SoE management was a sorry excuse for what had been in the early 90s and totally botched marketing in UK/Europe.

Thus, the US was the only market where the DC had a strong following, but Sega of Japan didn't feel that merited continued support in the long run (they weren't willing to do what Nintendo had with the N64 -ie strong US market but weak elsewhere) and unlike the master system, games on the DC required much heavier investment and the hardware was being sold at a loss. (made worse by the decision to drop the price in late 2000 when they should have left it at $200, also worse by making the modem free as a pack-in standard, and worse still with the heavy rebate offers for Seganet -and investment in Seganet that never paid off, should have used only 3rd party ISPs as many users opted for anyway)

 

OTOH, they could have offset those investments by going multiplatform while still pushing the DC, PC games would be the lest conflicting with the DC as such (ie not yet publishing for Nintendo or MS -let alone Sony), and they already had been getting into the PC market earlier, but they didn't push that with the DC.

Hell, they should have been heavily pushing PC game releases of ALL major Sega published console and arcade games from the mid 90s onward (would have helped tons to address the Saturn deficit) and even push release of older hit games (like sonic 1 and 2 among others) for PC that they missed out on big time. By the time the DC came around, Sega should have already pretty much standardized parallel console/arcade/PC development and kept pushing for that with the DC. (ie have most Sega published DC games released soon after for PC)

They were making no money (losses) on hardware sales, to pushing for PC games as such would be substantial. (the main reason to go with the DC rather than 3rd party in general is to cut out licensing fees -which are generally nonexistent for computers anyway- and to profit from 3rd party licensees on top of 1st party software sales)

 

OTOH, Sony and their 2nd parties were already sometimes publishing for Sega and Nintendo consoles (like Wipeout on Saturn and N64), so that's a bit of an odd situation as well. (sort of like how Atari/Mattel/Coleco started publishing for competing systems just before -and during- the crash)

 

 

 

What happened with the Saturn/32x in the mid 90s is a far more complex topic with some things simply unanswered. (lots of speculation and 2nd source info, but I don't trust a lot of that, especially given the discrepancy in Atari history that Curt and Marty have been correcting -again, we need Sega historians like those guys )

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[ATARI7800fan]

Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people.

 

 

Not true at all. The Dreamcast had great games for it. However, Sega was being manipulated by Microsoft [a la dropping 3dfx for NEC's PowerVR at NEC's behest], a lot of gamers held out for the PS2 because of hype, and at the end, Microsoft pushed Sega under the bus in order to make way for Microsoft's own Xbox.

I'm going to go back through the other posts later (and I really didn't want to turn this into a Sega discussion -especially one that's been done many times in far more detail over at Sega-16), but the MS issue is a bit overstated though it was a factor to some extent. (they probably had their most significant role in how the SD was discontinued -though SoJ had the main say in that)

The piracy threat due to the GDROM dumping and CD-ROM booting exploits were also not really that bad, but something Sega couldn't afford given their position with limited funds and Sony's massive hype. (they'd managed to shed the 5th gen stigma for the most part with the awesome marketing and launch in the US -the sort of marketing/timing/launch that could have MADE the Saturn in spite of the cost/hardware issues)

 

PowerVR was awesome and so was the overall developer tools. (and with some technical superiority over the PS2 -let alone FAR greater nominal superiority due to the tools and architecture that meshed better with PC/console contemporaries)

The windows CE deal was a very smart move as well: something MS paid them for and something that made porting PC games (liek pod racer and MDK2) easier and smoother in general.

 

 

The biggest issues were Sony's hype, Sega's financial situation from the previous mid 90s mess with the Saturn (and to lesser extent, 32x -plus screw ups with the Genesis late gen that cost them a lot of revenue/profit), and the fact that the Dreamcast only got the marketing push it needed in the US. Japan had strong initial demand, but got quickly crushed by the PS2 hype (and DVD -which Sega could never had afforded), plus that initial demand couldn't be met (shortages) and pushed a premature launch with limited software.

Europe OTOH had all the situational advantages of the US, but also a somewhat less horrible situation over the Saturn, but SoE management was a sorry excuse for what had been in the early 90s and totally botched marketing in UK/Europe.

Thus, the US was the only market where the DC had a strong following, but Sega of Japan didn't feel that merited continued support in the long run (they weren't willing to do what Nintendo had with the N64 -ie strong US market but weak elsewhere) and unlike the master system, games on the DC required much heavier investment and the hardware was being sold at a loss. (made worse by the decision to drop the price in late 2000 when they should have left it at $200, also worse by making the modem free as a pack-in standard, and worse still with the heavy rebate offers for Seganet -and investment in Seganet that never paid off, should have used only 3rd party ISPs as many users opted for anyway)

 

OTOH, they could have offset those investments by going multiplatform while still pushing the DC, PC games would be the lest conflicting with the DC as such (ie not yet publishing for Nintendo or MS -let alone Sony), and they already had been getting into the PC market earlier, but they didn't push that with the DC.

Hell, they should have been heavily pushing PC game releases of ALL major Sega published console and arcade games from the mid 90s onward (would have helped tons to address the Saturn deficit) and even push release of older hit games (like sonic 1 and 2 among others) for PC that they missed out on big time. By the time the DC came around, Sega should have already pretty much standardized parallel console/arcade/PC development and kept pushing for that with the DC. (ie have most Sega published DC games released soon after for PC)

They were making no money (losses) on hardware sales, to pushing for PC games as such would be substantial. (the main reason to go with the DC rather than 3rd party in general is to cut out licensing fees -which are generally nonexistent for computers anyway- and to profit from 3rd party licensees on top of 1st party software sales)

 

OTOH, Sony and their 2nd parties were already sometimes publishing for Sega and Nintendo consoles (like Wipeout on Saturn and N64), so that's a bit of an odd situation as well. (sort of like how Atari/Mattel/Coleco started publishing for competing systems just before -and during- the crash)

 

 

 

What happened with the Saturn/32x in the mid 90s is a far more complex topic with some things simply unanswered. (lots of speculation and 2nd source info, but I don't trust a lot of that, especially given the discrepancy in Atari history that Curt and Marty have been correcting -again, we need Sega historians like those guys )

 

I would also agree with people and say that Sega Had some great consoles. The Dreamcast really did not deserve the fate it got. It was just a mix of not having enough money from prior problems to keep up with Sony, then Microsoft was like the final nail in the coffin. People that blame the Dreamcast and bernie stollar for Sega leaving the console business are annoying. It was to some extant the Saturn that messed things up for the Dreamcast. Sega spent money on advertising for the saturn that they never got back. Plus Sony announcing the PS2 a year before release was a bit of a sneaky move to. At least the Dreamcast will be remembered by most as the last console from sega, the first 128 bit console, the first console with online play straight from the box, and a console with one of the best us launches this decade. (I am going to now go and give my dreamcast the attention and love it deserves.)Was better then the Gamecube.

[kool kitty89]

I would also agree with people and say that Sega Had some great consoles. The Dreamcast really did not deserve the fate it got. It was just a mix of not having enough money from prior problems to keep up with Sony, then Microsoft was like the final nail in the coffin. People that blame the Dreamcast and bernie stollar for Sega leaving the console business are annoying. It was to some extant the Saturn that messed things up for the Dreamcast. Sega spent money on advertising for the saturn that they never got back. Plus Sony announcing the PS2 a year before release was a bit of a sneaky move to. At least the Dreamcast will be remembered by most as the last console from sega, the first 128 bit console, the first console with online play straight from the box, and a console with one of the best us launches this decade. (I am going to now go and give my dreamcast the attention and love it deserves.)Was better then the Gamecube.

I'd argue they still could have been better off following through with the Dreamcast if they'd done things a bit differently (even with the situation they were in in 1999). Sony was stuck, they weren't going anywhere and would have had to screw up big time (much bigger than any of the problems with the PS2) to lose that edge, but Sega still had a chance to be a reasonably profitable and competitive player on the home hardware and software market. (after all, other than the PS2, they had the GC and Xbox to compete with and the Xbox -like the DC and N64- was only strong in the US -and further down in market share than the N64 against the PSX- while the GC had more balanced sales distribution but that just meant it did only moderately well in most regions, so the DC could have been the established lower-cost -but still quite capable- option for the US market in the long run)

 

They couldn't do much to avoid being niche in Japan, though maybe they could have kept Saturing going a little longer and aimed at a stronger Dreamcast launch rather than the rushed launch to attempt to meet demands.

 

Europe really needed better marketing.

 

The US was great as it was, but given Sega's funding position, they probably burned themselves out faster than they could afford with the massive marketing, low price point, free modem, rebate offers, investing in Seganet, etc all rolled together. (and then the price drop in late 2000 to try to steal PS2 sales, be really probably didn't help DC sales much at all, but made Sega lose more and postpone the transition from loss to profits on hardware sales -the PS2 had shortages as it was and at the original $199 the DC was already MUCH cheaper than the PS2, so the price cut almost certainly hurt Sega more than anything)

Internet was cool, but it wasn't a gimmick worth what they were investing in it: having the modem available from day one would have been great (as it was), offering it bundled would be great too, but offering it bundled with all systems (along with a browser) at cut prices was something they really couldn't afford and something that didn't pay off. (the online stuff wasn't quite there yet, but it was close, and having the modem as a prominent accessory or pack-in with deluxe bundles would have been much smarter) They should have left things to 3rd party ISPs only and not invested in Seganet, plus there shouldn't have been the rebate offers for DCs either.

Keep the $199 price, probably keep the 2 controllers pack-in too (though it's a shame the controllers weren't more like the much nicer Saturn 3D controller), and keep the strong advertising (critical in the US market).

 

So basically, if they'd been conservative in soem areas they could afford to be, they'd have had a better chance at being stable and profitable enough to make SoJ consider keeping the system going for North America alone. (that is if Europe couldn't be pushed as well) Who knows? Maybe they'd have even outsold the Game Cube or maybe even the Xbox.

 

And as above, they definitely missed out on exploiting the PC market as much as they could/should have. (from the mid 90s through the early 2000s they should haev been pushing ports and compilations of the most popular 4th/5th/6th gen console games as well as arcade titles for the PC -especially in the 1997-1999 perios in the west when they had almost no activity on the console market: Saturn had more or less been killed off by mid '97 and DC didn't come until mid/late '99, plus they'd ruined their chances at really haning onto a strong place in the budget market with the Genesis or on the handheld market with the Game Gear -the thing was due to a cost reduced redesign back in '95, especially sicne reflective -unlit- color screens were finally gettign good enough to allow a lower-end unlit model that would not only be more cost competitive, but more compact and -most importantly- have far longer battery life -probably the biggest single reason for the Game Boy's success)

 

 

DVD was something they could do much about, but I do think they DC's chipset had MPEG-2 acceleration (the streaming video looks MPEG2 quality), and it may have been a long shot, but maybe they could have made a licensing deal tying into the Chinese SVCD standard (especially the CVD format -the earliest standard completed and also the best in some respects) and license the GD-ROM format to allow that to be rolled into the standard for CVD/SVCD and thus get a strong base to support a standard commercial video format that could be implemented on the dreamcast with nothing more than some added software (an embedded player) and offering an excellent lower end alternative to DVD that was far better than VCD and better than SVCD due to the high capacity media. (higher quality and/or less disc swapping)

Obviously, Sega couldn't really push such a format on their own (a proprietary format rather than a broad standard), but with the tie in to the massive Chinese format standard would have been very significant, but whether it would have caught on in Japan, the US, Europe or the rest of the world would have been the factor for whether it made an impact or not. (licensing the GD-ROM format for profit would have been useful in any case)

 

 

 

Edit: I forgot to mention that Japan pulled the plug on the Dreamcast before many of the best games were released. Production was halted in January of 2001 and officially discontinued it in March. (oddly, they kept a niche market going in Japan with additional games, but didn't do anything remotely close to that in the US, the one region the system had been truly popular -Shemue 2 was even released in Europe but not for the DC in the US)

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I didn't own any Sega consoles, I had much respect for them; of course, I really respected Sega in the arcade and being my second favorite arcade company behind Atari Games in terms of pushing the envelope while operating in a sea of mediocrity for the most part...

There's a ton of other great Japanese arcade companies (Capcom, Konami, SNK, Taito, Namco, etc), but yes Sega is up there with the best of them. (though saying that today isn't nearly as impressive as 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago with arcade games in the state they are today)

 

Atari Games was pretty good, though (in terms of mass market appeal and success), I don't think they can really stand up to some of the giants of the business emerging from Japan in the mid 80s. (unless you include the Atari Inc days, then you'd have another picture entirely) Atari Games was arguably the best western arcade company from the mid 80s onward, though you don't have that many others to look to in that category either. (there's Midway, Williams -which merged with Midway later on, and who else?)

 

Off topic: but on the issue of western (especially US) arcade games, were there ever any examples of YM2151 (or similar) FM synth music that was remotely comparable to the best/better Japanese arcade stuff (or comparable to the best stuff on the Megadrive/Genesis for that matter)? There's a charm to the simpler FM music that a lot of the US FM arcade music used (though other cases where it's plain grating), but mainly in the same way old Adlib music on DOS games is (the average stuff, not the exceptional stuff that really pushed the YM3812 -let alone the few cases pushing the YMF262) and that's not saying much given the YM2151 is FAR more capable than the YM3812 -for that matter, I'm not aware of an example of US arcade YM2151 music that's better than the best Japanese arcade music using the weaker YM3812 -like Zero Wing, which admittedly sounds better on the Genesis. (maybe I should move this to a separate thread, at least if anyone else is interested)

And I'm not really biased towards Japanese stuff in general, just an observation. (I know on console/computer games there's definite exceptions with some pretty nice Genesis, NES, SNES, and various computer synth stuff -though on average the Japanese and European developers seemed to make better use of the sound hardware -sometimes the compositions weren't any better, but the arrangements for the hardware are what made the difference -then again, European 8-bit music tends to have that heavy use of fast arps that drive some people crazy )

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

and in 90% of the overall market.

 

Our friends in Europe and Latin America may find that a tad ethnocentric ...

 

Indeed. The Master System destroyed the NES here was really well supported indeed. Hell its still being sold in Brazil!

We discussed this before: there aren't sold final sales figures for any of Sega's consoles, but given soem market share and snapshot figures as well as various business and anecdotal reports:

The SMS dominated in the UK, the NES was considerably more popular in Europe (but not as extreme as the US), and Nintendo also held a number of smaller markets (like scandinavia, Holland, Denmark, and a few others iirc, and in some cases it was about as extreme as the US)

 

Apparently the 7800 had a better overall market share in Europe than the US, but I haven't seen official figures there either. (however, it's also apparently far behind both the SMS and NES overall in Europe -I don't think it was even ahead of the NES in the UK)

 

Heh, interesting that the 2 polarized Sega/Nintendo regions in Europe (namely the UK and Germany) were also 2 of the biggest markets for the ST.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ton, but you obviously won't agree.

It depends on the context, I love (or like) a lot of games that the masses find mediocre, let alone the classic gaming Sega fans in general. And, other than my comments on Shadow and some other ones qualified on personal preference, the rest was either aimed at the classic Sega fanbase, or the current mass market in general.

 

 

I went a bit off topic, but the main thing I was trying to address is that Sega (or Sega-Sammy) as they are today are nothing but a shadow of what they once were in terms of software development prowess.

 

Sonic 4 and Colours reviewed very strongly, as did all Stars racing and the Ultimate Genesis collection. However, you wrote those off because, if I understand it right, it isn't 1991.

Not so much 1991 since they were awesome in the software side of things from the early/mid 80s all the way up to the early 2000s when they started declining. (especially after the Sammy takeover)

 

Reviews are not somethign I addressed before and are often tangent to 2 other major factors: mass market appeal and long term appeal or percieved quality. (Sonic Heroes on the GC got an 8.0 by IGN, almost as high as they pushed for the Sonic Adventure games on the Dreamcast -8.6 and 9.0- or various other reviews for that matter, but reviews are biased and inconsistent: the Gamecube ports of the Sonic Adventure games got mediocre reviews -and not due to any flaws compared to the DC versions or even due to them being ports of older games, but rather complains about things that the Dreamcast reviewers had thought were minor problems -then if you compare public polls, it's a whole other story in general)

 

Is Sega still a notable publisher, yes, do they still have somewhat notable in-house development capabilities, yes, but are they among the top developers in the world (as they once were), I think not. (that was my main point of contention . . . unless you make a long list of "best developers" though that kind of defeats the purpose)

The metric in judging "best" is a bit ambiguous too, but if you go by review scores, sales figures, and mass market appeal, Sega is way down the list. (going by publisher or development houses)

 

 

And what is it with "retro fans" that they have to be so backward looking that the only way we can appriciate something like All Stars Racing, or Sega Rally, or Monkey Ball is if it is better than, say, Nights? Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people.

No, I'm not talking about such picky Sega fans, but the sort of fans that encompass a wide range of retro games from Sega (and very often others) with many not liking all Sega platforms even and quite a few liking modern games a lot (others more on the fence who play modern games, but not nearly as much as classic games, and othrs still who are fed up with the genres that have become popular -I'm in the case of liking pretty much everything to some degree).

 

The thing with Sonic 4 is that it was largely intended to be a faithful (and to many, long overdue) continuation of the original series from the Genesis/CD days, but it ended up being a rather average game overall that's not bad, but not especially impressive in modern terms or compared to the classic games. (or compared to homebrew/fan efforts -in both gameplay, graphics, sound, and style in the case of Fan Remix) Hell, a well-done HD/3D remix of the classic games (or derivative based on the classic games that largely draws on the original levels) may very well have been better. (there's plenty of other developers who did that quite well, though others that fell rather flat in terms of quality -like Earthworm Jim)

 

Sega's gotten to the point where they've messed with the franchise so much that they can't make a single game without a massive chunk of the fans complaining (be it the "old" fans. "new gen" fans, or intermediate ones -I sort of fall in the middle as I like the better 3D games more than even my favorites of the 2D games, but still like many of the 2D games and some of the less well liked 3D games)

 

 

In any case, many of the new games have not yet stood the test of time that will give any indication on whether they're truly enduring in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

Every retro person goes on and on about the Saturn and Dreamcast being incredible.

No they don't, a ton of the fans don't care for the Saturn, some don't care for the Dreamcast, some don't for the Master system, and some (rarely) don't favor the genssi sthat much either. There's a small (but notable) chunk who actually like the 32x more than the Saturn, and many more who like the Sega CD more, a lot of different combinations. (not unlike with the Atari 2600/5200/A8/7800/ST/Lynx/Jaguar -except, in my experience on AA, there's more love-hate stuff and less general retro fans than on Sega-16, but other trade-offs as well )

 

However, how many of you bought one new back then?

And? Whether it sold is a toally different contenxt from whether it was good. You've got complete crap that sells well because of good marketing (especially in the US), or more often medocre stuff that get far more popular than much higher quality products for the same reason.

 

The reason the Saturn failed in the west (especially the US) is a very complex issue that I really don't want to start to get into here. (the Dreamcast is more straightforward, but I still spent a lot on that above -so you can imagine how far off track the Saturn could take this, let alone all the necessary parallel stuff with the 32x, late-gen MD/Genesis, etc, etc)

I could say marketing was the problem, but that was a small part of it. (it was really a huge mess of conflicting management, bad timing, overlapping and compiling mistakes, from software issues -1st and 3rd party, hardware issues -especially cost to performance ratio, and of course massive competition from Sony pushing many things that the market had never seen before -never selling at the sort of losses Sony did, never pushing advertising budgets like Sony did, or software development budgets, etc, etc -it was a perfect storm for Sony with both Sega and Nintendo screwing up -Nintendo in dropping optical media and still pushing a lot of the limiting licensing policies of days gone by that they are still pushing on the DS today -nothing like the NES days, mind you, but some of the things that persistent in the SNES days continue to this day -like Nintendo controlling how much a game can be produced and when supplies will be available, etc)

 

OTOH, the master System was most definitely a success, as was the Game Gear. Neither dominated the market, but both were profitable and had notable market positions in the global perspective.

None of Sega's consoles were highly competitive in all regions. (the Saturn is the only one to even come close to #1 in Japan, or #2 for that matter -well the GG was #2 on the handheld market, but there was basically no other competition)

The Saturn was a success in Japan, but I believe it lost money worldwide like the 32x. The CD probably came close to breaking even if not being profitable in all regions it was released in.

 

The Master System did certainly fail to reach its full potential in the US market though, and unlike the Saturn, that's not nearly as complex: it's almost 100% down to distribution and marketing that Sega employed (especially in the critical early period when Nintendo had no advantage in the market). Nintendo had the fundamental advantage of existing Japanese support and some related clout, but it wasn't until after Nintendo gained a solid foothold as the market leader in North America that it really shut things up for Sega. (ie if Sega had competed on par -or even pulled ahead- with great marketing/distribution in '86/87 in the US, Nintendo wouldn't have been able to push the exclusivity agreements it did)

The TG-16/PCE is pretty much the same, btu far more extreme. (NEC had resources close to those of Sony's in the mid 90s, but they didn't remotely push those advantages -lucky for Sega in particular, who likely would have gotten steamrolled under NEC in the US and maybe even fallen far behind in Europe -price cuts, saturation marketing, heavy investment in western software as well as bringing over Japanese software -including publishing 3rd party games under NEC's label to break Nintendo's licensing limits, etc, etc -they had the most cost effective hardware with vertical integration and tons of funds on top of that plus a strong Japanese market)

 

You are also making the mistake of thinking Sega fans are on Sega-16. They are not. That is Genesis fans, and maybe Sega hardware fans. If you want to talk Sega with Sega fans please join us over at Sega-addicts. We were quite pleased with Sonic 4, Colours, Phantasy Star, etc.

No, Sega-16 is about as wide breadth as Atariage in terms of userbase. There's a big chunk of Sega-16 members who don't have the Genesis/MD as their favorite system -or even Sega as their favorite: quite a few who like Atari, Nintendo, NEC, or Sony more but still have a strong interest in Sega. (I reference that site as it's one of the most active Sega retro communities out there and one of the closest overall to Atariage -especially in terms of a lot of members who aren't fanboys in general -I'd love to find a Nintendo site that's remotely like that: NintendoAge is the closest I've seen, but still a bit too fanboy-ish for my taste)

OTOH, maybe a better example would be a non sega specific site like Racketboy.

 

Again, Sonic 4 isn't bad, but it is disappointing compared to what it could have been and compared to the classics, or even some of the more recent handheld games. (and compared to what some fans have done already and are working on)

Not just the uber retro fans either (again, a great case for racketboy since that aims at a breadth of classic gaming fans who enjoy modern games too), but average gamers who enjoy the sonic series and possibly grew up with it or may not have. (aside from those who totally avoid "old" games in general)

 

 

And why shouldn't published games count? That is part of their business, and choosing and getting the right games to publish is important too. They could be publishing junk, but they are smart enough to get stuff like Bayonetta. They are on the list of Metacritics top 10 reviewed publishers. That's a decent accomplishment. Why should that be ignored or held against them?

Yes, but the original comment I responded to was in the context of Sega "still" being among the top arcade/home "developers" in the world as they were years ago, and I contend that. (as above, not that they're insignificant, but they're pretty far down the list of "top" developers no matter how you slice it -publishers is a different category, but I still would put them pretty far down the list, probably not in the top 10)

 

Likewise, I wouldn't proclaim Working Designs the master of soem great RPGs when they only published the games (and translated them -sometimes rather well, sometimes more meh -and often with some odd increases in difficulty over the japanese originals). Same for Sega publishing various 3rd party developed games back in the 80s and 90s -from Game Arts, Virgin, Novatrade, Ancient, Treasure, etc, etc, or especially cases where the games were published in the US by Sega but not in Japan like with Thunder Force II: it would be like giving Sony the credit for Final Fantasy VII since they published it in the west. Though I would give Sega credit for their in-house ports/remakes of 3rd party games (like Yuji Naka's Ghouls n' Ghosts conversion licensed from Capcom and developed in-house by Sega, Sega's amazing remake of Popful Mail, the awesome port of Final Fight for the Sega CD, etc -or various other cases of licensed games developed totally independently from the original company; conversely it wouldn't make sense to criticize the original maker of a game for a crappy port/remake by a 3rd party)

 

I think you're handicapping them just so you can be disappointed by them.

Again, much of what I said above was made in observations, not personal satisfaction. I personally don't care nearly as much as some others, and not enough to be seriously disappointed or dragged down, but enough to make note of where some degree of disappointment is valid. (I don't really care for Mario Galaxy -2 a little more, but it doesn't hold my interest either- or NSMB, though I really like Mario 64 and Sunshine as well as several of the Sonic 3D platform games -Colors seems OK too, but it's got much of the annoying elements of Unleashed: it's better than the on-rails Black Knight or Secret Rings or the buggy and rather *off* STH 2006 game, but I'd probably put it below many of Sega's other things)

 

What I like, and what I think in terms of mass market position, good/bad business decisions, etc, etc are totally different contexts. (I rather like the 32x as a system and there's several games on it I really like, but I don't think it was a good business decision at all, I think the Saturn was also fundamentally flawed in terms of hardware as well as the market position it was being forced into -though in spite of the hardware issues, and even after the fact of 32x, they could have managed things MUCH better, probably more than an order of magnitude better, but things kept getting worse from '95 onward until the release of the DC, and even then there's a lot of mistakes with a variety of reasons -some obvious in hindsight, others that I can't see why were made at the time either -though not nearly as extreme as the WTF factor of the Saturn and 32x -and among the reasons I'd love to see more in depth answers and details to Sega's history on the level that Curt and Marty are pushing for Atari)

 

I'm sorry if I cam off the wrong way with my comments.

 

The time from the launch of the Genesis to the launch of the Dreamcast was 10 years. The time from the death of the Dreamcast to today is ten years. Perhaps it is time you judged Sega on the company and business they are today.

You mean the shadow that Sega-Sammy is of Sega's former greatness. (they've lost much of their best talent -and 2nd party connections- and much that remains is distributed such that said staff members aren't nearly as influential as they once were)

In some respects, it's rather like comparing Atari Games in the early 90s (or maybe the late 80s) to Atari Inc as a whole in the early 80s (or late 70s), less so comparing Atari Corp with Atari Inc though.

The difference, of course, is that Sega-Sammy is still alive and Atari Games is gone. (and Sega-Sammy is more "sega" than Atari Games was "Atari" after they were folded into TWI and later Midway before completely dying when Midway West was shut down)

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

 

you had the bulk of CONSOLE sales and programming.

 

Show me the market data.

From the rough figures out there (many vague, especially as far as Sega and Atari were concerned), Europe made up close to 20% of the world market by the peak of the 4th generation, but possibly closer to 15% in the 3rd generation. (South America is an odd case as you do have a massive amount of Nintenso stuff, but it's largely pirate/clone stuff -surprising Sega actually managed to pull off both the SMS and MD as such- and the SMS was launched very late in Brazil -on top of that it wasn't especially popular outside of Brazil, but it varied a bit -overall, I'd leave out South America altogether due to the odd situation there, plus the rough 11 million figure for SMS sales is almost certainly not including South America, or at very least the post Sega stuff under TecToy's independent production -continuing to this day)

 

OTOH, there's also the fact that Europe had an absolutely MASSIVE computer game/programming market that squeezed the console market rather tight, especially in the 80s, and following that (with the MD, SNES, and later) you had a ton of strong European development houses. (often commissioning for or partnering with western publishers as well -and Sony bought out Psygnosis of course)

 

And if you include the low-end/consumer range computer game market worldwide with game consoles, you'd get a rather different picture. (the market that overlaps with consoles -especially in Europe, but also the C64 in the US -and A8, though that was relatively small by comparison, MSX in Japan -also relatively niche compared to the dominating NEC computers and Nintendo/NEC consoles)

For coding alone, it's much more straightforward to lump in all computer/console game developers/programmers into a net comparison. (of curse, many small developers who started out on computers later moved to consoles as well)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise, the Genesis was REALLY popular in the US but utterly tanked in Japan. Does that make it a success or failure? It sold many millions in one, not another. North Americans would remember it as a big console. Japanese would probably remember it as "that system which did far worse than the Super Famicom and PC Engine". On a global basis, it still sold quite a bit less than the Super NES/Famicom. the gap wasn't as wide as with NES vs. SMS but there was still a pretty big gap if 50 million Super Nintendo's to 29 million Genesis systems is to be believed.

There's lots of vague figures, but the 29 million Genesis one is definitely wrong based on business and gamign articles and Sega press released back then. (it seem to be ~35 million at the very least and closer to 40 million worldwide if you go by the highest estimates)

 

In Japan it didn't tank, it was profitable and had a notable market share, but was a distant 3rd against extremely aggressive competition -again they were damn lucky that NES totally blew it in the west, or we may never have seen the Genesis do nearly as well as it did -or Atari Corp not offering any competition at all while Sega got some of the best US marketing/management they'd ever had with Katz and later Kalnsike. (if you actually compare market share figures and overall sales of the MD in Japan vs PCE vs SNES, it's not far off from the Saturn vs N64 vs PSX -Saturn did better than N64 in overall sales, but the PSX did so much better that it was far more extreme of a gap than with the SNES -Sega's official figures are lacking, so it's tough to tell if the MegaDrive was actually the most popular of Any Sega system or the Saturn in Japan -for contemporary figures based on overall hardware sales in the generation: if you cut it off when the MD and Saturn were discontinued long before the SNES or PSX, you'd get much more favorable figures for Sega in both cases of course)

 

When I look at Sega, I see a company that was never the global leader in consoles, but

 

- did have moments where they led specific markets (US with Genesis, Europe with Master System)

- have several systems that sold more than 10 million units (Master System, Genesis, Dreamcast and I believe GameGear) ... so lots of fans

- Several systems with libraries that comprised of hundreds of games.

Actually, the Megadrive/Genesis may have led in every single major market outside of Japan (definitely in Europe and likely in the US -by a much smaller margin), but the >17 vs ~3.5 million in Japanese sales made a massive difference. (the western markets were rather close by comparison, but with a favor on the Sega side -in hardware sales number- for the most part, though those figures aren't as definitive as Nintendo's -and, of course,Sega faltered in the mid 90s while Nintendo managed a very smooth transition of the SNES into the late generation and budget markets, so Sega's final sales are less favorable than if you compare them at their peak in world market share some time in 1993 iirc)

 

So successful enough, if not really ever a global leader.

Very few have been global leaders, and those who have (in terms of selling more worldwide than anyone else) still often have exceptions where they lost certain significant markets. (like Atari with the VCS only really doing exceptionally well in North American or Nintendo in Europe until the current generation -I think the Wii is the first time Nintendo has had a dominant European home console -not handheld)

Sony had the lead in pretty much ever major market in the world with the PS1 and PS2 though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, I'm done . . . and, again, this is really getting off topic, though it's interesting to discuss at least. (hopefully we can conclude this reasonably soon -in terms of post count-)

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

Back on topic:

 

 

Expansion port was pointless, B&W lables are legitimate though. (at least the boxes -the important/flashy marketing side of things- were full color though, and they switched to color labels later on -may have been done due to increased funds or other issue, not necessarily related to Jack leaving and may not have even corresponded to that -ie may have been planned long before it reached market)

I was corrected on this. The B/W labels were only for the very early (namely 1986) 7800 releases and most/all new games released from '87 onward used color cart labels, so it had absolutely nothing to do with jack leaving later on.

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[Atarifever]

 

Is Sega still a notable publisher, yes, do they still have somewhat notable in-house development capabilities, yes, but are they among the top developers in the world (as they once were), I think not. (that was my main point of contention . . . unless you make a long list of "best developers" though that kind of defeats the purpose)

The metric in judging "best" is a bit ambiguous too, but if you go by review scores, sales figures, and mass market appeal, Sega is way down the list. (going by publisher or development houses)

Well, according to metacritic, they are the ninth best reviewed publisher in the world, on a list with the likes of Sony, Nintendo, and Capcom.

 

As fo sales, Sonic Colours has now sold just about 2 million copies, and it is only on two platforms. Sonic 4 was something like first or second best selling xbox arcade game. Even a critical flop like Sonic Unleashed sold 2 million copies.

 

As fo mass market appeal, it depends on what you think Mass market means. Sonic is popular enough to have 4 TV shows, a current line of action figures and RC cars, a comic in publication for almost 20 years now (with a second series running alongside it now). Everytime Sega announces a game being developed or published it gets a ton of coverage (look at the coverage of something like Vanquish, Sonic Colours, or Virtua Fighter 5 and tell me every publisher gets that kind of attention). And Sonic, Puyo, and Monkey Ball games are on pretty much every console or handheld of any note in the world.

 

I am very confused why you think they are not one of the top publishers and developers in the world. There is no metric you can use to back that opinion up.

[Atari_Falcon]

Next thing they did wrong:

 

Racing games... I just have seen Outrun on the mastersystem again... You don't explode in this one... that made me really angry about Pole Position II (and even Motor Psycho)... The only racing game without that is Fatal Run and that is not a classic racing game at all.

 

In fact decent racing games were always something atari consoles lacked... or had very few...

[krewat]

I see last-word-itis runs rampant on almost every Internet forum I visit

Wouldn't it be lastwordophilia? I think last-word-itis would be something like getting sick from having the last word.

Heh. There it is again.

 

Getting sick from HAVING the last word, or getting sick from last-word-ophilia?

 

Last-word-ophilia-itis maybe?

 

OK, I'll stop now.

[ATARI7800fan]

 

Is Sega still a notable publisher, yes, do they still have somewhat notable in-house development capabilities, yes, but are they among the top developers in the world (as they once were), I think not. (that was my main point of contention . . . unless you make a long list of "best developers" though that kind of defeats the purpose)

The metric in judging "best" is a bit ambiguous too, but if you go by review scores, sales figures, and mass market appeal, Sega is way down the list. (going by publisher or development houses)

Well, according to metacritic, they are the ninth best reviewed publisher in the world, on a list with the likes of Sony, Nintendo, and Capcom.

 

As fo sales, Sonic Colours has now sold just about 2 million copies, and it is only on two platforms. Sonic 4 was something like first or second best selling xbox arcade game. Even a critical flop like Sonic Unleashed sold 2 million copies.

 

As fo mass market appeal, it depends on what you think Mass market means. Sonic is popular enough to have 4 TV shows, a current line of action figures and RC cars, a comic in publication for almost 20 years now (with a second series running alongside it now). Everytime Sega announces a game being developed or published it gets a ton of coverage (look at the coverage of something like Vanquish, Sonic Colours, or Virtua Fighter 5 and tell me every publisher gets that kind of attention). And Sonic, Puyo, and Monkey Ball games are on pretty much every console or handheld of any note in the world.

 

I am very confused why you think they are not one of the top publishers and developers in the world. There is no metric you can use to back that opinion up.

I agree with some of those points, plus Sonic colors as you said has sold 2 million copies in less then 2 months. While sonic unleashed sold that many it took it a year or more to do so. I think that is a nice comparison of how well there games this year have been received. While they did get worse after the Dreamcast it seems this year they are coming back.

[kool kitty89]

 

Is Sega still a notable publisher, yes, do they still have somewhat notable in-house development capabilities, yes, but are they among the top developers in the world (as they once were), I think not. (that was my main point of contention . . . unless you make a long list of "best developers" though that kind of defeats the purpose)

The metric in judging "best" is a bit ambiguous too, but if you go by review scores, sales figures, and mass market appeal, Sega is way down the list. (going by publisher or development houses)

Well, according to metacritic, they are the ninth best reviewed publisher in the world, on a list with the likes of Sony, Nintendo, and Capcom.

Yes, but that's not remotely tied to the original statement about their strength as a DEVELOPER. The discussion evolved from there, but the original context was that they still had some of the top development prowess in the world. (divide the list among actual development houses and it's a different story)

 

Publishing is another story, and Sega is a much more notable publisher today then they are a developer. (unlike 8-10 years ago when they were still had a conglomerate of some of the best development/programming talent in the world in active development -maybe a little less than 8 years too, and definitely much futher back than that as well, from the mid 80s to the early 2000s at least)

 

As fo sales, Sonic Colours has now sold just about 2 million copies, and it is only on two platforms. Sonic 4 was something like first or second best selling xbox arcade game. Even a critical flop like Sonic Unleashed sold 2 million copies.

Yes, sales, another separate issue entirely that has little to do with the fundamental quality of the game and more to do with marketing and catering to the current market niche. (many, many games sell very well and are well liked by the masses in the short run only to be labeled mediocre in retrospect -or others that sell relatively poorly or in a small/niche market may persist as critically acclaimed games among the best of all time in the long run -a lot of niche RPGs have gotten that way, Castlevania SoTN is somewhat in that category as well -it sold OK, but nothing compared to the critical acclaim it got back then and the following it has as a classic today)

 

That was one of Sega's problems on the Saturn: lots of very high quality software (at least 1st/2nd party), but not the sort that really cartered to the western (especially North American) mass market. (as they did with Sonic and Sports games on the Genesis -and again on the Dreamcast )

Having mass market appeal is far more important than having outstanding quality and software that stands the test of time. (if you can do both, that's great, but quality is less important than good marketing and having products -even mediocre ones- that mesh with market demands)

Some of the hardcore classic Sega fans (especially in Europe) tend to deride some of the software that SoA was pushing in the mid 90s as western development expanded, but by most accounts, those games were highly successful (in some cases integral) in North America at the time.

 

Hell, one of the most extreme cases is with FMV, and while I agree the Sega CD wasn't marketed for the versatile software library and capabilities it had, NOT pushing FMV/multimedia would have been stupid. FMV sold, it sold on consoles (well into the 5th generation), it sold well on computers, and it was the genesis of multimedia in video games that evolved into the integrated high-end multimedia cinema pushed so heavily on the PSX up to modern consoles. (on the MCD itself you already saw a transition for FMV used exclusively for cienematic intros and cutscenes and in increasingly high quality as better compression formats emerged -SoulStar if a fairly good example for intro+cutscene stuff, though games like Tenka Fubu had been pushing it since 1991 -the first example of FMV on the system- and Sonic CD did that too but at rather low quality/framerate for 1993 as it was uncompressed, Silpheed would be a big one too that not only pushed cutscenes but made use of streaming video in-game exceptionally well -and did so with excellent realtime FM+PCM synth music, lossless video compression, and model 1/system 21 like polygonal graphics stylized in 16 colors that looked like it could be realtime rendered -and tricked many into thinking it WAS realtime)

 

As fo mass market appeal, it depends on what you think Mass market means. Sonic is popular enough to have 4 TV shows, a current line of action figures and RC cars, a comic in publication for almost 20 years now (with a second series running alongside it now). Everytime Sega announces a game being developed or published it gets a ton of coverage (look at the coverage of something like Vanquish, Sonic Colours, or Virtua Fighter 5 and tell me every publisher gets that kind of attention). And Sonic, Puyo, and Monkey Ball games are on pretty much every console or handheld of any note in the world.

Yes, I never claimed they didn't have mass market appeal either, and that was one of the problems with the Saturn (among many, many other things) as I just mentioned above.

 

Having the best developers and software in the world does nothing if you don't cater to what the market wants, or if you cater too much to one region (ie Japan) over another (like North America). Sega of Japan never pushed predominantly for US/western specific appeal, but it just happened that many of the games they (and several JP 3rd parties) were pushing in the late 80s/early 90s meshed rather well with the west and SoA bolstered that with western specific development in-house (STI) and with 2nd/3rd party commissions and collaboration. (along with pure licensed 3rd party publishing)

 

And having the software that matches the market is only one part of it, you also need the right marketing:

you could have 2 products that both match the market near perfects, one being exceptional and the other being mediocre, but if the mediocre one is marketed expertly while the exceptional one gets mediocre marketing, guess which is going to be more popular by far? (at least in North America where viral marketing is very weak, especially compared to the late 80s/early 90s Eruopean market -Sonic would have been massive in Europe even with zero marketing, but it could have fallen into obscurity in the US is Sega hadn't had the great marketing at the time -let alone the decision to make ti pack-in)

 

 

I am very confused why you think they are not one of the top publishers and developers in the world. There is no metric you can use to back that opinion up.

They may still be among the top 10 publishers of home video games worldwide (depending on the metric -mass market appeal and success would be the most realistic though not the one generally used for "quality" in hindsight), but they're definitely not anywhere close to what they were as a publisher at their peak(s) (where they were close to -if not- #1 in the world -even on a "quality" basis), let alone in terms of actual development capabilities. (which was the original comment)

 

Likewise, the compilations are also a good move from a publishing PoV, though not really much to show as a DEVELOPER. (other than that they could manage some decent emulation that comes fairly close to the best PCs already offered and with a pretty nice menu system -but also the annoying "unlockable" content in a vain attempt to improve replay value -it must work as a marketing ploy, but I find such content restriction annoying, let alone if I lose my save file -happened with Mega Man collection on the Game Cube and is the main reason I haven't bothered to play it: I didn't mind it the first time around since I didn't have to TRY to unlock anything, it was all by accident, but now I just want to get a game shark memory card and download a pre-completed save file . . . the same thing happened with Sonic Adventure DX and Sonic Adventure 2 Battle and while my brother and I played through both again, we stopped short of going though all the bonus missions and such to unlock added content -and again, a game shark is looking very attractive; at least most lucas arts games have cheats to unlock most such content -a god send for all the special features of Rebel Strike including one of the best home ports of the Atari Atari Wars arcade games -that work surprisingly well with the GC analog stick)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with some of those points, plus Sonic colors as you said has sold 2 million copies in less then 2 months. While sonic unleashed sold that many it took it a year or more to do so. I think that is a nice comparison of how well there games this year have been received. While they did get worse after the Dreamcast it seems this year they are coming back.

I explained the complex context of my original statements above.

 

As for Sega "coming back", I'm not sure what that would mean since they've have plenty of good selling and/or well reviewed games post dreamcast. Things have gone up and down many times, even after the Sammy takeover, and especially as far as publishing (ie not just in-house games) is concerned.

 

And again, personal opinions are totally separate (I think Shadow the Hedgehog is a better playing, more polished, more enjoyable game overall than Heroes, but the latter got much better reviews closer to the Dreamcast Sonic games while Shadow was more in the range of the Game Cube and PC ports of the DC games -again, oddly DX and SA2B got poor reviews when the DC ones had gotten shining ones -and not even because of DX's bugs, but mainly due to "annoying" factors that had been ignored by the dreamcast reviewers -the xbox 360 port favored even more poorly on most commercial reviews though Classic Game Room did a side by side with the Dreamcast original and found the 360 port -derived from the old GC/PC versions- to have more responsive controls and otherwise being nearly identical)

 

I can't personally comment on Sonic Colors yet beyond the videos I've seen and such, but on the surface it seems to have most/all of the shortcomings of the day levels in Sonic Unleashed. (if they did actually managed to reduce the annoyance factor, I -and especially my brother- will have a much greater chance at enjoying it -I really would prefer a game expending on the best aspects of Sonic Adventure 2 though, that's still the best 3D platformer -or at least 3D sonic game- that Sega has ever published IMO)

They've done better after the fiasco of STH'06, but with something like that, there's nowhere to go but up. (though I'd argue that Secret Rings and Black Knight are more frustrating to play -not buggy, but I absolutely hate the motion controlled on-rails mechanic)

 

It does seem to be one of the highest rated (if not the highest rated) Sonic game post dreamcast (ie after the >9.0 score of Sonic Adventure 2 -IGN gave it a 9.4 and the press average is claimed 92% by IGN though 89% by Metacritic; it's a shame that game came several months AFTER the DC was canceled )

 

 

I don't like the 2D emphasis at all (again, 2D/sidescrollers are NOT my forte, though I like some OK -none can compete with my favore full 3D platform games -thoguh flight/space sims among some others are more towards my favorites).

OTOH, they probably should have aimed at such a "2.5D" style for a Saturn sonic game (be it prerendered or realtime, or a combination) and doing the same for Sonic 3D blast (on any platform) would probably have made the game much more popular and marketable (and better standing the test of time -though I rather like it for what it is, a lot of people find it mediocre).

 

So far, for me, Sonic Adventure 2 and Mario Sunshine are the peak of 3D platformers from Nintendo and Sega respectively. (and I'm not sure any 3rd party games go beyond those either -tons of other 3rd party platformers, especially those on the PS2 I've never delved into) The style in SM64 is better in some areas (darker theme at times), but the gameplay is so much smoother and more polished in Sunshine. (the camera in SM64 is worse than Sonic Adventure IMO, let alone Adventure 2 or Sunshine)

 

Edit: One of the added things I preferred about Sonic Adventure 2 (also true for Adventure, but with other trade-offs) was the extremely limited use of in-game voice acting. (more on the level of SM64 or Sunshine)

Edited February 17, 2011 by kool kitty89

[Lynxpro]

In some respects, it's rather like comparing Atari Games in the early 90s (or maybe the late 80s) to Atari Inc as a whole in the early 80s (or late 70s), less so comparing Atari Corp with Atari Inc though.

The difference, of course, is that Sega-Sammy is still alive and Atari Games is gone. (and Sega-Sammy is more "sega" than Atari Games was "Atari" after they were folded into TWI and later Midway before completely dying when Midway West was shut down)

 

 

Well, the arcades are dead. The only true way to revive the spirit of these formerly great "arcade" companies would be to somehow revive the arcade scene. And that can't be done unless "arcade" machines somehow leapfrog the tech found in modern consoles and computers for at least a full cycle. Short of full holographics, I don't see it happening.

 

Even the Dave & Buster's atmosphere isn't like the old arcade vibe, especially since most of the games at D&B aren't truly arcade style games...

 

As for Atari Games, all its IP is in the hands of modern day Warner Bros. Interactive. I'd love to see WBI buy up Infogrames/Atari Interactive Inc. and then we'd finally have all the Atari IP under a single entity again. I wonder if Nolan would stick around considering the suits would again be the seemingly undying "Warner"...

[spiffyone]

 

As for Shadow, it's no Sonic Adventure 2 (the best 3D sonic done IMO -some prefer SA1, but it's FAR less polished in all respects- and some don't like any of Sega's 3D sonic stuff), but Shadow the Hedgehog (on the GC) is probably the 2nd best example after SA2 and the best after the Dreamcast/ports in general. It actually feels like a less polished SA2 with 3rdps (a ala MDK) elements added. (of course, the GC version, not the buggy PS2 game -Xbox might be OK). Heroes was more annoying overall and a bit less polished, the Wii on-rails motion controlled games are horrible and annoying, Unleashed was OK but not up to the same gameplay quality and balance of Shadow IMO (some liked how they tried to push the day levels a bit like the old 2D games, but that doesn't work for me at all -and I like the 2D games-). Shadow is probably the closest to a proper sequel to Sonic Adventure 2 that Sega has ever published.

.

 

Wait...what?

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

No...doesn't matter what version of Shadow you have. i too have the GC version.

 

It's a POS game. It is absolutely THE worst game Sonic Team ever developed.

 

Heroes is far less "annoying" and MUCH more polished overall. The switching aspect is MUCH better than the tacked on elements in Shadow that DO NOT work well. The aiming is imprecise in Shadow. The branching system is also imprecise as the player inevitably accidentally shoots NPCs that they want to avoid shooting (in order to get a different story branch be it "good" or "bad"). The game has NUMEROUS bugs, many more than Heroes did, and that game was buggy as hell too.

 

I'm sorry...but you speak of "consensus" of Sega retro fans on one hand, and then go absolutely against the consensus of said fans on this.

 

Again, Shadow is THE worst example of Sonic Teams fall post-Dreamcast.

 

But that's ONLY Sonic Team. And Sonic Team =/= Sega as a whole.

 

I agree it's an acquired taste

 

Yes, I'm sure manure is an acquired taste. Doesn't mean it's good.

 

Sonic 4 has been a big disappointment, rather sad that it falls short of what the fan community has been (and is) doing

 

What, that Sonic fan made game that focuses on "going fans" that everyone who thinks Sonic is about "going fast" goes on about?

 

FYI: Sonic was NEVER about "going fast". That's the trap that Sonic Team fell into thinking, and that's why the SA games suffered, and that's why the Advance and Rush games are better all around (although I agree that Rush is a step down from Advance, and for a similar reason to boot).

 

That fan based game has piss poor level design one that focuses on "going fast" rather than good level design based around reacting quickly to changing environmental conditions. And THAT is what Sonic is about.

 

Atari didn't have the chance to expand into those years. In the early 80s, they kicked the crap out of Sega in the arcade, let alone Sega's nonexistent home market, and who knows how that could have evolved under the right management.

 

Sure, Atari had Space Invaders as their first definitive killer app, but they also had a massive number of in-house titles from the arcade to console exclusives. (and of course, some killer 3rd parties pushing great games likes Activision and Imagic -even the clones often had improvements over the originals)

 

So how is what you're stating now negating what I stated earlier? You're pretty much agreeing with me.

 

Atari Corp. needed Atari Games. And internal devs. And GCC. Software sells hardware. 7800 needed more software.

 

You state that having arcade ports "didn't help" Sega, but it did as it was their initial "get" in the face of Nintendo having tied up most of the JP 3rd parties to exclusive contracts (it was pretty much too late by the time SMS launched in the US as Nintendo's Famicom had already dominated the market in Japan and by that virtue locked up the 3rd parties over there). Sega was an arcade company. Their home hardware was envisioned as a port machine for their arcade IPs. That was the foundation of their business, and they used that to grow from there and offer new console experiences later.

 

Atari, as you admit, didn't have that output when Tramiel took over. I think we're dealing with different hypotheticals here, so maybe that's where the confusion is creeping in. I'm not dealing with a hypothetical of Warner still running Atari here, but rather one of Tramiel buying Atari Games along with the consumer division and/or securing exclusivity with them while also extending the contract with GCC and keeping the internal devs as well. I'm not even dealing with the computer line or anything of that sort. I'm thinking of the 7800 and whatever successors it may have had down the line. For those things to be successful, good software was needed. In the face of Nintendo ruling the 3rd party roost, the only real viable alternative in the early going was doing what Sega did: having arcade IPs from which to draw, and internal dev teams to develop new console-esque experiences and close relationships with devs not in Nintendo's hand working as 2nd parties in some cases.

 

Atari didn't even have that. They didn't have an exclusive over arcade IPs for home ports, they didn't have internal devs, and they didn't have a close relationship with devs not in Nintendo's hand (in this case, for Atari that probably would've been GCC). And that more than low RAM, more than no on board POKEY chip, and more than anything else is why 7800 didn't sell as well as it could have. It sold well enough, SHORT TERM, but it would've had longer term viability if it had the software support that would entice more consumers to give it a look.

 

Plus a TON of the best Genesis games were 3rd party releases, the SMS was deprived of 3rd party support to any significnat extent so that has no comparison.

 

Because by that time 3rd parties were VERY tired of Nintendo's antics, and, iirc, there were some investigations on Nintendo's monopolistic tendencies. That's why it really opened up for Sega with Genesis.

 

 

Some of those you listed are still considered rather disappointing in general (Sonic 4, Sonic Colors -for pretty much anyone who disliked the say levels in Sonic Unleashed, etc), while many of the others are outsourced and/or rehashes/compilations of old games that are BETTER emulated on PC thanks to Fusion and MAME.

 

Most of the games he listed that were any good are Sega 1st party efforts.

 

Most of this has been discussed at length on multiple threads on Sega 16 (let alone elsewhere), and bear in mind that Sega-16 isn't full of just sega-exclusive fans, but fairly balanced with a mix of general retro fans and others who like modern gaming as much as classic gaming (like myself) and many who didn't grow up with Sega at all, but got into it after the fact as part of general retro interests (again, like me, unless you include the Sega PC released I had back in the late 90s).

 

That's great.

 

The "most fans" card.

 

LOL

 

How many of those fans actually think Shadow the Hedgehog is not a steaming pile of manure?

 

Not many.

 

 

How many games can you name that were developed and published by Sega in the last 4 years that were truly great games? (I mean significant with long lasting appeal that will likely break beyond this generation) Or for that matter, how many after the Sammy merger in general?

 

The Valkyria Chronicles series

The Yakuza games

the Super Monkey Ball games on Wii (Banana Blitz and Step & Roll, both of which are only hated by those that don't "get" motion sensing. Note to those who don't "get" motion sensing: stop acting like spazzes - only slight movements are needed).

Sonic Colors (I know you don't like it, but you like Shadow the Hedgehog, and while there are no "wrong" opinions, liking Shadow the Hedgehog is about as wrong as one can get )

the 7th Dragon (JP only, sadly, but quite well regarded in the Land of the Rising Sun)

 

Why is their output not as high as it was back in the day?

 

For the same reason it isn't as high for Nintendo now compared to the SNES days: game development nowadays is longer and more expensive. Plus, Sega is supporting numerous hardware, so it's actually even tougher for them than for Nintendo in that regard.

Edited February 17, 2011 by spiffyone

[spiffyone]

I'm sorry, koolkitty. Not meaning any disrespect, and hope you're not taking it that way.

 

Just good natured ribbing. I agree with you on some points (SA2 being the best 3D Sonic, some issues with the even the daytime levels in Unleashed and the Rush games), but I couldn't help it.

 

I mean..honestly...you liked Shadow the Hedgehog?

 

LOL

 

That should be a crime.

 

And Shadow needs to be Poochied (+1 if you get the reference)

[Rex Dart]

Boy, does he. His appearance was when I stopped expecting any sort of quality out of Sonic games.

[krewat]

Well, the arcades are dead. The only true way to revive the spirit of these formerly great "arcade" companies would be to somehow revive the arcade scene. And that can't be done unless "arcade" machines somehow leapfrog the tech found in modern consoles and computers for at least a full cycle. Short of full holographics, I don't see it happening.

 

A full IMAX display might do it But the cost, man... the cost.

[kool kitty89]

Boy, does he. His appearance was when I stopped expecting any sort of quality out of Sonic games.

Yeah, except he appeared in Sonic Adventure 2, one of the highest rated (if not the highest rated) 3D Sonic game of all time, and even up there with the better scoring 2D games with a 89% average from Metacritic and 9.4 overall review score at IGN. (at least in terms of the critical response and review scores at the time -a shame it was released several months after the Dreamcast had been discontinued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, koolkitty. Not meaning any disrespect, and hope you're not taking it that way.

 

Just good natured ribbing. I agree with you on some points (SA2 being the best 3D Sonic, some issues with the even the daytime levels in Unleashed and the Rush games), but I couldn't help it.

 

I mean..honestly...you liked Shadow the Hedgehog?

 

LOL

 

That should be a crime.

 

And Shadow needs to be Poochied (+1 if you get the reference)

Yes, and I recognized my inconsistency (and lack of proper separation of personal preference from

 

There's plenty of other games that I like that go against the consensus (Star Wars Rebel Strike is better than RSII IMO, I rather liked Star Fox Assault -hated Command due to the touchscreen though, I like Star Voyager on the NES OK, etc -and others with similar tastes going against the grain like prefering NES JVC Star Wars to Super Star Wars, preferring the werehog levels in Unleashed, etc), and I shouldn't have tried to address so many issues at once. (ie personal preference vs retro fan consensus vs mass market appeal vs standalone quality -and, as above, true quality is much less important than marketability)

 

I was thinking Shadow was about as mediocre as the masses up until I tired it again a couple months ago (previously my brother had played though to the final ending, but that was about 4 years ago and my memory was fuzzy on it).

 

If you want a buggy/unpolished 3D Sonic game, look at STH2006 (and don't even start on the plot and cast of characters ). Granted, to some extent the original (Dreamcast or DX) Sonic Adventure: which I like, but it feels rushed and unpolished, nowhere as awesome as SA2. (which was the highest rated 3D Sonic game ever based on review scored from the time -let alone if you go by IGN, how many games have thy given 9.4 scores on?) SA was good for an early DC game, and still a good game, but I'm not surprised that many complain about the bugs and lack of polish.

I think the main problem with SA2 is people who didn't care for the "filler" levels, though they were much more fluid than SA1 (where you had a lot of redundant levels) and I even had fun with the emerald hunting stages. (enough to enjoy it in 2 player vs mode as well)

There's a lot of back and forth on those 2 games here: http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16231

Then Again, I'd put Mario Sunshine WELL ahead of NSMB or either Galaxy game in overall gameplay and fun. (I'd put SM64 ahead of all but sunshine as well)

 

Heroes was OK (another one I need to go back to), but the voices were more annoying and the plot was weird. (I'd have much preferred a Sonic Adventure 3)

 

 

But as to some other points from your previous post:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a POS game. It is absolutely THE worst game Sonic Team ever developed.

How can it be worse than the 2006 360/PS3 game??? (or Secret rings . . . unless you LIKE annoying tilt controls and on-rails platforming)

 

Heroes is far less "annoying" and MUCH more polished overall. The switching aspect is MUCH better than the tacked on elements in Shadow that DO NOT work well. The aiming is imprecise in Shadow. The branching system is also imprecise as the player inevitably accidentally shoots NPCs that they want to avoid shooting (in order to get a different story branch be it "good" or "bad"). The game has NUMEROUS bugs, many more than Heroes did, and that game was buggy as hell too.

I guess I have a tolerance for certain things, I got very used to the shooting controls and auto-aim feature, and the "jumping off edges" thing wasn't nearly as problematic as reviews make out. (then again, I actually got used to Star Fox Command enough to enjoy the on-foot levels -though the control options needed to be more flexible and a first person POV would have helped a ton)

 

It's also the SA2 fans who would more likely tolerate the shortcomings of Shadow. (especially if they like 3rd person shooters -and didn't mind the 3rdPS stages in Rebel Strike or Star Fox Assault -both of which I managed to enjoy) Though they'd also probably be among those who enjoyed Heroes the most.

 

Again, Shadow is THE worst example of Sonic Teams fall post-Dreamcast.

And, again, I don't see how you could put that below the 2006 game. (Secret Rings is OK if you like the controls, but they ruin it for me like Star Fox command -that and the on-rails aspect even more so: Atomic Runner managed that OK in 2D, but I don't like it at all in 3D)

 

What, that Sonic fan made game that focuses on "going fans" that everyone who thinks Sonic is about "going fast" goes on about?

Huh? I never made that argument. I actually didn't elaborate at all: it's a general thing from the art style to the sound to the music, etc. (a lot of the compositions are pretty good, but the arrangements are . . . off, I though the music was just weak at first until I hard some rather awesome remixes that shifted the pacing a bit and modified the overall arrangement)

But compare the gameplay to Sonic 3&K, or to fan games/hacks like Megamix or the ongoing Sonic Fan Remix (which looks and sounds absolutely amazing) and you get an even better idea of where it falls short. (again, not bad, but not outstanding)

 

FYI: Sonic was NEVER about "going fast". That's the trap that Sonic Team fell into thinking, and that's why the SA games suffered, and that's why the Advance and Rush games are better all around (although I agree that Rush is a step down from Advance, and for a similar reason to boot).

No, sonic shouldn't be about going fast, it should be about speed as well as expolorations, navigating levels (with your preference of extreme speedrunning to finding the secrets, etc, etc), and that's what the SA games did great. Neither of them is about speed, they're actually a bit like Sonic 3/3&K that way, tons of replay value and hidden stuff to find which you'd miss if you just speedrun through the whole game. (which you can only do with Sonic and Shadow -or Sonic and Tails in SA- anyway)

Both are massive games that require repeat play to get the full enjoyment of.

 

And in any case, Sega pushed for going fast (predominantly) in Sonic 2 mostly, and that (along with Sonic 3&K) is considered the best of the classic Sonic games (especially in Europe). 3&K pushed the expoloration side of things a lot more, as well as rewarding repeat play (especially due to the save system) among other things. But that was the 4th 16-bit game made, and then there's the 8-bit GG/SMS games to consider as well.

 

That fan based game has piss poor level design one that focuses on "going fast" rather than good level design based around reacting quickly to changing environmental conditions. And THAT is what Sonic is about.

Which fan game? Fan Remix uses direct remakes of the 16-bit sonic levels... Megamix (not sonic 1 megamix mind you) doesn't seem to apply to your claims either.

 

That and the SA games seem to do EXACTLY what you list above, dynamic gameplay with a lot more than "going fast" though (as with all good sonic games) you can choose to speedrun the game and ignore all the extra stuff. (for the Sonic/Tails SA or Sonic/Shadow SA2 levels at least -Knuckles/Amy/Big/E102 or Tails/Eggman/Rouge/Knuckles in SA2 don't favor speedrunning as such)

All favor expoloration and you've also got options for multiple paths to navigate a level. (granted, none of them do what SM64/Sunshine did with the nonlinear "world" type levels and focus more on branching/linear progression where you often can't go back -the classic 2D games were often like that as well though, with lots of areas you couldn't backtrack from -a fair amount of the 2D mario games are like that too)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And back to the main topic:

 

So how is what you're stating now negating what I stated earlier? You're pretty much agreeing with me.

 

Atari Corp. needed Atari Games. And internal devs. And GCC. Software sells hardware. 7800 needed more software.

What was more important than any of that, was a strong marketing budget from day 1 and a strong budget for software development (regardless of it being in-house or outsourced). A timeply launch with strong marketing would mean a build-up of 3rd party support in addition of more revenue to feed back into the market (and/or reduce debt), and strong 3rd party support would mean Nintendo not being able to tie-up western developers. (and also making the exclusivity agreements far less attractive to Japanese companies -especially if Atari had already been pushing for licensed in '84)

 

Atari Games split off would have been fine as long as the split had a proper transition that avoided the conflicts of AGames and AInc and actually promoted reasonable collaboration. (such a transition would also favor much more selective layoffs of programmers and other staff -as per Morgan's plans- vs the 100% layoffs Warner forced with the liquidation of the company and the horrible transition that made it a mess for Tramiel to sort throgh new staff to hire -let alone a careful transition meshing more with the former NATCO plans and keeping Morgan on in the interim)

 

The split certainly had disadvantages over keeping on with Morgan's NATCO plans, but the sloppy management of the split was MUCH more harmful overall.

 

 

 

You state that having arcade ports "didn't help" Sega, but it did as it was their initial "get" in the face of Nintendo having tied up most of the JP 3rd parties to exclusive contracts (it was pretty much too late by the time SMS launched in the US as Nintendo's Famicom had already dominated the market in Japan and by that virtue locked up the 3rd parties over there). Sega was an arcade company. Their home hardware was envisioned as a port machine for their arcade IPs. That was the foundation of their business, and they used that to grow from there and offer new console experiences later.

No, I didn't claim that, I claimed the "arcade at home" marketing campaign was flawed, not the games themselves. Good games (be it arcade ports or originals) are significant regardless, but pushing the arcade at home angle was not smart. (it should have been part of it, but the shift seen in '89/90 onward is the sort of marketing they needed, direct competitive marketing that promoted far more than the arcade software and attacked Nintendo's hardware -which the SMS could have done given its graphics capabilities, but not as extreme as the Genesis obviously)

 

If Sega had come roaring in in '86 with excellent marketing and management (and work to build up SoA in general -and push for western developed games to supplement the Japanese stuff), they could have dug in before Nintendo made any serious headway in the US. Unlike Atari, Sega had strong software (if mainly 1st party), impressive hardware, and a marketign budget that rivaled (initially exceeded) Nintendo's. All they needed was the right management to push that for the North American market. (NEC failed far more spectacularly given their position as a megacorp)

 

With western developers split between Sega and Nintendo (let alone some possible interest in Atari), Nintendo wouldn't have been able to push the exclusivity and Jpanese developers would even have to think twice due to the export market. (plus Sega could offer to publish 3rd party games, which they did in quite a few cases on the MD -not just commissioned games, but fully independent 3rd party games that were even published independently in Japan, on top of licensed games that Sega ported themselves like Ghouls n' Ghosts)

 

Atari, as you admit, didn't have that output when Tramiel took over.

Tramiel is tangential to the issue: we can't know for sure what would have happened, but it's painfully obvious that Atari Corp would have been much stronger with an organized transition rather than the mess Warner made of things. (depending on what sort of compromises Tramiel was willing to make and how well Morgan had managed to delegate things based on the original NATCO plans would be the deciding factors on just how much of a difference it would make: from Tramiel's perspective, more game sales and revenue would mean a healthier company and thus more to put towards the ST -let alone dropping the ST for Atari's own advanced hardware which was prototyped in LSI vs on paper only for the ST, etc, etc)

 

I think we're dealing with different hypotheticals here, so maybe that's where the confusion is creeping in. I'm not dealing with a hypothetical of Warner still running Atari here, but rather one of Tramiel buying Atari Games along with the consumer division and/or securing exclusivity with them while also extending the contract with GCC and keeping the internal devs as well. I'm not even dealing with the computer line or anything of that sort. I'm thinking of the 7800 and whatever successors it may have had down the line. For those things to be successful, good software was needed. In the face of Nintendo ruling the 3rd party roost, the only real viable alternative in the early going was doing what Sega did: having arcade IPs from which to draw, and internal dev teams to develop new console-esque experiences and close relationships with devs not in Nintendo's hand working as 2nd parties in some cases.

As am I, but I'm thinking beyond that and considering what a proper transition managed by Warner could have meant for Atari Corp. (Atari games splitting off would not have been a bad thing necessarily as such a transition could have favored a reasonable partnership as such -especially since they shared a brand name in the public's eyes -there could even have been a healthy exchange of Atari Corp hardware and AGames licenses and Tengen development resources -which sort of happened with the Jaguar to a very limited extent)

 

Atari didn't even have that. They didn't have an exclusive over arcade IPs for home ports, they didn't have internal devs, and they didn't have a close relationship with devs not in Nintendo's hand (in this case, for Atari that probably would've been GCC). And that more than low RAM, more than no on board POKEY chip, and more than anything else is why 7800 didn't sell as well as it could have. It sold well enough, SHORT TERM, but it would've had longer term viability if it had the software support that would entice more consumers to give it a look.

Actually, they did have internal devs, they took on most of the Atari Inc computer game (and application) programmers, but without the budget it didn't matter. (and the delays and mess caused by the split killed much of the potnetial revenue and funding possible in '84/85)

 

Plus a TON of the best Genesis games were 3rd party releases, the SMS was deprived of 3rd party support to any significnat extent so that has no comparison.

Because by that time 3rd parties were VERY tired of Nintendo's antics, and, iirc, there were some investigations on Nintendo's monopolistic tendencies. That's why it really opened up for Sega with Genesis.

It was Sega's marketing and careful management that allowed that to open up, and it took several years of persistent pushing to do so. (early on it was all 1st/2nd party and licensed stuff along with some computer developers who had yet to get tied up with Nintendo) Nintendo also had no lockout on the Famicom and thus no way to prevent 3rd parties going unlicensed as such. (and their success in the west would determine whether they could assert such policies or not -without a strong lead in the west, they couldn't enforce such policies)

 

There's no reason they couldn't have done that in '86 had they had the right management, and without the strong early lead Nintendo got from fall/winter of '86 and full solidification after the 1987 holiday season, Nintendo would never have been able to establish the policies they did.

Edited February 18, 2011 by kool kitty89

[keithbk]

I just want to add my 2 cents to the discussion here...

 

There is nothing really "epic" for the 7800. Nothing which requires save game features so you can come back and keep adventuring/progressing.

 

Nintendo, while it had arcade games which are fun for a while, had Zelda, Star Tropics, and even a Dungeons and Dragons: Pool of Radiance port.

 

Maybe Atari hurt itself by making the 5200 the odd man out (couldn't play 2600 games, so no one assumed the 7800 was going to be different); I always felt the 5200 promised so much, yet failed to deliver in so many areas...maybe people were not willing to chance the 7800. With the 5200's unreliable controllers (and a completely different feel to the joystick than the previous 2600 models), incompatability with older cartridges, and sheer size, it was a step in the wrong direction on several levels (but with some really great looking games).

 

The 7800 came out and it didn't even have that many great looking games.

 

Seriously, if you had something the size of the Atari Junior capable of playing 2600/7800 games, some awesome save game features and a handful of epic game play titles with a great controller, along with no 5200 before it, the system may have had a chance.

Edited February 18, 2011 by keithbk

[DracIsBack]

Nothing which requires save game features so you can come back and keep adventuring/progressing.

 

There are few long games, but they came later. Scrapyard Dog, Midnight Mutants, Commando and Dark Chambers are all pretty long. Also, Fatal Run and Meltdown have password saves. But yeah, would have been cool to have a Zelda.

 

According the lore, there was supposed to be a Zelda-like game called Time Lords of Xantac. It was Tramiel-ized. Here's the details from Digital Press:

 

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

Designed by James V Zalewski.

 

Description: According to programmer James Zalewski, the original concept called for this game to be a “Legend of Zelda” style game to compete against Nintendo. James informed Atari that he would need more memory on the cartridge to handle everything they wanted (map, characteristics, etc). Atari refused to spring for the added memory and thus the idea was scrapped before any work was started.

 

 

Part Number: CX7867.

 

 

From the Digital Press "Classic" Guide.

 

 

 

[kool kitty89]

Nothing which requires save game features so you can come back and keep adventuring/progressing.

 

There are few long games, but they came later. Scrapyard Dog, Midnight Mutants, Commando and Dark Chambers are all pretty long. Also, Fatal Run and Meltdown have password saves. But yeah, would have been cool to have a Zelda.

 

According the lore, there was supposed to be a Zelda-like game called Time Lords of Xantac. It was Tramiel-ized. Here's the details from Digital Press:

 

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

Designed by James V Zalewski.

 

Description: According to programmer James Zalewski, the original concept called for this game to be a “Legend of Zelda” style game to compete against Nintendo. James informed Atari that he would need more memory on the cartridge to handle everything they wanted (map, characteristics, etc). Atari refused to spring for the added memory and thus the idea was scrapped before any work was started.

 

 

Part Number: CX7867.

 

 

From the Digital Press "Classic" Guide.

 

I don't get some of these claims as such.

 

They were willing to put 32kx8 SRAM chips onboard the carts, but weren't willing to push for a bit more ROM? (what, 256k?)

 

And then there's the lack of added sound chips used in general. If POKEY was too costly to use practically, they could have opted for the likes of the SN76489 or the 16-pin mono sound-only version of the YM2149. (available by 1987)

If they had a huge back stock of POKEYs to use up, they might as well have gone with those though. (there's also the potential for a low cost in-house embedded sound chip, but given they didn't even use custom logic for bank-switching, I doubt that would have been done at the time)

 

Short of potential add-ons of course. (like a 1987 counterpart to the XM -possibly using the same 32k SRAM chips and POKEY of games being developed/released in '87 already, but potnetially leaving an additional port with the key and SIO lines for a keyboard/computer add-on -so cover their bases for the XEGS, more or less, but better and without the conflicts with the 7800)

 

 

 

Except, Zelda on the NES is only 128k (plus the SRAM), and that's no larger than games Atari Corp was pushing by '89.

 

 

In any case, the 7800 was already declining in '89 and they needed a new platform to push into the next generation by that point. (and had more reasonable funding to push for a much stronger launch than the 7800 had had in '86 -and a strong position of the SE in Europe, and potential Euro developer support to exploit -of course, they'd need good management and marketing to get anywhere in either market)

Just cutting down the STe would have been a bit weak hardware wise and the dot clock is hardly preferable for NTSC (extremely tall pixels -compared to square- and heavy composite video artifacting, a 6 MHz mode might have been nice -maybe even 4 MHz for some low-res stuff), plus the 16 color single playfield limit (8 bitplanes with dual playfield support and 2 16 color palettes would have been a big jump -maybe a 5 bitplane 32 color mode too plus 6/7/8 bitplanes using semi-indexed colors along with RGB control with the added planes), though many of those are changes that would have greatly benefited the STe as well.

Edited February 19, 2011 by kool kitty89

[spiffyone]

 

 

It's a POS game. It is absolutely THE worst game Sonic Team ever developed.

How can it be worse than the 2006 360/PS3 game??? (or Secret rings . . . unless you LIKE annoying tilt controls and on-rails platforming)

 

Secret Rings wasn't bad. At all. And it's not really part of the "main" series, but a side series (the Storybook series) that was apparently progressively going into action/adventure or action/RPG territory more than just being a pure platformer. Secret Rings had Sonic "leveling up" in order to gain speed during the game (and other powers). The follow-up, Black Knight, had more sword combat than platforming, for instance, and expanded on the leveling up concept from Secret Rings.

 

I'll agree with you on Sonic 2006, though. I had forgotten about that. With good reason. Now I've remembered it. And it...just...won't...get...out...of...my...MIND! ARRRGGHHH!

 

 

I guess I have a tolerance for certain things, I got very used to the shooting controls and auto-aim feature, and the "jumping off edges" thing wasn't nearly as problematic as reviews make out. (then again, I actually got used to Star Fox Command enough to enjoy the on-foot levels -though the control options needed to be more flexible and a first person POV would have helped a ton)

 

It's also the SA2 fans who would more likely tolerate the shortcomings of Shadow. (especially if they like 3rd person shooters -and didn't mind the 3rdPS stages in Rebel Strike or Star Fox Assault -both of which I managed to enjoy) Though they'd also probably be among those who enjoyed Heroes the most.

 

I'm a big SA2 fan. Shadow is not anywhere near the quality of that game.

 

Auto aim? There is no auto aim in the game. If it is it is VERY loose and misguided. The aiming is the downfall of Shadow. It breaks the two major component of gameplay: shooting combat and game progression via the branching system. It is NOT polished at all.

 

And, quite frankly, the very idea of Shadow the Hedgehog I found insulting. Apparently Sonic Team thought it would appeal to western gamers more, when Sonic has ALWAYS appealed to western gamers much more than JP gamers. And how do they go about attempting to appeal to western gamers? They give Shadow a gun.

 

Great.

 

This would really be akin to Schaffer or Ancel trying to make Psychonauts or Rayman more appealing to JP audiences by adding hentai.

 

Again, Shadow is THE worst example of Sonic Teams fall post-Dreamcast.

And, again, I don't see how you could put that below the 2006 game. (Secret Rings is OK if you like the controls, but they ruin it for me like Star Fox command -that and the on-rails aspect even more so: Atomic Runner managed that OK in 2D, but I don't like it at all in 3D)

 

Secret Rings, on rails or not, is much less buggy and much more polished overall than Shadow. 2006 flat out sucked, I'll give you that, but at least it didn't fail from the get go on concept alone as Shadow did.

 

But compare the gameplay to Sonic 3&K, or to fan games/hacks like Megamix or the ongoing Sonic Fan Remix (which looks and sounds absolutely amazing) and you get an even better idea of where it falls short. (again, not bad, but not outstanding)

 

I am comparing it to Fan Remix. Fan Remix focuses on the erroneous idea that "going fast" is what defines the gameplay of Sonic platformers. And that was NEVER what made Sonic platfomers. Sonic games on Genesis (and Master System) were based around level design that used the character's defining aspect (speed) against him, and forced the player to react quickly to changing level conditions. It was arcade reflex gameplay, the backbone of Sega's design philosophy, put into a platformer. THAT is what made the original Sonic games good.

 

Fan Remix fails in that regard, as Sonic Team themselves had for a while prior to certain areas of the daytime levels in Unleashed which were the foundation of the incredibly good Colors. Still not "there" yet compared to the original Sonic games, but MUCH closer than anything they, or anyone else like the Fan Remix team, have done.

 

No, sonic shouldn't be about going fast, it should be about speed as well as expolorations, navigating levels (with your preference of extreme speedrunning to finding the secrets, etc, etc), and that's what the SA games did great.

 

You're confusing "going fast" with "speed". Fast =/= speed. Sonic platformers were somewhat about speed, in a way, just not "going fast".

 

Level design had an effect on the character's speed, causing him in many cases to go so fast as to be somewhat out of the character's control thus forcing the player to react quickly as changes in level design (enemy characters, spikes, traps, route change opportunities) presented themselves, or forcing the player to slow down in order to navigate a tricky platforming sequence.

 

Fan Remix falters in that the level design has a focus on running fast and zipping through levels, but removes any sections of arcade reflex platforming or sections where level design necessitates slowing down.

 

And that's where SA faltered, as the levels in SA were designed as tracks with not many opportunities for branching exploration, for one, and camera issues that took away from arcade reflex platforming.

 

SA2 got closer to it due to the very nifty inclusion of things like rail grinding, which Sonic Team used pretty masterfully to convey that "react quickly" reflex platforming that I alluded to earlier. Where they erred was splitting exploratory level design to Knuckles and Rouge only.

 

Neither of thethey're actually a bit like Sonic 3/3&K that way, tons of replay value and hidden stuff to find which you'd miss if you just speedrun through the whole game. (which you can only do with Sonic and Shadow -or Sonic and Tails in SA- anyway)

Both are massive games that require repeat play to get the full enjoyment of.

 

And in any case, Sega pushed for going fast (predominantly) in Sonic 2 mostly, and that (along with Sonic 3&K) is considered the best of the classic Sonic games (especially in Europe). 3&K pushed the expoloration side of things a lot more, as well as rewarding repeat play (especially due to the save system) among other things. But that was the 4th 16-bit game made, and then there's the 8-bit GG/SMS games to consider as well

.

 

No, they didn't push "going fast". Do not confuse part of the level design forcing quick reactions for a focus on "going fast". That is NOT what Sonic platformers were about. Speed was a factor in that changes in speed (not just "going fast") were a byproduct of changing level design, and the player had to come to grips with controlling Sonic to get through said instances. Hence "reacting quickly to changing level conditions". It's been noted that Sonic's control was always more "slippery" than platfomers like Mario and others, and that's by design.

 

Which fan game? Fan Remix uses direct remakes of the 16-bit sonic levels... Megamix (not sonic 1 megamix mind you) doesn't seem to apply to your claims either.[/i]

 

I may have mixed up Fan Remix with MegaMix.

 

One of the two does not use direct remakes of the 16-bit Sonic levels, but rather mixes up many of the "go fast" portions of those levels while omitting nearly everything else that made Sonic platfomers...well...Sonic platfomers.

 

BTW, speedruns only happened AFTER learning level layout, enemy patterns, and also tricks to go passed various points of levels on momentum alone (going offscreen and skipping portions). That is arcade gameplay thrust into the platfomer genre. On initial play, though, speed runs wasn't the focus of gameplay. Coming to grips with the character, and the level design that was itself designed to almost pit character against player (using Sonic's speed against him) was the focus of gameplay alongside the typical tropes of platforming (level exploration for one).

 

[i}That and the SA games seem to do EXACTLY what you list above[/i]

 

No, they didn't. I'm probably not explaining it well enough, but they didn't.

 

All favor expoloration and you've also got options for multiple paths to navigate a level

 

The "tracks" in SA1 and 2 were fairly linear, only a few levels had branching points, and that was typically only about two or three during those cases. These branching points as well weren't accessed via arcade reflex platforming skill but were pretty clear to the player and required very little "skill" to access.

 

What was more important than any of that, was a strong marketing budget from day 1 and a strong budget for software development (regardless of it being in-house or outsourced).

 

1. With a strong marketing budget and no exclusive software, what, exactly, would be marketed?

2. I think it goes without saying that a strong budget for software development is apparent in my hypothetical of Tramiel buying Atari Games and extending the contract with GCC. If he had the cash to secure both, he'd likely have the cash to support software development by both.

 

A timeply launch with strong marketing would mean a build-up of 3rd party support in addition of more revenue to feed back into the market (and/or reduce debt), and strong 3rd party support would mean Nintendo not being able to tie-up western developers. (and also making the exclusivity agreements far less attractive to Japanese companies -especially if Atari had already been pushing for licensed in '84)

 

I'm operating on the notion of Tramiel still not releasing 7800 until '86 or '85 at the earliest. In the face of that, there is no chance for them to secure JP support because by then Famicom had come to rule the roost in Japan and Nintendo had already done the exclusive contract thing with said JP 3rd parties. They'd have to try for western devs, but many had fallen off during the Crash or gone to the personal computer market. 7800 would still need exclusives. Atari Games, GCC, and internal consumer developers ensures that.

 

Strong marketing would mean nothing without product to back it up. That means software. That means exclusive software. In light of Nintendo having already snatched up those JP houses with exclusive support, that means Atari has to A. Go it alone and B. try to secure some western support. The latter you've touched on. But the latter means nothing if said 3rd parties also develop for NES, which they would've done as the loop hole would be there. And as much as paying for 3rd party exclusivity is appealing, at the end of the day the loop hole would likely exist on that end as well and the 3rd parties through subsidiaries or spin offs would still make games for Nintendo as well. And that brings us back to square one of my point: that means Atari Corp. needs Atari Games, and GCC, as well as the internal Atari Corp. devs. All three give them a "sell" to consumers: exclusive home ports of Atari arcade games and original software from Atari 1st and 2nd party devs (internal devs, Atari arcade division, and GCC respectively).

 

Nintendo wouldn't have won with strong marketing alone. They needed a "get". That "get" was Nintendo software. The software was the major piece of marketing, actually.

 

Sega carved out their niche, whatever you may think of that niche, via Sega IPs arcade ports and console originals. Atari didn't have either, really, and they needed it to sell to a wider audience.

 

Atari Games split off would have been fine as long as the split had a proper transition that avoided the conflicts of AGames and AInc and actually promoted reasonable collaboration....

 

iirc, Tramiel had the opportunity to buy akll or part the arcade division as well. In my scenario, he does so. Also in my scenario, he extends some form of contract with GCC.

 

The split certainly had disadvantages over keeping on with Morgan's NATCO plans, but the sloppy management of the split was MUCH more harmful overall.

 

And in my scenario there is NO real split, which is the point. Both the consumer division and arcade division would still be tied in one form or another.

 

No, I didn't claim that, I claimed the "arcade at home" marketing campaign was flawed, not the games themselves. Good games (be it arcade ports or originals) are significant regardless, but pushing the arcade at home angle was not smart

.

 

Ah, my apologies then. I misread.

 

If Sega had come roaring in in '86 with excellent marketing and management (and work to build up SoA in general -and push for western developed games to supplement the Japanese stuff), they could have dug in before Nintendo made any serious headway in the US. Unlike Atari, Sega had strong software (if mainly 1st party), impressive hardware, and a marketign budget that rivaled (initially exceeded) Nintendo's. All they needed was the right management to push that for the North American market. (NEC failed far more spectacularly given their position as a megacorp)

 

Part in bold is what Atari was missing. But the latter wouldn't have helped without the former. And the best case scenario for Atari Corp. to have avoided the former would have been to maintained a connection with Games, internal consumer software devs, and GCC. In other words, exclusive software for 7800.

 

Also, again, on Genesis/MD, things were opened up a bit for 3rd parties due to the litigation surrounding Nintendo's practices with NES. For Sega on SMS, all they really had was themselves in the early going, and Atari likewise with 7800. The difference is Sega had something from which to draw while Atari really didn't. Even so, Atari did pretty well if the sales numbers are to be believed. Imagine how better they would've done with more and better software to support 7800. Neither would likely have beaten NES, but Atari would've been in a MUCH better position heading into the next gen of the home console race.

 

Atari, as you admit, didn't have that output when Tramiel took over.

Tramiel is tangential to the issue

 

I'm not stating Tramiel was the issue. Rather, Atari didn't have the output Sega had during the time that Tramiel happened to be in charge. That's because there was nothing "there" from which to have that sort of output. Best case scenario would've been to keep Atari "together", as you seem to be agreeing. I'm just stating the same thing in slightly different words. Atari Corp and Games are kept together in my scenario, with GCC being extended a contract by the Tramiel led Atari. For the most part, transition issues avoided. "Split" avoided. 7800 software issues avoided.

 

Actually, they did have internal devs, they took on most of the Atari Inc computer game (and application) programmers, but without the budget it didn't matter. (and the delays and mess caused by the split killed much of the potnetial revenue and funding possible in '84/85)[/i]

 

Would that not have been partly avoided had there been no real "split"? Tramiel had the opportunity to get the arcade division as well. Extending the contract with GCC ensures an earlier release of 7800 (perhaps not early enough to get those JP devs as Famicom was taking off in Japan by that time, but still enough to ensure some profitability in '85).

 

It was Sega's marketing and careful management that allowed that to open up

 

And, iirc, the litigation Nintendo was fighting.

 

Nintendo also had no lockout on the Famicom and thus no way to prevent 3rd parties going unlicensed as such. (and their success in the west would determine whether they could assert such policies or not -without a strong lead in the west, they couldn't enforce such policies) [/i]

 

Except that ignores that NES shipped with lock out chip in place already. So they already planned the enforcement of such policies in the west.

 

Even in Japan, even without the lockout chip, JP developers were beholden to Nintendo as far as the home console market was concerned. They were still under that stranglehold contract. As that happened prior to the release of NES in the west, getting JP support from devs that were supporting Famicom in Japan would've been a pipe dream still. Atari would thus need themselves. A whole Atari, not part. They needed Games, GCC, and, as you stated, a budget to support such development.

 

There's no reason they couldn't have done that in '86 had they had the right management, and without the strong early lead Nintendo got from fall/winter of '86 and full solidification after the 1987 holiday season, Nintendo would never have been able to establish the policies they did.

 

Except Nintendo kinda had those policies in place in Japan already from my understanding (otherwise devs in Japan would've supported Mark III or other JP home consoles in the way they did NES. They didn't).