What's the Worst Console You Ever Played?

[CatPix]

Well I'm surprised you did, because after all, what goodness and wrongness you see is personnal. I named the N64 myself, and I was almost expecting people to jump on my back for that.

 

Personally, I dunno, really, but putting things back in context, having a 7800 at the time, while every other kids in the schoolyard would be playing either NES or SMS, having myself nothing to play but 10 years old arcade ports AGAIN with horrible sound where everyone else would spend hours and hours on Super Mario Bros or Alex Kidd, Rad racer or Hang-On, Castlevania or Master of Darkness, Zelda or Phantasy Star, Metroid or Zillion...

I think I can see how you can feel being the odd one left out.

 

Especially if you try to argue aabout your arcade game ports to find that most exists also on the NES or SMS

Edited December 5, 2015 by CatPix

[SSG]

A Mattel Hyperscan. Don't waste your time on one.

[high voltage]

NES.

Awful controls, clunky way of inserting cartridges, which then don't work, square ugly looking grey box.

[empsolo]

NES.

Awful controls, clunky way of inserting cartridges, which then don't work, square ugly looking grey box.

[Cynicaster]

The funny thing about this thread is thinking about how many people would be answering "Atari 2600" if a broader cross-section of gamers were represented. I would never suggest such a thing personally, but the criticisms leveled at the O2 and Fairchild in this thread about crappy graphics, etc. would be leveled against the 2600 by most gamers that didn't grow up with that system.

 

I don't like the term "worst", so let's say "most disappointing," and for me, it's unquestionably the Atari 7800.

 

 

 

 

Really? Only if you ignore the arcade conversions and controller alternatives maybe. Asteroids, Galaga, Pole Position, Centipede, Ms. Pac-Man, Basketbrawl, Food Fight, Commando, Ikari Warriors, Joust, Dig Dug, DK/DK Jr., Mario Bros., Robotron, Xenophobe, Xevious… these are all good-great first party arcade translations! Then there's Kung-Fu Master, Rampage and *cough* Double Dragon. lol

 

One-on-One, Choplifter!, Winter/Summer Games, Impossible Mission, Mean 18 and maybe one of the flight sims… we were all playing those types of games between '84-'88 on more expensive computers.

 

And what about all the great homebrews? No way I could ever list the 7800 as being one of the "worst" consoles I've ever played.

 

 

There were a few great arcade conversions on the 7800, but in the mid-late 80s, those games were old news and the nostalgia boomerang was still on its outward trajectory. I think most people at the time viewed the preponderance of such games as a strike against the system, rather than a point in its favor. I know I did.

[jfitzenr]

The funny thing about this thread is thinking about how many people would be answering "Atari 2600" if a broader cross-section of gamers were represented. I would never suggest such a thing personally, but the criticisms leveled at the O2 and Fairchild in this thread about crappy graphics, etc. would be leveled against the 2600 by most gamers that didn't grow up with that system.

 

I don't like the term "worst", so let's say "most disappointing," and for me, it's unquestionably the Atari 7800.

 

This is kinda what I was saying with my Virtual Boy thing. Are we talking worst hardware? Worst library? Where does quantity vs quality come into play? I'm far from an expert on the 2600 but it seems like popular consensus is that it was a bitch to program for, underpowered compared to Coleco et al and there was some definite, amazingly terrible crap that came out for it. But it also almost became synonymous with 'video games' because of the great games for it.

 

Like I mean, at the time I thought the N64 was painfully stupid in so many ways, and I think their choice to stick with carts, etc. cost them so much and was really dumb. I had a visceral hatred of the system for so many reasons. However, there's maybe 5 or 6 games for it that are, to me, amongst the best games of all time, which because they're so damned good, slots it in fairly high as one of my 'favorites.' This whole discussion is just really tough and confusing! I also think the great N64 games tend to hold up better in modern day than the great PS1 games, but at the time I would've said much differently. Ahhh!

 

It's not a console, but I think I was most consistently disappointed with PC gaming during my youth. I don't think there was a console that had a worse disparity between the great games and the awful ones, and had a worse good:bad ratio than PC.

 

If it has to be something closer to 'console,' my most disappointing was Virtual Boy, because I really enjoyed the library and think if the system was just a *little* less stupid and marketed differently, a few years of developing a solid library could've made it into a serious cult classic

[+atari2600land]

In case you're wondering:

The Odyssey 2 Voice has the diphthong set, but it also has built-in phrases you can call. This is most prevalent in K.C.'s Krazy Chase, where it says "Go!" "Run!", "Incredible!", that type of thing.

[+darryl1970]

I thought the NES was revolutionary. It's not as "powerful" as the SMS was, but it was the first system to bring home the arcade look. Due to better software selections (and I really like the NES sound, as I was Big Nintendo arcade fan), I loved it.

[+darryl1970]

The funny thing about this thread is thinking about how many people would be answering "Atari 2600" if a broader cross-section of gamers were represented. I would never suggest such a thing personally, but the criticisms leveled at the O2 and Fairchild in this thread about crappy graphics, etc. would be leveled against the 2600 by most gamers that didn't grow up with that system.

 

I don't like the term "worst", so let's say "most disappointing," and for me, it's unquestionably the Atari 7800.

 

 

 

There were a few great arcade conversions on the 7800, but in the mid-late 80s, those games were old news and the nostalgia boomerang was still on its outward trajectory. I think most people at the time viewed the preponderance of such games as a strike against the system, rather than a point in its favor. I know I did.

I think it depends on the generation. I was a HUGE Atari fan-boy around 82-83. The 5200 was just staring to flex it's muscle. The ColecoVision had higher resolution sprites, but the Atari seemed to have more muscle and more total ability to produce arcade likeness. Atari had overtaken the Coleco in sales (based on a few sources I read at the time and since -- I have not checked the accuracy, so please don't flame me). It was disappointing that they were going to can the 5200, instead of just making more reliable joysticks and dropping the 2600 to focus on the next gen.

 

However, when I read about the 7800, I had mixed feelings. I read about the Maria chip, and I was pretty excited. They were going to make a 7800 adapter for the 5200, so it seemed Atari was considering everybody. I started to think it would be really cool. Back in 82 & 83, having played with the A8 graphics a LOT, I really, really hoped Maria would offer higher resolution sprites.

 

Two years later, the 7800 was finally released. I was going to get it as a gift. All of the toy stores were sold out. I looked at the back of the boxes, and I thought the sprite resolution was lower (160 pixel horizontal, like the 5200 and A8). I thought, "That can't be." Seeing that they were sold out, I checked out the NES. The NES had the higher resolution sprites, much like the ColecoVision, but they were multi-colored sprites! Everything looked sharp, and the picture of Donkey Kong on the back of the box looked almost arcade perfect. I grabbed an NES.

 

I got the NES home, and I was AMAZED. Super Mario Bros was SO ARCADE ACCURATE. The 256-pixel vertical resolution was pretty sharp! It had more colors than I was used to. The sound was amazing to me. Of course, I was disappointed at the lack of effort in their Donkey Kong, Dk Jr, Mario Bros ports, but the system still amazed me. I remember renting Ghost and Goblins. Amazed. Got Galaga -- about arcade perfect, and the sound was SPOT ON!.

 

I finally got to experience the 7800 about 6 months later. I was SO THANKFUL that I dodged that UGLY bullet. I saw Galaga. The ships were BIG, UGLY, LOW RES, and it didn't follow the arcade patterns. The blue enemies didn't even circle around right. The sound was atrocious. I was SO SADDENED. Ms Pac-Man looked almost just like the A8, but it played slightly faster without flicker. The colors seemed so washed out on ALL of the games. I was SO disappointed. I finally saw DK, DK Jr., and Mario Bros. They were WORSE than the NES, because the play was choppy, the animation was poor, and the sound was like nails on a chalkboard.

 

DISAPPOINTING....

 

REDEMPTION.

I later saw the homebrew Froggie. Hey! Does the 7800 actually have a high resolution mode?? Later, I saw 320 Pac. Kind of exciting, yet kind of disappointing. The bounding boxes made me realize that it was still VERY FLAWED and not a good successor for 1984.

 

I do have a lot more respect for it now. Donkey Kong Arcade is pretty decent -- about the best the system can turn out. Still a little lame for a successor to the A8 series.

 

If a person saw the 7800 for the first time in 1986, it may have FELT different. The expectations may not have been as high. Also, that generation was probably not familiar with how the A8's could ALMOST produce the same graphic quality, albeit with some flicker, software sprites, and less colors at times. However, the A8 usually had smoother gameplay while muscling through all those things in software mode. It just reinforces that Maria takes up WAY TOO MUCH of the 6502's processing cycles, and doesn't leave enough time for thoughtful and complex gameplay elements. SAD!!

Edited December 17, 2015 by darryl1970

[CatPix]

Yes, sum up my point that I wrote previously.

 

Today, there is no reason to not at least grab an Atari 7800. It's a great little machine, hampered with no real sound chip (POKEY, where are you?) and maybe a MARIA high resolution chip that took up too much power out of the system.

But at the time, it was a mixed bag, at best.

Ironically, it might have been more well-received in France, as it featured a RGB connection that made it easy to hook up, and Atari 2600 owner discovered with awe that their games would go from the crude 8 colors SECAM to the 104 colors PAL palette.

But that was about it. Maybe it helped that the NES launch happened in late 86 and it didnt caught up until 1987 really - the main reason is that Nintendo dumped their unsellable ROB deluxe set from the US to the European market, and early consoles were mostly, if sometime only available in ROB deluxe sets, which were very expensive.

[empsolo]

I thought the NES was revolutionary. It's not as "powerful" as the SMS was, but it was the first system to bring home the arcade look. Due to better software selections (and I really like the NES sound, as I was Big Nintendo arcade fan), I loved it.

True. I believe starting with the NES, up until the current generation, the most powerful hardware didn't win the generation. The only exception was the the Super Famicom/SNES during the fourth gen.

[CatPix]

It's hard to say which systems is the most powerful.

 

The SMS have more colors, but outside of Japan, weaker sound, and the hardware effects are more limited.

 

The NES have better sound, less colors but more than often those colors are used better (most SMS games looks like they use 16 colors max) and Nintendo's genius idea was to imagine to include various improving chips in the carts, from the start, heping to improve game quality without the hassle of previous generation that required to buy add-ons.

 

The SNES isn't the most powerful either. His CPU is very underpowered compared to the PC engine and the Megadrive. It does have better graphic display and sound chip.

 

The next generation is even harder to compare. The Saturn is a beast in 2D, but his 3D performance barely equal those of the 3DO. The Playstation is average in both 2D and 3D. The N64 in theory is the best of all in 3D, but nintendo's odd design with the unified RAM and the complete lack of hardware sound generation that took up CPU power to generate sound made that power hard to use.

[empsolo]

 

The SNES isn't the most powerful either. His CPU is very underpowered compared to the PC engine and the Megadrive. It does have better graphic display and sound chip.

But only in terms of raw CPU speed. I believe on every other facet, from audio hardware to graphics processing, the SNES beats out the Sega Genesis hands down. Hence why there is an argument to be made that in terms of overall performance, the SNES was more powerful.

Edited December 17, 2015 by empsolo

[CatPix]

Well that CPU hampered the SuperNES, until Nintendo released the Super FX and Super FX II chips.

For audio, it's a matter of preferences... It's hard to compare a FM synthesis chip and a digitel Sound Processor. What's sure is that the FM synthesis chip was harder to program, which explain why many Megadrive games sounds like crap.

 

The Megadrive faster CPU helped it a lot to push many thing on screen, so many game genres were not available or not pleasant to do on the Super Nintendo.

[empsolo]

Well that CPU hampered the SuperNES, until Nintendo released the Super FX and Super FX II chips.

But the Super FX 1 and 2 are only used in a handful of games and mostly for 3D games and Yoshi's Island for some weird reason. I always felt that best examples of what the SNES could do were in games like F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Mario Kart, and Pilotwings of all games. Games that didn't utilize any enhancement chip but showed that the SNES could keep up with the Genesis all the same.

 

 

The Megadrive faster CPU helped it a lot to push many thing on screen, so many game genres were not available or not pleasant to do on the Super Nintendo.

I always figured it was lazy porting. Some of the later ports of some popular Shoot-em ups and Beat em ups were much better with subsequent releases as the SNES began to outpace the Genesis in North America. Edited December 17, 2015 by empsolo

[CatPix]

There is certainly a lot of lazy porting in action as well. But it would be interesting to see if the re-releases use any chip to improve performances.

 

For that matter, a Super Nintendo coupled with a Super FX II game (think Yoshi's Island) certainly is superior to the Megadrive, there is no doubt about that.

[Trebor]

I always felt that best examples of what the SNES could do were in games like F-Zero, Donkey Kong Country, Mario Kart, and Pilotwings of all games. Games that didn't utilize any enhancement chip but showed that the SNES could keep up with the Genesis all the same.

Mario Kart & Pilotwings utilized the DSP-1 enhancement chip. F-Zero and Donkey Kong Country, as mentioned, had no enhancement chips included, and Rare did an extraordinary job providing the pre-rendered CGI graphics to DKC. There was a significant financial risk involving Rare to purchase the rather expensive SGI equipment used to render the graphics; however, it paid off big time. It is (practically) the crown jewel of the SNES.

 

Regardless, Nintendo, especially for both their 8-bit and 16-bit console lines, supported and backed those systems excellently with results and benefits that are clearly seen.

 

Virtual Boy (unfortunately) gets the worst played vote from me though.

[R.Bear]

The audio difference is personal choice really. I like both but I don't think they're really very comparable there as they both use totally different types of audio set-ups which are better at producing different types of music.

 

Having said that, quite a few 3rd party MD/Genesis titles do sound like my stomach after a hot Saturday night curry.

[SiLic0ne t0aD]

I got to play a Turbo-Grafx 16 the other day for the very first time.. it was a neat experience but its probably the worst console i've played in a long time.

Personally I don't think it can't hold a candle to the Genesis or SuperNES but that's just MHO.

Edited December 19, 2015 by SiLic0ne t0aD85

[Bill Loguidice]

I got to play a Turbo-Grafx 16 the other day for the very first time.. it was a neat experience but its probably the worst console i've played in a long time.

Personally I don't think it can't hold a candle to the Genesis or SuperNES but that's just MHO.

 

It's really best in its original PC Engine incarnation, and certainly comes alive when you have it in its all-in-one CD form with an Arcade Card (an LCD modded Turbo Express is also a thing of beauty). In any case, some games are sub-16-bit quality, but others are easily a match for some of the best titles on the Genesis and SNES. The controllers are definitely a throwback, though, particularly since the six button controller has such limited support.

[Torr]

I think the TG-16 is great... compared to the NES... but unfortunately (for IT, not us game players) the Genesis came along and smoked it.

 

*Edit: I wish people would quit talking about how the Super NES was THE 16-bit machine... it was good, sure; but it came along when most companies were already in the R&D phase of the 32-bit+ machines and ONE was already out!!!... Nintendo basically sat back, watched for EVERY mistake the other companies made and then did a little better; except it played games at a snail's pace and had audio that sounded like it was coming from a marble bathroom. /snesrant

Edited December 19, 2015 by Torr

[empsolo]

The other problem with the TG-16 is that it was a terrible console for families. The fact that you needed to go out and buy an adapter to plug into the player 1 slot so you could play two player games really killed any momentum the system would have had here in the states.

[empsolo]

*Edit: I wish people would quit talking about how the Super NES was THE 16-bit machine... it was good, sure; but it came along when most companies were already in the R&D phase of the 32-bit+ machines and ONE was already out!!!... Nintendo basically sat back, watched for EVERY mistake the other companies made and then did a little better; except it played games at a snail's pace and had audio that sounded like it was coming from a marble bathroom. /snesrant

Like I said, some of the early ports like the King of Fighters games and Super R Type were tough but things did get better for the system. And besides if you knew what you were doing you could churn out some damn good fast paced games for the system as Donkey Kong Country and F-Zero can attest to. Bubsy of all games games showed that the SNES was capable of sonic style speed.

Edited December 19, 2015 by empsolo

[Osgeld]

fist time ever bubsy was referenced as being a good thing

[empsolo]

fist time ever bubsy was referenced as being a good thing

Bubsy was crap, don't get me wrong. The only good thing about it was that it showed you could get Sonic paced speed out of SNES hardware.

Edited December 19, 2015 by empsolo