Game.com internet cartridge

[+atari2600land]

Can I do anything with this? I just bought it so I could have a complete Game.com collection. It's okay if it is unable to function. I'm guessing all the text pages have been shut down for years now, so even if I did manage to get a modem, it couldn't do anything. Am I right?

[high voltage]

I think so, I haven't used mine for donkeys.

 

[+atari2600land]

Wow, you have a modem! I want one!

[fiddlepaddle]

I would think you might be able to hook it up to a computer, if you can get the software needed for the other end. Of course, I actually know absolutely nothing specifically about it.

[Video]

Its pretty much text only. I used mine back in the 90's a bit and some in the early 00's for email. Couldn't say its useful on modern internet but I enjoyed it back in the day.

 

Don't know where my modem is anymore and don't have dialup anymore anyways.

 

I still play duke 3d and resident evil on the thing regularly though.

[mr_me]

I would think that if you had a modem (any rs-232 dial-up modem) and a dial-up ISP, you could surf the web and access email. The web browser and email client is text only. Might need an ISP that supports text connections for the cartridge to work; not sure about that.

 

There are still text only web browsers available for windows (ie. Lynx), if anyone wants to see what the www looks like with a text browser.

Edited June 3, 2017 by mr_me

[keepdreamin]

I could have a complete Game.com collection.

why would you do this to yourself?

[+atari2600land]

Because I like handheld consoles that nobody else does. I feel sorry for the game.com and the fact that nobody likes it. I guess it failed due to the screen ghosting and its black and white display. But it is a great system, and had some features ahead of its time, like a touch screen. I think if Nintendo hadn't come out with the Game Boy Color, it would have done better.

[high voltage]

Here's my complete collection, the European version had 3 pack-in games (Lights Out, Wheels of Fortune, Batman and Robin)

 

[keepdreamin]

Because I like handheld consoles that nobody else does. I feel sorry for the game.com and the fact that nobody likes it. I guess it failed due to the screen ghosting and its black and white display. But it is a great system, and had some features ahead of its time, like a touch screen. I think if Nintendo hadn't come out with the Game Boy Color, it would have done better.

 

the sound and music (if you can even call it that) were atrocious. the games are terrible, and were all developed by Tiger. So you've got one noteworthy idea (touch screen) out of a pile of failures, that's an odd criteria for something being great. By the same criteria, I guess the Hyperscan is a great system.

 

Would you call a car that leaked gas, you couldn't see out the windshield, got terrible mileage, and barely stopped under braking but had a decent stereo a "great" car?

 

I had one as a kid, and I remember the experience with it being absolutely miserable. I couldn't get rid of the thing quick enough.

 

I know collecting games comes with putting on rose-colored glasses, but the game.com is jumping the shark.

Edited June 6, 2017 by keepdreamin

[Video]

I liked the game.com too. Haters just wanna hate

 

The screen was the biggest problem, it was shit by early 80's standards, much less late 90's standards. Nice resolution, nice detail on static images, but the shading system it used caused god aweful smearage at any relevant speed.

 

Sound? All the games sound like shit, but is that the systems fault or tigers? It has a PCM channel, and arcades sound fine, I think it could do better just tiger was to used to single function handhelds and most games reflect that audiowise.

 

The good things about it are, its big, or maybe its just my preference to have a larger console?

 

Controls, despite being touch screen they didn't shoehorn that in inappropriately into every damn game like a certain other system did. It had four control buttons. Not till 01 did we get a handheld with that again. And they are good and responsive too.

 

Two cart ports, that actually properly fit the carts (original system, pro dropped to one)

 

As for the games, the good ones are just that, none are just amazing. The bad ones though, aw crap they suck.

 

The puzzles are all good, the fighters are too. I liked duke 3d, despite it really being 2d (i'd actually like some 2600 games that sported this play style) and resident evil. Most the rest are forgettable or god awful...but the good still covers half of the library or so. How many other handhelds can say that?

 

Will you miss anything by not having this handheld? IMO no, despite personally liking it I have to stick with that answer. But that being said, I'd say it still gets a lot more flak than it should.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Video

[keepdreamin]

I liked the game.com too. Haters just wanna hate

The screen was the biggest problem, it was shit by early 80's standards, much less late 90's standards. Nice resolution, nice detail on static images, but the shading system it used caused god aweful smearage at any relevant speed.

Sound? All the games sound like shit, but is that the systems fault or tigers? It has a PCM channel, and arcades sound fine, I think it could do better just tiger was to used to single function handhelds and most games reflect that audiowise.

The good things about it are, its big, or maybe its just my preference to have a larger console?

Controls, despite being touch screen they didn't shoehorn that in inappropriately into every damn game like a certain other system did. It had four control buttons. Not till 01 did we get a handheld with that again. And they are good and responsive too.

Two cart ports, that actually properly fit the carts (original system, pro dropped to one)

As for the games, the good ones are just that, none are just amazing. The bad ones though, aw crap they suck.

The puzzles are all good, the fighters are too. I liked duke 3d, despite it really being 2d (i'd actually like some 2600 games that sported this play style) and resident evil. Most the rest are forgettable or god awful...but the good still covers half of the library or so. How many other handhelds can say that?

Will you miss anything by not having this handheld? IMO no, despite personally liking it I have to stick with that answer. But that being said, I'd say it still gets a lot more flak than it should.

Game.com isn't a case of "haters gonna hate". It's a case of "collectors gonna collect"

 

I don't see the difference in your point on the sound. Tiger designed the system, therefore it's their fault for the end results.

 

What puzzle games? There's a puzzle game singular. Yeah there's some trivia games, and Scrabble but those aren't Tetris, bust-a-move. You've got Lights Out, which was probably the most enjoyable thing on the system..

 

The problem is, you didn't even need a game.com to play it.

 

 

Doesn't say much for the hand held when the killer app can be had on a Simon says like electronic toy.

 

The fighters were good? No.. just..no.. absolutely not. I remember feeling legitimately conned upon firing up Megamix. I was actually pissed at Sega at the time. For reference, I enjoyed Takaras efforts on the gameboy years prior (and still do).

 

The game.com isn't a case of misplaced reception. It was simply an extension of Tiger's business model of licensing popular franchises and shoveling out barely passable garbage to sucker kids and parents into buying it.

 

That's it. There's no conspiracy against it. It was simply a cheap product borrowing on successful licenses. Like capsule toys, or anything else you'd find in a check out line. anyone who says otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

Edited June 6, 2017 by keepdreamin

[Video]

See all the hate? And there lies the problem.

 

People now forget the thing competed with DMG, not more powerful consoles/handhelds like ngpc owonderswan or GBA, or hell even lynx or game gear as both those were pretty much gone by then. Yeah, the fighters sucked. Go play mortal combat or killer instinct on gameboy and come back and tell me again how I'm wrong, as both systems (compared to consoles) are equally slow and unresponsive.

 

As for sound, till someone makes a homebrew, we'll never know. (And it'll never happen, so we'll never know) like you said, tiger made all the games as far as I'm aware. Is it system limitations, or just the fact tiger was lazy asses when it came to sound? What actually are the capabilities of the system?

 

My bad for lumping quizzes and puzzles together though

 

Am I the only one who considers context of the era when judging games or consoles?

Edited June 7, 2017 by Video

[Flojomojo]

Am I the only one who considers context of the era when judging games or consoles?

 

I remember this thing, and not being impressed in the least. Remind me, what was the starting asking price? Portable tech just wasn't so hot back then. It was expensive, and moved quickly enough that you couldn't count on anything besides Nintendo getting software support for any reasonable length of time.

 

I'd much rather have had a Palm Pilot.

[keepdreamin]

See all the hate? And there lies the problem.

People now forget the thing competed with DMG, not more powerful consoles/handhelds like ngpc owonderswan or GBA, or hell even lynx or game gear as both those were pretty much gone by then. Yeah, the fighters sucked. Go play mortal combat or killer instinct on gameboy and come back and tell me again how I'm wrong, as both systems (compared to consoles) are equally slow and unresponsive.

As for sound, till someone makes a homebrew, we'll never know. (And it'll never happen, so we'll never know) like you said, tiger made all the games as far as I'm aware. Is it system limitations, or just the fact tiger was lazy asses when it came to sound? What actually are the capabilities of the system?

My bad for lumping quizzes and puzzles together though

Am I the only one who considers context of the era when judging games or consoles?

Rose colored glasses. Lol,you're not even sure of your impressions of the damn thing. One post prior you're saying the fighters are good, and in the very next post acknowledging they suck. Which is it?

 

Game.com and it's software were a joke at the time and still are. Mortal Kombat for the GB is leagues ahead of Fighters Megamix.

Edited June 7, 2017 by keepdreamin

[godslabrat]

Rose colored glasses. Game.com and it's software were a joke at the time and still are. Mortal Kombat for the GB is leagues ahead of Fighters Megamix.

I agree. Even at the time, with DMG being the only viable competition, it didn't shine. I remember the TV commercials even failed to make it look impressive.

[keepdreamin]

Am I the only one who considers context of the era when judging games or consoles?

As for sound, till someone makes a homebrew, we'll never know. (And it'll never happen, so we'll never know) like you said, tiger made all the games as far as I'm aware. Is it system limitations, or just the fact tiger was lazy asses when it came to sound? What actually are the capabilities of the system?

 

This is just getting ridiculous. You claim you're judging it by context at the time, while in the same post arguing its sound based on theoretical events that haven't happened... Yeahhh..

 

I guess by the same "logic", the Hyperscan might be good, since a homebrew dev might make a genre defining adventure game, we'll never know.

 

I'm the one judging it on context at the time, your flip-flop on the fighters and now this kerfuffle. Dude, you are super confuddled by this thing.

Edited June 7, 2017 by keepdreamin

[Flojomojo]

Lynx and Game Gear piss on Game.com from a great height, despite being many years older.

[Austin]

Am I the only one who considers context of the era when judging games or consoles?

 

If your statements are a reflection of you considering the "context" of the era, you're nearly a decade off in your assessment.

 

1989: The Nintendo Game Boy and Atari Lynx release.

 

1997 - Tiger's Game.Com releases, and asides from touch screen and high-quality (I guess for the time) sample playback, it was inferior to its competition in every other way possible.

[keepdreamin]

Gameplay in some titles was essentially just like their cheap handhelds. Seriously, take a look at Indy 500 and the way cars and objects advance across the screen. I'd say the latter is more playable.

 

compared to:

 

[godslabrat]

 

If your statements are a reflection of you considering the "context" of the era, you're nearly a decade off in your assessment.

 

1989: The Nintendo Game Boy and Atari Lynx release.

 

1997 - Tiger's Game.Com releases, and asides from touch screen and high-quality (I guess for the time) sample playback, it was inferior to its competition in every other way possible.

I don't want to dogpile on Video... if he likes Game.com, good for him. But to add to your point, Austin, not only was the G.C a decade out from those other portables, it was only a year AWAY from the Game Boy Color. That's, honestly, why I find the system so perplexing... how did Tiger not see that customer expectations wouldn't be met by this unit? Did they seriously think a touch screen and a peripheral modem would overcome the other weaknesses?

[keepdreamin]

I don't want to dogpile on Video... if he likes Game.com, good for him. But to add to your point, Austin, not only was the G.C a decade out from those other portables, it was only a year AWAY from the Game Boy Color. That's, honestly, why I find the system so perplexing... how did Tiger not see that customer expectations wouldn't be met by this unit? Did they seriously think a touch screen and a peripheral modem would overcome the other weaknesses?

 

No, they simply thought licensing popular franchises would sucker enough people.

 

You wanna buy a game.com and throw it on a shelf as an oddity, fine. But don't try to pass it off as some sort of quality device to justify your purchase. That is some stinky BS

[godslabrat]

No, they simply thought licensing popular franchises would sucker enough people.

 

To be fair, it worked for their LCD games.

[Austin]

I don't want to dogpile on Video... if he likes Game.com, good for him.

You wanna buy a game.com and throw it on a shelf as an oddity, fine. But don't try to pass it off as some sort of quality device to justify your purchase. That is some stinky BS

I don't want to dogpile either. If you enjoy something, then I think that's great. However, when you start putting it up on a pedestal and touting it as a long lost gem, then I'm going to raise an eyebrow (as anyone else who's had heavy first-hand experience with this thing should).

 

But to add to your point, Austin, not only was the G.C a decade out from those other portables, it was only a year AWAY from the Game Boy Color. That's, honestly, why I find the system so perplexing... how did Tiger not see that customer expectations wouldn't be met by this unit? Did they seriously think a touch screen and a peripheral modem would overcome the other weaknesses?

 

It's tough to say. I mean, on one hand I almost feel like if the screen wasn't crap and the software was actually decent, it might have made a dent on the market as-is.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Austin

[keepdreamin]

 

It's tough to say. I mean, on one hand I almost feel like if the screen wasn't crap and the software was actually decent, it might have made a dent on the market as-is.

 

 

So... basically a completely different product made by a completely different manufacturer.