Would Atari had been better off if Bushnell hadn´t sold it?

[DavidD]

14 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Not sure if this is necessary - reasonable people already know this, and you won't convince entrenched ignorants anyway. 

 

It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing.

 

That, and I'm really curious about the actual breakdown.

[pacman000]

I’m curious about the break down too. 

[+GoldLeader]

Yes.

[Leeroy ST]

On 9/30/2021 at 3:23 AM, DavidD said:

 

Actually, buying the $20 membership is good for one reason -- you get 12 months of $5 off coupons.  Each coupon can be used in store for a $5 game card.

 

Essentially, they've sold me $60 in digital games for $20.

 

...

 

I don't see how this benefits them, but it might be that not everyone is as cheap as me.

 

(Also, the much-hinted-at NES game library genre analysis IS coming... work has been hectic over the past few weeks.)

Which doesn't make sense since that had nothing to do with the conversation prompting you to do it, which was already mentioned long ago, but ok. 

 

But I guess twisting things to say "you see?" when said things weren't even argued are par for the course.

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

On 9/29/2021 at 7:44 PM, leech said:

They should hire some electronics repair guys and then have people bring in their retro stuff to fix, or sell for bits and maybe have them fixed and resold.  Get the nostalgia feeling of going into an old brick and mortar shop...

Gamer geek squad basically. Although you probably wouldn't have that at every store but there can be a couple per region that specialize in it.

 

Similar to how the phone companies (used to) do. Have repair branches.

[+x=usr(1536)]

10 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

But I guess twisting things to say "you see?" when said things weren't even argued are par for the course.

[DavidD]

12 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

Which doesn't make sense since that had nothing to do with the conversation prompting you to do it, which was already mentioned long ago, but ok.

 

Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that at you, but more generally mentioning it in the thread as several people seemed interested in it.  That was clumsy framing on my part.

 

At this point, I'm generally curious as to the breakdown as far as genre diversity -- I'm only about 50% through the classification of the NES library, and the real problem is the lack of truly "standardized" genre classification systems for video games.  I've been creating one as I go, using major genre breakdowns and subgenres as needed when I felt that a significant number of the subgenre games existed.  I've got about 50 unique subgenres now, and that seems to cover almost everything... although there are a few weird games I'm struggling to properly classify.

 

Bomberman, for example...

 

 

 

 

[DavidD]

One interesting problem is that genre usage is really flavored by the intent of those classifying games -- Super Mario Bros., Contra, and Double Dragon all share the similarity of being side-scrolling with characters that can shift between platforms, but you can't really claim those are the same genre of games any more than you can claim that most 2600 games are the "same genre" because all the action occurs on a single screen.

 

The defining aspect of a genre seems like it would have to tie into either the gameplay or the gameplay objectives... but genres often appear to be used/assigned due to tertiary characteristics.  For example, while baseball, soccer, football, hockey, and boxing might all be classified as "sports games," that term is almost meaningless if used as a video game genre.

[high voltage]

17 minutes ago, DavidD said:

Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that at you, but more generally mentioning it in the thread as several people seemed interested in it.  That was clumsy framing on my part.

 

At this point, I'm generally curious as to the breakdown as far as genre diversity -- I'm only about 50% through the classification of the NES library, and the real problem is the lack of truly "standardized" genre classification systems for video games.  I've been creating one as I go, using major genre breakdowns and subgenres as needed when I felt that a significant number of the subgenre games existed.  I've got about 50 unique subgenres now, and that seems to cover almost everything... although there are a few weird games I'm struggling to properly classify.

 

Bomberman, for example...

 

 

 

 

You're kinda weird, aren't ya

[agradeneu]

5 hours ago, DavidD said:

Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that at you, but more generally mentioning it in the thread as several people seemed interested in it.  That was clumsy framing on my part.

 

At this point, I'm generally curious as to the breakdown as far as genre diversity -- I'm only about 50% through the classification of the NES library, and the real problem is the lack of truly "standardized" genre classification systems for video games.  I've been creating one as I go, using major genre breakdowns and subgenres as needed when I felt that a significant number of the subgenre games existed.  I've got about 50 unique subgenres now, and that seems to cover almost everything... although there are a few weird games I'm struggling to properly classify.

 

Bomberman, for example...

 

 

 

 

Not sure if Leeroy is able to appreciate that. ? BUt IMO it would be off topic and you probably should open a thread in the NES forum?

Edited October 2, 2021 by agradeneu

[leech]

8 hours ago, DavidD said:

One interesting problem is that genre usage is really flavored by the intent of those classifying games -- Super Mario Bros., Contra, and Double Dragon all share the similarity of being side-scrolling with characters that can shift between platforms, but you can't really claim those are the same genre of games any more than you can claim that most 2600 games are the "same genre" because all the action occurs on a single screen.

 

The defining aspect of a genre seems like it would have to tie into either the gameplay or the gameplay objectives... but genres often appear to be used/assigned due to tertiary characteristics.  For example, while baseball, soccer, football, hockey, and boxing might all be classified as "sports games," that term is almost meaningless if used as a video game genre.

The reason there wasn't any standardized genre back then was because people didn't tend to copy each other's ideas as much.  Almost everyone plays it safe these days by making games that fit into an easily labeled genre of game so they can sell to the people who like such genre of games. 

Like I generally don't buy RTS games, because, quite frankly, they rarely have anything new from when Dune 2 was released.

[Leeroy ST]

9 hours ago, DavidD said:

Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that at you, but more generally mentioning it in the thread as several people seemed interested in it.  That was clumsy framing on my part.

 

At this point, I'm generally curious as to the breakdown as far as genre diversity -- I'm only about 50% through the classification of the NES library, and the real problem is the lack of truly "standardized" genre classification systems for video games.  I've been creating one as I go, using major genre breakdowns and subgenres as needed when I felt that a significant number of the subgenre games existed.  I've got about 50 unique subgenres now, and that seems to cover almost everything... although there are a few weird games I'm struggling to properly classify.

 

Bomberman, for example...

 

 

 

 

So I take it you are putting Mega Man, SMB, Kirby, and Contra in different subgenres as you implied last time?

 

But that would create a ton of problems since for every genre like platformers or shooters you are creating a 5-10 subjective sub genres which doesn't make sense for a break down.

 

But ok.

 

28 minutes ago, leech said:

The reason there wasn't any standardized genre back then was because people didn't tend to copy each other's ideas as much.  Almost everyone plays it safe these days by making games that fit into an easily labeled genre of game so they can sell to the people who like such genre of games. 

Like I generally don't buy RTS games, because, quite frankly, they rarely have anything new from when Dune 2 was released.

Yes, the NES is really when things started to become more consolidated as platformer, jumping, ladder games, or in some cases, climbers or climbing games could all have different or similar games to each other. Also 7800 as game releases were labeled by genre in some press, but that was to a lesser extent.

 

Most (but not all) of those ended up becoming just platformers or ladder games, with the more unique ones being "arcade" games or rather classic style arcade, those didn't get a specified lable.

 

But in modern times while things did get safer for years, recently we are starting to see widespread labels once again. Action games can be anything now, half the RPGs aren't rpgs, open world game can apply to nearly anything, Battle Royale and Moba are meaningless new terms. There are like 12 different shooters just on FPS alone, fighting games (outside Smash and rip offs) is probably the most consistent genre these days, that sells anyway.

[agradeneu]

1 minute ago, Leeroy ST said:

So I take it you are putting Mega Man, SMB, Kirby, and Contra in different subgenres as you implied last time?

 

But that would create a ton of problems since for every genre like platformers or shooters you are creating a 5-10 subjective sub genres which doesn't make sense for a break down.

 

But ok.

 

 

 

I would say a breakdown is meaningsless numberwang if it just went for the smallest common denominator and ignores all complexity and nuances of each genre.

Platformers are samey, but only on a VERY VERY superficial level: Metroid, Mario, Mega Man and Castlevania can be all described as platform games, but they are quite different and invented their own unique gameplay mechanics and style.

[agradeneu]

1 hour ago, leech said:

The reason there wasn't any standardized genre back then was because people didn't tend to copy each other's ideas as much.  Almost everyone plays it safe these days by making games that fit into an easily labeled genre of game so they can sell to the people who like such genre of games. 

Like I generally don't buy RTS games, because, quite frankly, they rarely have anything new from when Dune 2 was released.

Lol...the RTS genre has evolved a lot since Dune 2, but nevermind.

 

One of the main reasons for the crash of 1984 was the influx of bad quality games and cheap clones/rehashes of the same ideas (Pacman). 

So I doubt it was all that better back then. Quite the contrary, new and more complex game genres were established and evolved during the second half of the 80s, especially the shmup and platform games.

It does not matter how you name them.

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by agradeneu

[Leeroy ST]

1 minute ago, agradeneu said:

 

I would say a breakdown is meaningsless numberwang if it just went for the smallest common denominator and ignores all complexity and nuances of each genre.

Platformers are samey, but only on a VERY VERY superficial level: Metroid, Mario, Mega Man and Castlevania can be all described as platform games, but they are quite different and invented their own unique gameplay mechanics and style.

But this would apply to nearly every major or B level console and since several have unique games you end up with exclusive sub genres, then you will also have games that fall in the middle of two descriptions having elements of two subgenres or more.

[high voltage]

The genre is.........video game!!!!

[leech]

21 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Lol...the RTS genre has evolved a lot since Dune 2, but nevermind.

 

One of the main reasons for the crash of 1984 was the influx of bad quality games and cheap clones/rehashes of the same ideas (Pacman). 

So I doubt it was all that better back then. Quite the contrary, new and more complex game genres were established and evolved during the second half of the 80s, especially the shmup and platform games.

It does not matter how you name them.

 

 

 

Shmups and platform games had a definite evolution from single screen games (such as Tempest and Jumpman) to scrolling.

 

RTS games all have that same mechanic of click on thing, build thing, that thing can attack or build other thing, or gather resources.  And there is a tech tree.  All of these things were in Dune 2.  Sure the interface has gotten a bit less clunky.  Most RTS games even use the same shortcuts. 

 

Ha, I have had this same argument with people I know who don't like FPS games.  They claim they are all the same.  But there are sub-genres of that, like Tactical FPS... yet you mention RTS and pretty much anyone good at those could pick up any new one and be equally good at it.  On the flip side, I am pretty damned good at the tactical/stealth FPS games, and less so at the run and gun variety.

[agradeneu]

27 minutes ago, leech said:

Shmups and platform games had a definite evolution from single screen games (such as Tempest and Jumpman) to scrolling.

 

RTS games all have that same mechanic of click on thing, build thing, that thing can attack or build other thing, or gather resources.  And there is a tech tree.  All of these things were in Dune 2.  Sure the interface has gotten a bit less clunky.  Most RTS games even use the same shortcuts. 

 

Ha, I have had this same argument with people I know who don't like FPS games.  They claim they are all the same.  But there are sub-genres of that, like Tactical FPS... yet you mention RTS and pretty much anyone good at those could pick up any new one and be equally good at it.  On the flip side, I am pretty damned good at the tactical/stealth FPS games, and less so at the run and gun variety.

Video games are all the same mechanics of press a button, kill something, collect something repeat...;-)

Just like FPS, there are many subgenres of RTS, even RTS combined with Turn based strategy, more tactical RTS or with RPG elements. 

[leech]

5 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

Video games are all the same mechanics of press a button, kill something, collect something repeat...;-)

Just like FPS, there are many subgenres of RTS, even RTS combined with Turn based strategy, more tactical RTS or with RPG elements. 

Sure, but there are very few.  Like the Myth series, or Warwind.  Even Warcraft II didn't have many like it.  Most tend toward that same mechanic of tech tree, and punmping out things as fast as possible.  Ha, if they combine with turn based, they are in a category of their own, and generally called Turned vased with realtime elements.  Or even 'Grand strategy' games.

[Leeroy ST]

22 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Lol...the RTS genre has evolved a lot since Dune 2, but nevermind.

 

One of the main reasons for the crash of 1984 was the influx of bad quality games and cheap clones/rehashes of the same ideas (Pacman). 

 

No, the crash CAUSED the influx of bad (and some decent) games on shelves, usually at rapidly shrinking prices, not the games themselves.

 

The reason why retailers were freaking out and deciding to effectively damage themselves and the industry is they took out too many orders from too many companies, and the crash bankrupted those companies, so there was no one around for buybacks. Retailers believed they had no choice but to crash the prices and throw out video game stock at bargain value because they gave up since they had one big set back with gaming. The price wars didn't help either coming from the computer industry.

 

All of which happened also due to retailers, retailers basically caused the crash and made it worse.

 

Even then there weren't that many clones of Pacman as people think there were, at least not on the big 3 consoles everyone knew about. Same with others big games, if anything space shooters was were most of the rehashing went.

 

I mean even the heavily invested gamers barely knew what KC munchkin was and O2 was mail order in many places in the US by then.

[agradeneu]

19 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

No, the crash CAUSED the influx of bad (and some decent) games on shelves, usually at rapidly shrinking prices, not the games themselves.

 

The reason why retailers were freaking out and deciding to effectively damage themselves and the industry is they took out too many orders from too many companies, and the crash bankrupted those companies, so there was no one around for buybacks. Retailers believed they had no choice but to crash the prices and throw out video game stock at bargain value because they gave up since they had one big set back with gaming. The price wars didn't help either coming from the computer industry.

 

All of which happened also due to retailers, retailers basically caused the crash and made it worse.

 

Even then there weren't that many clones of Pacman as people think there were, at least not on the big 3 consoles everyone knew about. Same with others big games, if anything space shooters was were most of the rehashing went.

 

I mean even the heavily invested gamers barely knew what KC munchkin was and O2 was mail order in many places in the US by then.

 I read quite the contrary. E.T. -  was it released before the crash or afterwards?

And after the crash, Atari never again regained their position as a leading force and innovator in video games for home consoles. Can you tell me why?

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by agradeneu

[agradeneu]

59 minutes ago, leech said:

Sure, but there are very few.  Like the Myth series, or Warwind.  Even Warcraft II didn't have many like it.  Most tend toward that same mechanic of tech tree, and punmping out things as fast as possible.  Ha, if they combine with turn based, they are in a category of their own, and generally called Turned vased with realtime elements.  Or even 'Grand strategy' games.

You surely have no idea what you are talking about, eh? 

Now, would you attempt a reasonable discussion about video games with people, that hate/despise video games? No?

Look, me too!

. 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by agradeneu

[Leeroy ST]

58 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

 I read quite the contrary. E.T. -  was it released before the crash or afterwards?

And after the crash, Atari never again regained their position as a leading force and innovator in video games for home consoles. Can you tell me why?

Because Atari Corp didn't have the money to back Atari like warner and unrelated actions of warner Atari pissed of retailers and the Atari brand still had an uphill battle in 1985.

 

Then in 1985-87 Atari had rebounded and was the leading force of video games on the new generation of computers.

 

On console end there was a new competitor out of nowhere that had $$$ from overseas who worked with a distribution company to pressure retailers and hugged the shelf space while stuffing the shelves with stick and having exclusivity deals from eastern developers and scared most western devs away from consoles. Leaving little support. 

 

Even then Atari corp sold out and ended up 2nd without the cash flow or chest if the other two, and if you combine their 3 active consoles before 88 one could argue they were number one until then.

 

Oh wait, you wanted it to just be an influx of bad games, my bad.

 

Also lol ET. how is one title (that still sold decent) a influx of "games"? Most of the writers to news papers and journalists complaints about the quantity:quality issue were after the crash, because they were the result of the crash not the cause. 

 

Did you forget Atari was misleading to investors and the press until right before the crash happened? Then sometime after Atari reported likely hood of (much) lower than expected sales and crashed almost all the video game stock but Coleco and maybe a couple others?

 

The IGN version of things has always been wrong.

 

 

 

 

[leech]

2 hours ago, agradeneu said:

You surely have no idea what you are talking about, eh? 

Now, would you attempt a reasonable discussion about video games with people, that hate/despise video games? No?

Look, me too!

. 

 

Ha, who said I hated video games?  I just don't see any difference in the majority of RTS games outside of a new skin.  It is like taking Amiga workbench and dolling it up with some themes.  Sure they can look vastly different, but underneath all that lipstick and glue, it is still an Amiga.

[agradeneu]

5 minutes ago, leech said:

Ha, who said I hated video games?  I just don't see any difference in the majority of RTS games outside of a new skin.  It is like taking Amiga workbench and dolling it up with some themes.  Sure they can look vastly different, but underneath all that lipstick and glue, it is still an Amiga.

So "Rome Total War" and "C&C Red Alert" were the same games, only reskinned?

 

What about Age of Empires 2? Only reskinned? What about Stronghold? Only reskinned?

 

All Platform games were reskinned Marios? All Shmups reskinned Space Invaders?

 

All consoles and computers reskinned Amigas?

 

Look, when you like Metal music and you meet a guy who claims that its all sounding the same rubbish noise, what would you do? Convince him? Tell him he had no clue?

 

People have different tastes and bias, can't argue about that! 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by agradeneu