29 replies to this topic

[RCmodeler]

Atari 2600, NES, S-NES, PS1, PS2... all are technically inferior to their competitors... but also the most popular of each generation. (In other words, PS2 is technically inferior to the Cube and Box, and yet it's ~5 times as popular.)

I wonder why that happens?

[NE146]

Because in the end, whatever technical differences a product can have over the other doesn't really matter a hoot but it's the selection and variety of the applications on it that people want to use that matters?

Pricing?

*shrug*.. I dunno

[Mindfield]

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

"He with the biggest mouth wins."

When you get right down to it, specs are meaningless to the general public. You can spout megahertz, polygon counts, effects processors and bonus features 'til you're blue all over. If the other guys say nothing more than "Powerful, fast, cool," but say it louder and more often, their system will be more likely to sell. It's all about how well oiled you keep your marketing machine. The right ad agency, the right networks, and the bucks to get the word out as often as possible, will almost always put you over the top despite the competition having better technology than you. Sure, killer apps help, but even a killer app won't save you if your megaphone is drowned out by the guy next to you with the stadium sound system.

It's an unfortunate fact, but the innovators are rarely the benefactors of their innovations. It's the guys who pinch the idea, either improve upon it or make it cheaper to produce, then shove it in the world's face, that nearly always come out on top.

[The Eidolon]

Generation is a misleading term. Sometimes coming out slightly earlier than
competitors allows them to establish a critical mass of fans and win out.
Other times (Dreamcast) the earliest one to market is a commercial
failure.

The intellivision may have been technically superior to the 2600, but
it didn't come out until 1980. By that time the 2600 had already become
quite popular. Likewise the Fairchild Channel F system looks pretty poor
compared to the 2600, but when it came out it was much better than
what little competition existed at the time. A "generation" of consoles
is not a clear cut period of time.

Comparing the initial releases for a system to the later ones, one can
see such marked improvement that it is clear that the technical limitations
of a system aren't initially the limiting factor to how impressive games
it can run. Whoever has the marketing power to get a critical mass of
console owners can likely establish the best library of games and will
win out commercially. Tech specs are largely irrelevant.

--The Eidolon

[ubersaurus]

It's all a matter of the games. Whichever system has the most games that people want to play, then chances are, its gonna get the bulk of the business.

[Chris++]

The reason:

The games.

Who gives a fuck about specs if a game's genuinely fun to play? We use Atari 2600s, for godsakes.

Would you buy a technically fancier stereo if you could only play your favorite music on your old one without the 24-band equalizer? Of course you wouldn't.

I can only speak for myself: I still only have a PS2 (regarding the most recent crop of consoles) because neither of the other two machines have more than one or two games that capture my interest at all. I hate fighting games (they're all one game with different graphics), racing games (booooring), sports games (I'd rather just go to the park and play with some friends if I'm in the mood for that) and platform games (SMB3 has yet to be topped, in my opinion -- graphics don't count for much with this kid). So you're hearing this perspective from a FPS addict.

[joeybastard]

Chris++ said:

The reason:

The games.

Who gives a fuck about specs if a game's genuinely fun to play? We use Atari 2600s, for godsakes.

Would you buy a technically fancier stereo if you could only play your favorite music on your old one without the 24-band equalizer? Of course you wouldn't.

I can only speak for myself: I still only have a PS2 (regarding the most recent crop of consoles) because neither of the other two machines have more than one or two games that capture my interest at all. I hate fighting games (they're all one game with different graphics), racing games (booooring), sports games (I'd rather just go to the park and play with some friends if I'm in the mood for that) and platform games (SMB3 has yet to be topped, in my opinion -- graphics don't count for much with this kid). So you're hearing this perspective from a FPS addict.

Hear Hear! Except I have a Gamecube because I like platformers, fighters and puzzle games and find all FPS to be the same game with different graphics. Otherwise, Chris is right on the money. Sony's console is heavy on the FPS and sports gamesa and they know how to advertise it. The tech specs mean dick imho. VCS games are still better then all of the modern consoles.

[ubersaurus]

Chris++ said:

The reason:

The games.

Who gives a fuck about specs if a game's genuinely fun to play? We use Atari 2600s, for godsakes.

Would you buy a technically fancier stereo if you could only play your favorite music on your old one without the 24-band equalizer? Of course you wouldn't.

I can only speak for myself: I still only have a PS2 (regarding the most recent crop of consoles) because neither of the other two machines have more than one or two games that capture my interest at all. I hate fighting games (they're all one game with different graphics), racing games (booooring), sports games (I'd rather just go to the park and play with some friends if I'm in the mood for that) and platform games (SMB3 has yet to be topped, in my opinion -- graphics don't count for much with this kid). So you're hearing this perspective from a FPS addict.

If you honestly believe all fighting games are the same with different graphics, then you've obviously only played a couple.

No two fighters are the same. Even something trivial like SF2 and SF2 Turbo are radically different.

[Raijin Z]

I got a Gamecube because it was convenient, but there's NOTHING WORTH PLAYING ON IT. I think I only got it to continue my "beating every Mario, Metroid, and Zelda game ever made" thing, but Mario Sunshine sucks my goddamn ass, so I took it back, Metroid Prime crashed too much, and Zelda was a trainwreck.

X-Box, here I come!

[Chris++]

Quote

No two fighters are the same.

[joeybastard]

Chris++ said:

Quote

No two fighters are the same.

There can be a lot more depth to fighters then you think. I agree many of them are just button mashing crap, but there are some truly glorious standouts. Games like Soul Caliber and Virtua Fighter require far more skill and startegy then just button mashing nonsense.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I had my choise. PS2, XBOX, GC and I took the PS2. Why? Well, for one, the games. And a little side note, the AMOUNT of games. More games means more of them are BOUND to be good, less games mean its not as likely. Also, the PS1 was a great little machine, even though I only had it for 2 years before I got my PS2, it was a push in the right direction. The backwords compatiblity also helped a little bit, I could get twice the amount of gaming in half the space, whats not to like there? So, genuinly, its many things, games, loyalty ect.

[Raijin Z]

Actually, I think the biggest deciding factor in my system purchases is title, if not developer loyalty. I got a PS2 for Armored Core 2, but the PS2 fucking died. Fuck you, Sony. Fuck you for your shoddy parts, and the fact that you want $600 to fix my $500 Mavica, which you KNEW the disk drives were faulty in!

I refuse to buy Sony stuff because, well, it sucks. I steal from Microsoft because they suck too, but not as much, and I pay for Nintendo because they've never fucked me over or killed one of my hard drives.

[ubersaurus]

Chris++ said:

Quote

No two fighters are the same.

Ok then, here's what I want you to do.

I want you to get Marvel vs Capcom 2, and a copy of Last Blade 2.

I want you to play them both and tell me how the hell they are exactly the same...because its clear to me you saw a couple in the store and decided "oh well every fighting game is the same". that's like me saying that final fantasy 7 is just like mario RPG because they're both RPGs. Anyone with a brain can tell thats not the case.

[chrisbid]

um.... if all of those genres are repetitive, how would first person shooters be any different?

[PaulEMoz]

Was the PS1 technically inferior to its competition? I mean, I LOVED the Saturn, and owned one way before I owned a PS1, and just bought one on eBay recently, but I don't think it was technically better than the PS1. Maybe in some areas, but inferior in others, which would balance it out. I doubt the N64 was any better than the PS1 either, although I couldn't say for sure.

[ubersaurus]

The saturn had superior sound and 2d capabilities, and the N64 could push polygons far beyond the PS1's capabilities.

[Shannon]

Chris++ said:

Quote

No two fighters are the same.

Yeah... didn't you'all know that you never really know someone until you fight them??

[Shannon]

ubersaurus said:

The saturn had superior sound and 2d capabilities, and the N64 could push polygons far beyond the PS1's capabilities.

True, but the two things that killed the N64 were

the texture buffer - too small so alot of games looked blander then they needed to be
cart only format - high overhead on cart cost, hence a lower profit margin compared to cd produced games.

[ubersaurus]

Although they didn't make as much per-cart as sony did per cd, they still made enough to call the N64 a success. After all, after the first year or so, cart prices were comparable to the prices of PS1 and Saturn games. The textures were a problem though-but when they're done well, N64 games still look impressive. See Star Fox 64, or Rogue Squadron.

[Video]

RCmodeler said:

Atari 2600, NES, S-NES, PS1, PS2... all are technically inferior to their competitors... but also the most popular of each generation. (In other words, PS2 is technically inferior to the Cube and Box, and yet it's ~5 times as popular.)

What do all those systems have in common with each other (yes they have something in common)

The fact they were first. I'm talking US release here, in other countries, different storys are true (look over at europe, SMS clearly owned NES then)

Atari 2600 come out two years befor Intelivision, and nearly 4 befor coleco. Huge fan base by the time the superior consoles come out. Odyssey's superiority is debatable, though it still come out two years after 2600, didn't it?.

NES come out a year befor SMS and 7800. Again established fanbase made the difference. They also had the ultimate side scrolling platformer for the time.

SNES come out years befor all those disc systems that failed so miserably. This one's weird because Sega Genesis actually beat it by two years.

Side note: Genesis initial unpopularity was due to the fact Sega Master System was so poorly supported for only 3 years 86-89.

PSX come out a year befor the N64, but was released the same time nearly as Sature (for $100 less) DC didn't even make the 32 bit generation, IMO

Side note: Dreamcast could have been the lead of the 128 bit generation, but after abandoning so many previous systems, they scared away any user base they ever had (yeah, consumers can be stupid, but nobody's that stupid, for that long.)

PS2, a year advance on both Cube and X-Box, huge established user base already.

Add to the fact they were first, the fact that the best games are about game play, and maybe story. And graphics, and characture recognition only help, but are honestly unimportant. And you have the reason they were so popular.

Realy, would Super Mario Brows be any less fuy if it was called "Jumping Bob and Bro" How about Super Mario World if it was called "The incrdible adventures of High stoner"? Of course not, it's a great solid game, that's simply fun to play.

[Mindfield]

Actually, PS1 wasn't first. 3DO came first with Trip Hawkins' famous Bill Gates-esque quote, "If you're going to be the best, you have to place the stake so far out there that no one will challenge it" (paraphrased). Then Jaguar did just that some nine or ten months later. At almost the same time, the doomed-from-inception 32X was released with exactly zero titles at launch. It was hastilly created with off-the-shelf parts as Sega discovered they were getting caught sitting on their laurels, and just as hastilly dropped when Saturn, Sega's real, "Pay no attention to that other thing, it didn't count" entry in the 32/64-bit generation, came out about six months later. A few months after that, Sony's PSX came seemingly out of nowhere and became the media darling. Finally, taking up the rear in usual Nintendo style was the N64. If anything, it was the last consoles to be released in this generation that ended up surviving, not the forerunners.

[Chris++]

Uber -- Okay, I'll take you up on that. I've been waiting to find out if I have a brain.

Anyway, what I found funny -- if you'll notice -- was the fact that you explained that no two fighters are the same.

Chrisbid -- Many FPS games are similar to each other. But I love the genre! I don't recall typing anything that insulted people who had a problem with the fact that all fighters have a lot in common.

[Room 34]

Chris++ said:

The reason:

The games.

True, and there's another element to this:

You can't strictly go by specs alone. Some systems have had their capabilities exploited to a greater extent than others. Generally it's the ones that are most popular.

Among its contemporaries (at least by the early '80s), the 2600 was by far the weakest in terms of system specs... but since SO many people were developing for it, TONS of exploits were developed... so by the end, the 2600 had some games (especially the late '80s ones which, granted, were made AFTER its popularity had faded) that were more advanced than anything for Intellivision, for instance.

Want a specific title? OK... Solaris. Also, I think 2600 Stargate is superior to Intellivision Defender.

[DracIsBack]

Quote

I got a Gamecube because it was convenient, but there's NOTHING WORTH PLAYING ON IT.

Quote

but Mario Sunshine sucks my goddamn ass

,

Quote

Zelda was a trainwreck.

Ahh ... more opinions being tossed around as facts!

Gotta love the net!