That´s not exactly what I said, but spoken about the controls you got me right. The gameplay is nice (far better than Kasumi Ninja on the Jaguar for example). Controls are easy to learn and with the 4 buttons you can do a lot in the fighting games and gfx are nice drawn. I don´t say the games are excellent, they are in between, but not as bad as people will tell you.
And the two to five frames per second doesn't bother you? Have you played a fighting game that actually
plays well in order to draw comparisons? Kasumi Ninja might not be the best comparison, but it at least moves at a smooth framerate and is relatively responsive. All I will say is, try Killer Instinct, Street Fighter, or even Raging Fighter on the Game Boy, then come back to me and try to tell me these supposedly "well-playing, but"
fighting games actually
play well. And hell, some of those don't even play that great, but are gems compared to these Game.Com fighters.
And what´s wrong with the Williams Arcade Classics? Joust (what is one of my favorite games) plays like Joust should play (damn I would like to do a multiplayer session with this game), same for Defender I + II. I don´t know about Sinistar (never played the arcade), but Robotron is also a good conversion. The four fire buttons are used to emulate the second stick of the arcade to fire in any direction independant of where you look. Nothing wrong with that.
They are awful conversions, and another example of Tiger's outsourced development studio focusing on recreated style over playable substance. The games are extremely sluggish, the ghosting and poor framerate makes them difficult to play (most noticeable on Defender), and Robotron--don't even get me started on that. Sit in the middle of the screen, fire in all directions, and you are safe for the next level. It's like the others on this compilation in that the frenetic feel of the arcade game is completely missing. Not worth playing at all (and I did because like you, in the late '90s, I really, really wanted to make myself believe this system "really wasn't that bad"
Hardware wise the game.com isn´t that bad and is MUCH better than the gameboy
Wait.. What?? One sound channel? A screen that looks like its shifting pudding as opposed to pixels?
OK, I understand those aren't great examples of "power", but games that usually move at five frames a second and less do not
help the situation, comparison, or bold statements like this at all. Because really, what does it matter if the games look great but play like a tech demo at best? It doesn't
I don´t say that the game.com titles (beside Batman and Robin and maybe RE2) are outstanding (even for their time they are not), nor do I claim it is a must-have-system, but it is far from being unplayable and doesn´t deserve the bashing everywhere. I would say it was just the wrong time. The price was too low so they couldn´t put a decent screen in.
If it doesn't deserve the bashing, then what does it deserve? Personally, I'm just scratching my head wondering what some peoples' standards are in terms of what they consider "bad" or "good". That is, provided they have any ounce of standards at all (and in order to even begin classifying, you have to have some ounce of objective standards, as well as somewhat subjective preferences).
To most, the Game.Com is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. If it's not "that bad", then what is that
bad? Also, what does that make other less-than-desirable platforms like the CD-i? Pure gold?
Also, for anyone that hasn't personally played a Game.Com, I'd suggest checking out the latest Classic Game Room review of the platform for a good impression of how some of these mentioned games run. He shoots a high-quality camera at the system, so you can get a good idea of what it looks like from an in-person perspective (I would post a link, but I'm at work right now).
*edit: it's blocked here at work, but I was able to find the link via a Google search. So, here's the video:
Edited by Austin, Fri May 11, 2012 9:39 PM.