Jakandsig

Which do you think is better? These were the two systems (one selling 300,000+ and one selling 7 million+ debatable each number) that started the push for 3D console gaming Which would not reach a peak point until 2001 but that is another story. The 3DO introduced great game with clear polygons like Need for Speed, Killing Time, NBA, GEX, Star Control II and more. It had a large amount of third-party developers and had tons of games. The Atari Jaguar started the trent to bring back old franchises into 3D with new modes. Such as Defender 2000, Missile Command 3D, Tempest 200, and games like Iron Soldier and Ultra Vortek.

I have been through a couple of sites the last through days announcing the "top" consoles of all time. With most of them having the NES on the top but the reasons for it and the 2600 being 2nd or lower (in some sites last out of 50) that have me scratching my head. On the 2600 side many say: The Atari 2600 by itself(atari) took the industry to the brink of destruction. Some sites saying it drove a stake through the industry. Acting like consoles in the present have quality control for games, and almost put the entirety of the blame on it, even saying that once Activision and etc came out, Atari was making noo good games for pretty much all the 80's. Atari 2600 games are too simple and lack in depth imagination Atari 2600 was not a world wide success On the NES side many say: Nintendo fixed the Industry that Atari had ruined. Video games were completely dead until the NES released in 1985 and brought the industry back by 1986 SMB single-handedly changed the types of games we played and also inspired PC gaming somehow and games with scrolling NES was the first left hand to move console NES was the first to also become a computer NES was the first to have lock-out options NES single-handedly brought video game consoles back into existence, and without them there would be no consoles. People were not still buying video games until the NES The NES test launch was responsible for the new intellivisions, the Atari 7800, and for the Atari 2600 jr. As well as Coleco still supporting CV in 1085. NES setting up the third-party game publisher system as we know it NOW keep in mind. These are from tons of mainstream "gaming sites" that claim to know the history. All of these are on at least 5 of them so it's not like these are from some isolated site. This is what the average guy will read if he starts to try and get into the history of games.

There are plenty of conflicting articles on the net over the Atari 2600 sales. But the two numbers that are most consistent are 30 million and 40 million. But which is closer to the true amount of sales? I always figured the links with 30 only included U.S. figures.

A new Consoles with a lot of hype=MEh A section so that NS fanboys can come and claim Wikipedia is king, on a site with Nintendo activity that reflect the Genesis board back when it was made is some how= Good? I mean I almost see what you were going for, library, but the X1 and PS4 are new and awaited for almost 10 years, i am pretty sure there will be some very interesting activity along the days for them. But I am still not clear on the reall connection you are trying to make. If it really is only library (Xbox and PS are also established brands so your established comment makes no sense) then I really don't see how your argument is valid.

That's what I've read and heard. I know that there would be long lines back when Klax was new, and I know it was one of Ataris most profitable ventures. I do not know how far it went but I constantly saw articles and found recently older articles saying that it was only passed by Tetris in the addicting game craze.

There's also Conker.

I read many articles back in the times about how KLAX was a hit in the arcades and sold millions being the only thing really close to Tetris ever. But the Sales numbers and profit numbers are all over the place a though someone here might have the more accurate numbers. With tetris selling a 54 million average through release till the 2001, I head Klax was like 45 or so bringing in around 2 billion+ where competitors like Qix and columns were far away.

I think that there is a chance the Wii WOULD be more powerful but it was designed so that the XBOX would SHOW more powerful games because the amount of jags and graphic glitches Wii game had was insane to be honest. I believe the Wii was actually stronger but had an similar issue to the cell where that did not matter in output.

Which was revisionist?

I hear many statements about the Colecovision selling 6+ million and not the number that is used on misinfopedia, however, that actually make sense when you think of the CBK promotion and CBK was a big thing at the time. It's the same with the Lynx, there are statements saying it did over 1 million and did better than the GG in europe, yet all we have is some rando number of I thin 750,000. Anyone have any accurate or close to accurate sales numbers? Because I knew the Intellivision, or rather Mattel was having some issues with retailers in some states, and the CV was getting tons of praise for their flexibility.

You and the TC have flawed logic. What does the X1 and PS4, you know beig new, have some kind of connection with the NES to bring up the theory, that the NES should have a section if NEW consoles have a section?

Or you just made this all up. And the fact no one answered the thread as of this post you made at all. Heck, a Nintendo guy a few posts up just said a lot of you guy's words are wrong, why not post links or he will think you are all blathering? Have you ever been in a conversation with a fanboy of a company before ever? they will quote wikipedia like the bible, you say they are wrong, but they have a wikipedia source (as bad asit may be) and you know you have to link or show a picture, or reference something to prove them wrong, here you guys are doing none of that, it's the same as saying stuff without links while a fanboy links to wikipedia and that fanboy will not believe you because is bad source is still a source, so you need to prove his bad source wrong with a good source, this may be why nobody here edits wikipedia to make sense because you are all to busy letting happen and not doing something about the spread of pure ignorance.

No it wasn't at all. In fact, it's impressiveness became more and more exaggerated in the coming years. However, it was a launch title that was bundled, that sold well, becauseit was bundled, and everyone played it, because it was bundled.

Or maybe you guys could read this guys post which is entirely wrong and makes no sense. Maybe then you may actually post links that prove him wrong before he starts quoting wikipedia like every other argument outside this board.

No actually I was right, and my point was true, he posted wikipedia links and culd not read, like you can't.

Once again, a lot of you are not reading the many posts I made in this thread, and in many i mean little. Like the post after this. I mean do i really have to get a nintendo fanboy to join the forum or something to make my point any more clearer than it already is?

I did not claim that at all, nobody seems to want to read whole posts here. That is what an average fanboy who believes the site would say, people don't post links and references here usually. period. If I was say AGAIN as if you people are not slow enough, a fanboy of X system, and we are having a discussion, and you make statements, he will use a wikipedia link as a source, you say it's not true, he laughs because you posted nothing. The issue with this is that you people post links before in other subjects, but on the same subjects many threads later, act like everyone already knows were those links are, or just straight up don't want to post links and think people would believe you.

What are you talking about, this thread is about cutting the 2600 from interfering with 7800 sales.

And he used wiki links, so know, me looking at only the first part of his post was right after all, he did not read a darn think i said and does not get the point I am making.

Maybe because I did not see that post but I guess this place has to keep up it's attack everyone rep.

The main issue in Wikipedia is that certain pages are assigned to gropus like the "atari" group that controls not all but a lot of the "atari related" pages even though i question their source and there ability to deform all sources that actually come from something credible. One time I had 10 reference next to 8 pieces of info and edited them to be correct and they shut that down. I am tired of cources leading to sources that lead to typed words instead of actual source. For example, site says "atari 5200 was cancelled because it brought an $1billion dollar loss in the first week" which is insane, and it lead to an article of gamerevolution or something like that that literally says "The Atari 5200 was a horrible commercial failure that lost atari $1billion dollars the first week" and I was like, were is the name at least? You could even lie and said "atari said:" but no, it's just there.

So if I put a Titan in a 2600 it will be more powerful than a 360?

I just made a post above that may be more for your slower thinking.

No you are thinking that I am being sarcastic instead of reading my posts. Now you are twisting it as if I consider Wiki the god of info. Let me do it more slowly for you: IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE MANY PEOPLE THAT A LOT OF THESE POINTS ON WIKI ARE WRONG THAT ARE WIDELY BELIEVED YOU NEED LINKS AND REFERENCES WHICH REGARDLESS OF HOW HORRIBLE YOU THINK THEY ARE WIKIPEDIA HAS AND PEOPLE USE THEM OVER RANDOMLY TYPED STUFF IN CONVERSATIONS. ESPECIALLY WITH FANBOYS OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. Get that? What if I was a highly mighty Nintendo Fanboy, you know you would have to actually show me all the points are wrong instead of typing things (outside names of scrolling games) This site has a habit, of posting links in one thread, and then many threads on the same topic later, decided multiple times, not to post any links and proof, as if everyone already knows were to look for them. Again, say I was a Nintendo fanboy boy who came here and said these were FACTS bet you guys would put more effort into proving these posts wrong because what they will do, or any other fanboy will do in the mainstream, is link you to wikipedia, you will say it's wrong, and they will say were are your links and/or references? you are a revisionist.

A lot of people usually say one answer, but there is a rising belief that is popular now that the XBOX was a bottleneck and the Gamecube was more powerful. Alot saying that RougeS being able to push more polygons prove that the gamecube was better designed. Yet I believe the fact it can do 60FPS easier, and has programmable textures, along with being able to bump to 720p and 1080i (much better than the PS2's 1080i) it prove that the system is better. A counter to that belief though is that the Wii is considered more powerful than the Xbox but is basically a gamecube with a stronger CPU.