jaguar..worst atari system?

[Curt Vendel]

The system was superb, could've used a little more buffer memory and Atari should've spent a little bit more time on the dev tools.

 

It was really a lot of sloppy coders who were literally buying time pushing out a game for Atari to make cash, understand next gen systems a little better and prepare for PS1 to come out, many software coders have openly admitted this.

 

The other gating item is the console of a superb 2D system, but the Tramiels were really pushing heavily on 3D games and the system needs so serious coders at the helm for such projects. When you look at games like Tempest, Rayman, Bubsy and others, you see excellent quality games, fantastic audio and great gameplay. Its when you look at crap like iWar and Club Drive you shake you head and ask WTF

 

 

 

Curt

 

Great system, worst games. Bit like the N64 really.

[thomasholzer]

So are you the same Curt we can see on BBS: The Documentary?

[mimo]

pretty sure the jag is, i had one for a week,hated it, sold it to buy a 7800 and over half of it's game catalogue.

 

Actually it was because it kept giving me the red screen of death, and I found the games too modern!!

each to their own tho.

Edited March 13, 2007 by mimo

[walter_J64bit]

The worst atari system? I have to say no It's the only Atari system that has "Gorf Classic" that faithfully reproduces the arcade game and it has BattleSphere Gold too! every game system has crap games!

Edited March 14, 2007 by walter_J64bit

[Video]

Two pokeys for sound on the ST? How about a REAL sound chip, instead of a controller chip for sound instead

 

Is the Jaguar the worst system? Well, from a sales standpoint, I'd have to say yest. From a games standpoint....well, other than the subpar Alien, and the AWESOME Tempest game...everything else could be had elsewhere. But some of it's games (wolf, Doom) showed it to be a superior system than the competition at the time (which was NOT Playstation, BTW)

 

IMO it had the best controller of any of the Atari's, and it was probably nearly as powerful as the PSX if it wasn't dragged down with the 68000.

 

It's marketing sucked arse though. I've heard anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million were sold, depending on sourse, and that's just sad, by any standards.

 

But, I do play my 2600, and 5200 (with non original controllers) and 7800, more than I play my Jaguar. And no, that's not combined. The only Atari system I play Less than the Jaguar, is actually the Lynx (can't comment on computers, though I don't count those as 'systems' anyways)

 

Of course, I don't have a big library for the system either (but hell, I got a smaller one for the 7800) So maybe I don't have the right games.

 

Just from personal experiance, I would have to say it's the worst. But it's also one of the ones I have the highest hopes for (besides the 2600 which it's homebrew scene is just blowing me away right now)

 

Heh, I Want to like the Jaguar, but honestly, other than Tempest and Doom, there's not much I care for on it.

[DracIsBack]

Here come the flames sure to piss someone off ...

 

I think the 7800 is by far the worst Atari system. That should get you going.

 

It would have been better to say "The 7800 is", as opposed to "I think the 7800 is" if you wanted to be successful.

[Gorf]

Most assuredly!

 

When you say 'I think', it portrays that you dont

necesarily belive it yourself.

 

Sounds more like a suggestion than a stand.

 

[Gorf]

The system was superb, could've used a little more buffer memory and Atari should've spent a little bit more time on the dev tools.

 

It was really a lot of sloppy coders who were literally buying time pushing out a game for Atari to make cash, understand next gen systems a little better and prepare for PS1 to come out, many software coders have openly admitted this.

 

The other gating item is the console of a superb 2D system, but the Tramiels were really pushing heavily on 3D games and the system needs so serious coders at the helm for such projects. When you look at games like Tempest, Rayman, Bubsy and others, you see excellent quality games, fantastic audio and great gameplay. Its when you look at crap like iWar and Club Drive you shake you head and ask WTF

 

Curt

 

 

The Jag never had a real chance becasue Atari at the time never really gave it a proper one.

The forgot who they were and what they owned. They tried to look at other games companies

and what they were doing when all they needed to do is look at what they already had! Why

try to be Nintendo or Sega when you are already Atari?

 

The Jag was by far the most technically advanced Atari machine EVER! Computer or console.

The Jag was the right hardware, for the right game company but in the wrong hands. Gamers

...TRUE gamers need to run Atari. We need Ralph Baer! It probably should be his anyway...

 

Just kidding Nolan....lol!

[Curt Vendel]

Shhhheeeez, Jason must be selling a lot of copies of that documentary, amazing how many people keep pointing that out that they've seen me on it.

 

If you were into BBS'ing "back in the day" (okay, how friggin old do I feel now....) It is a superb program and brings back a lot of great memories, the whole fidonet wars and how as the Apple's, C64's and of course - Atari's dropped off the BBS scene to leave not much else but those cookie cutter RBBS systems which all looked IDENTICAL, there was a lot of creativity that went into getting people to your BBS vs someone else's.

 

Oh - so to answer your question, ummm yup - that was me (well, still is - just not pudgy anymore

 

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

So are you the same Curt we can see on BBS: The Documentary?

[ovalbugmann]

The Jag is a very powerful, very impressive system. Anyone that thinks it was Atari worst console is only fooling themselves. It might have been the last but it sure wasn't the worst. All of the Atari consoles are great. There is no loser when you got Atari in the mix.

 

I owned a 2600VCS waaaaay back in the day, (late 70's - early 80's). And I have many great memories of me and my friends playing it, and checking out the new games at the store. It was the centerpiece of entertainment except for "R" rated movies with violence & topless girls , however the 2600 always left me wanting more, when playing the games you have to picture the details in your mind, I kept saying the next releases are going to have great graphics, and kept looking for them to get better, none of the arcade ports on the 2600 were as good as the arcade version, (i.e. pacman, defender, asteroids) and most all the games are so BLOCKY. Now, I must admit the games are still a lot of fun, but I just desired better graphics. Sure, the Jaguar has better graphics, but some games are hard to get into gameplaywise. So, this really is a question that is relative to your opinion and definition of worst system. I just want more than BLOCKY BLOCKS dude and 2k-4k games man! More than one color per scanline. But, on the other hand I had such fun with the 2600 as a kid that I want to get a "Heavy Sixer" again because it holds so many memories and nostalgia for me.

 

So, Atari Jaguar = Undeniably has the Best Graphics of all Atari systems, but so so gameplay on several titles.

Atari 2600 VCS = Worst Graphics (sorry but it is true), but has Great Gameplay on many titles.

 

Now, the most important aspect of any videogame system is: "The games" and are they fun to play??? Correct? Not the system.

 

This a stupid thread to post in the Jaguar section dude, because your opinion is not my opinion. I find Jaguar games seem to be quite challenging to pick up and master, but that gives me more satisfaction when I do beat the game. Most 2600 games are simplistic and easy to play(some), and very enjoyable. I don't tell other people what games or systems they should like. The Jaguar in my opinion is awesome! I have a soft spot for the 2600 too, so much so that I want another "heavy sixer", and then who knows what system I would play more. There is just no answering which is a better system because it's all relative. You know what they say: "Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one."

[Crimefighter]

The worst Atari system is the one with the worst library.

[+Elliot]

The worst Atari system is the one with the worst library.

 

Panther?

[ApolloBoy]

If you ask me, there are no bad Atari systems, just bad games. And in the Jaguar's case there seems to be a fair amount of bad games. The ratio of good to bad games isn't as bad as the 2600 though, but that doesn't stop me from liking both.

[superjudge3]

In my opinion the Jaguar has five "must have" games, twenty "average & good" games, about 10 ok ports, and the rest all suck.

[thomasholzer]

Shhhheeeez, Jason must be selling a lot of copies of that documentary, amazing how many people keep pointing that out that they've seen me on it.

 

If you were into BBS'ing "back in the day" (okay, how friggin old do I feel now....) It is a superb program and brings back a lot of great memories, the whole fidonet wars and how as the Apple's, C64's and of course - Atari's dropped off the BBS scene to leave not much else but those cookie cutter RBBS systems which all looked IDENTICAL, there was a lot of creativity that went into getting people to your BBS vs someone else's.

 

Oh - so to answer your question, ummm yup - that was me (well, still is - just not pudgy anymore

 

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

So are you the same Curt we can see on BBS: The Documentary?

 

 

Cool setup anyway, you had to have that background, didn't you :-).

Here in Europe we were into BBSs too. With my XE I used to dial up Atari in USA, with a horrid cost of $20.00 for 10 minutes. But it was fun.

Later with my C-64 we had a cool UK BBS, Compuserve, people like Jeff Minter used to put up demos and stuff.

[Printstar]

In my opinion the Jaguar has five "must have" games, twenty "average & good" games, about 10 ok ports, and the rest all suck.

 

I'd agree with that estimate. There are still quite a few that I'll plug in and play even though the graphics are a bit lame. I still love a good session of Attack of the Mutant Penguins, and that has no breathtaking graphics.

 

On another note, I find it laughable that people blame Atari management for all the Jaguar's problems. I will admit that they did rush a lot of games out, and they were a bit naive, if anything. But you have to consider the size of Atari at the time. By 1993, when the Jaguar was first pushed out the door, their workforce was down well below 1000. I believe the old SEC filings placed them around 400 employees. Their assets at the time were around $35 million in cash and some change held in securities. They didn't even own a building at that point (just leases). Compare that with the original Playstation launch, which Sony dedicated $100 million in North American marketing alone, and you can see Atari had no hope.

 

I remember most every video game magazine had Jag adds each month, and they were making lame attempts at commercials, although I don't think they ever could afford major network spots. So they made a desperate attempt at advertising. They would have been bankrupt in a month if they had gone all out with marketing.

 

Also remember they were paying third parties to develop games and software. They were still attempting to operate a R&D department. They were attempting to provide full consumer support for the Jag and their dying line of computers. And they were attempting to launch a consumer-grade mass-marketed video game console. Personally, I'm shocked the Jaguar performed as well as it did. Atari was just too small and cash-strapped when they released the Jaguar to pull off any major video game market coup.

 

But that's my opinion .

[Mcfurfan1]

Only atari systems i have are the 7800 and the jaguar so outta those two id have to take the jag over the 7800. Once the nes came out the 7800 was moved to the basement. In contrast my Jag still sits proudly on my entertainment center right next to my Xbox 360.

[phuzaxeman]

In my opinion the Jaguar has five "must have" games, twenty "average & good" games, about 10 ok ports, and the rest all suck.

 

I'd agree with that estimate. There are still quite a few that I'll plug in and play even though the graphics are a bit lame. I still love a good session of Attack of the Mutant Penguins, and that has no breathtaking graphics.

 

On another note, I find it laughable that people blame Atari management for all the Jaguar's problems. I will admit that they did rush a lot of games out, and they were a bit naive, if anything. But you have to consider the size of Atari at the time. By 1993, when the Jaguar was first pushed out the door, their workforce was down well below 1000. I believe the old SEC filings placed them around 400 employees. Their assets at the time were around $35 million in cash and some change held in securities. They didn't even own a building at that point (just leases). Compare that with the original Playstation launch, which Sony dedicated $100 million in North American marketing alone, and you can see Atari had no hope.

 

I remember most every video game magazine had Jag adds each month, and they were making lame attempts at commercials, although I don't think they ever could afford major network spots. So they made a desperate attempt at advertising. They would have been bankrupt in a month if they had gone all out with marketing.

 

Also remember they were paying third parties to develop games and software. They were still attempting to operate a R&D department. They were attempting to provide full consumer support for the Jag and their dying line of computers. And they were attempting to launch a consumer-grade mass-marketed video game console. Personally, I'm shocked the Jaguar performed as well as it did. Atari was just too small and cash-strapped when they released the Jaguar to pull off any major video game market coup.

 

But that's my opinion .

 

but how about when they were selling millions and ruled the market? it's sad what the company couldn't maintain at their peak. actually companies like nintendo and sony have learned from the mistakes of atari. look at the wii and ds. both systems are not cutting edge of technology in terms of graphics and hardware but are ruling the market because of their slew of innovative games and smart advertising.

[Gorf]

In my opinion the Jaguar has five "must have" games, twenty "average & good" games, about 10 ok ports, and the rest all suck.

 

I'd agree with that estimate. There are still quite a few that I'll plug in and play even though the graphics are a bit lame. I still love a good session of Attack of the Mutant Penguins, and that has no breathtaking graphics.

 

On another note, I find it laughable that people blame Atari management for all the Jaguar's problems. I will admit that they did rush a lot of games out, and they were a bit naive, if anything. But you have to consider the size of Atari at the time. By 1993, when the Jaguar was first pushed out the door, their workforce was down well below 1000. I believe the old SEC filings placed them around 400 employees. Their assets at the time were around $35 million in cash and some change held in securities. They didn't even own a building at that point (just leases). Compare that with the original Playstation launch, which Sony dedicated $100 million in North American marketing alone, and you can see Atari had no hope.

 

I remember most every video game magazine had Jag adds each month, and they were making lame attempts at commercials, although I don't think they ever could afford major network spots. So they made a desperate attempt at advertising. They would have been bankrupt in a month if they had gone all out with marketing.

 

Also remember they were paying third parties to develop games and software. They were still attempting to operate a R&D department. They were attempting to provide full consumer support for the Jag and their dying line of computers. And they were attempting to launch a consumer-grade mass-marketed video game console. Personally, I'm shocked the Jaguar performed as well as it did. Atari was just too small and cash-strapped when they released the Jaguar to pull off any major video game market coup.

 

But that's my opinion .

 

but how about when they were selling millions and ruled the market? it's sad what the company couldn't maintain at their peak. actually companies like nintendo and sony have learned from the mistakes of atari. look at the wii and ds. both systems are not cutting edge of technology in terms of graphics and hardware but are ruling the market because of their slew of innovative games and smart advertising.

 

 

Game play will always rule the day....or at least it should IMNSHO.

[Gorf]

The worst Atari system is the one with the worst library.

 

Panther?

 

 

Dont' count...never made it out of R&D(maybe a proto but I doubt much more).

[Feralstorm]

I've never played on a Lynx, so that must be the worst system by default.

[Gorf]

I've never played on a Lynx, so that must be the worst system by default.

 

 

 

I must disagree...the lynx is by far the best piece of tech Atari ever put out

(considering the tech of that time.)

 

 

From a tech standpoint? Lynx is easily the best thought out desing from

Atari yet...hands down and light years away. That little sucker is complete.

 

the little beast can throw around polies quites handily(get it?...handily...

Handy....heh, heh, I say pay attention son...im much to fast fer ya!)

[Clint Thompson]

You really thought I-War was crap Curt? I actually liked that game. It's not exactly perfect but it was unique and the fact that it was different made it nice to play for a change.

[vanadium]

Even with the games that suck on the Jaguar, there's still an MST3K-like feel whenever I dig them out to play 'em. You just want to riff on the bad points while pushing through.

 

That said, even having been a Jag owner since Release Day 1993 and owning every release during its commercial lifespan to this day, it does qualify as the "worst" system, but only on its management and the game library itself in terms of a static-to-noise ratio. Had they secured better third-party support and foregone rushing games out the door to try and make a profit, many others would have probably seen it in a better light. (I do like I-War, though, despite it being in my "suck" list!) Putting it into perspective, given that it's now a 13.5 year-old system, I can look back and say that compared to the other systems (and management) of the day, it really never had a chance to shine like it could have given the management team they stuck with. (Don Thomas notably excluded. Speaking of him, he really needs to get back into the VG industry! http://icwhen.com/resume/resume%2020050912.txt)

 

The reason I do blame management, having dealt with enough small-to-large companies in my career, is because adept management can bring anything to fruition given the right team. Look at Atari's own infancy back in the late 70s for one excellent example; another potential example is Nolan's new uWink concept (of which I am an investor). Just because they were small in the 90s doesn't mean they didn't have opportunity; their brand's legacy was strong and nostalgia-inducing, and they had the superior Lynx to offer as a taste of the future. It's unfortunate they couldn't manage their way out of a plastic sack when it came to marketing either system effectively, nor securing third-party relationships because of their terms and notoriety.

 

Note: That latter reason almost cost Nintendo its life, to point out a more recent example. Only now with the trendy-but-innovative Wii are they able to start forging and mending those third-party relationships, but that's likely due more to the bottom-line profit potential because of the resurgence in Nintendo's market share more than anything.

 

Technologically, I think the 5200 would be the worst in my opinion because of the controller alone. If you want to parse by technological capability in general, then obviously the 2600 would have been the "worst" system though nobody would agree that it is (including myself). I don't know why the 7800 would even come close due to its backward compatibility with the 2600, which made it immediately a compelling purchase. I'd rather have a backward-compatible system with tons of older games and a piss-poor platform library than a system with solely a piss-poor platform library.

Edited March 15, 2007 by vanadium

[Trip_Cannon]

On another note, I find it laughable that people blame Atari management for all the Jaguar's problems. I will admit that they did rush a lot of games out, and they were a bit naive, if anything. But you have to consider the size of Atari at the time. By 1993, when the Jaguar was first pushed out the door, their workforce was down well below 1000. I believe the old SEC filings placed them around 400 employees. Their assets at the time were around $35 million in cash and some change held in securities. They didn't even own a building at that point (just leases). Compare that with the original Playstation launch, which Sony dedicated $100 million in North American marketing alone, and you can see Atari had no hope.

 

Sam Tramiel? Is that you?