A top ten worst console list that doesn't suck!(finally)

[Segataritensoftii]

Every hardcore gamer may have seen these at least once. Those lists that go on about how incredibly crappy these systems are and why they shouldn't have been released. But there is a problem with these lists. Every single one of them are crap. Chances are, if you find one of these lists, you're going to disagree with almost everything on it. This list is different. This has been compiled through more or less extensive research, and the desire to do it right. I won't add descriptions, because with my writing skills, they would probably suck anyway. So here goes the list of the TRUE top ten eleven perpetually changing in number worst game systems ever made.

update: The Hyperscan has been kicked off the top spot as worst game system ever. ALL HAIL ACTION MAX! You're next, Jaguar & 32x!

update: true to my word, I have banished Jaguar and 32x from the list. Only the truly bad survive.

update: Game Boy Color in no more on the honorable mentions list!

update: due to a brilliant post describing how great the Creativision was, it is no longer on the list.

 

11. Gizmondo(An awesome media player with really crap games)

10. CD-i

9. Game.com

8. Watara Supervision

7. Memorex VIS

6. Pippin

5. RDI Halcyon(If purgatory exists, then it is a world that forces you to play Thayer's Quest and NFL Football until you snap. Those were the only two games that came out on this crappy laserdisc based system.)

4. R-Zone

3. RCA Studio II

2. Mattel Hyperscan (The "Hyper" in the name is probably to say how quickly it lost it's popularity. )

1. Action Max (It plays VHS tapes, for crying out loud. VHS TAPES!)

 

Honorable mentions: Atari XEGS(Nobody wants to play Mario Bros. or Choplifter anymore. WAKE UP TO 1987, ATARI!), Playdia, PC-FX(any system that has 90% dating sims has to suck. I mean, Where's the variety?)

 

So, what did you think? Wasn't that a bit more reputable than most of those other lists out there? If anyone can offer me suggestions or corrections, that would be greatly appreciated. Also keep in mind that I've never even played most of these systems before, so if anyone can tell me where I can get the Systems and their games on the cheap, that would also be appreciated.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Segataritensoftii

[ApolloBoy]

Why are the Jaguar and 32X on there? They aren't that bad.

[+davidcalgary29]

I agree. Of all the systems that I own (both modern and classic), my Jag gets the second-most playtime. This certainly wouldn't be true if most of the games weren't fun to play.

 

Moral: all top-10 lists suck.

[Punisher5.0]

The only one's I've played on that list is the Jaguar and 32X and I like them both but I can understand why they would be on there. It's good to see that Jaguar was only number 10 though.....when I first saw the title I figured it would have been around #3. What about the Virtual Boy?

[Segataritensoftii]

I agree. Of all the systems that I own (both modern and classic), my Jag gets the second-most playtime. This certainly wouldn't be true if most of the games weren't fun to play.

 

Moral: all top-10 lists suck.

Well, there weren't enough truly bad systems in the market to make this as good a list as it could've been. Tell you what, I'll make this into a top 7. Then you'll agree with me on everything. I'd put the Gamate on here, but I don't have enough information to truly judge it yet.

 

Did you agree with me on the Hyperscan, though? I tried as hard as I could with this list.

[vdub_bobby]

A "worst" console should have at least these characteristics:

 

1. Bad physical design. I.e., it is uncomfortable, difficult, or inconvenient to use.

2. Low quality. It should break easily or work inconsistently. If it is also expensive, bonus!

3. Outdated audiovisuals and/or controls. It should have fewer buttons than the competition. It should have buttons on the console that other, contemporary consoles have on the controller. It should be digital while the competition is analog. It should have worse graphics and sound than its competition. And don't argue specs, the differences should show up obviously in the games. Humiliating screenshots should be used whenever possible.

4. Bad software selection. It should have few titles and entire genres should be poorly represented, if at all.

5. Presentation. It should be poorly marketed. It should have a crappy pack-in game. It should have few launch titles. It should have no "killer app."

 

Let's take the XEGS as an example:

1. The keyboard cable is too short and the joystick ports are difficult to access, being angled and hidden. Also, the keyboard does not have a great feel (mushy).

2. It is fairly well put together.

3. Can we say 8-year-old technology? Compared to the competition (NES, SMS), this thing is a joke. The graphics were noticeably worse:

The sound wasn't much worse than the NES, but it was worse. And have a look at the controllers: That's right, the same controller, with a single button, that was released with the 2600 ten years earlier.

4. This is a mixed bag. There were only about 30 games released for the XEGS - but it was compatible with the vast majority of 800/XL/XE games released over the previous 10 years. However, it can't be considered much of a selling point when most of your library is 5+ years old - which also meant that new genres were utterly dominated by the competition. The XEGS had almost no scrolling shooters of any note, nothing that could really compare with Zelda, nothing that could compare with Metroid, nothing that could compare with Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. Let alone games like Super Mario Bros. 3, Crystalis, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, Tecmo Bowl, Castlevania, Contra, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!, Baseball Stars, etc.. The XEGS held its own in the genre of early 1980s coin-op ports, though.

5. Look at the stupid thing: Pastels? Outdated hardware, with limited software, released two years after the competition? Join that with quite possibly the worst pack-in games of all time, Bug Hunt and Flight Simulator 2, and I'm surprised anybody bought it at all.

 

Conclusion? The XEGS is among the worst consoles of all time.

[Segataritensoftii]

The only one's I've played on that list is the Jaguar and 32X and I like them both but I can understand why they would be on there. It's good to see that Jaguar was only number 10 though.....when I first saw the title I figured it would have been around #3. What about the Virtual Boy?

Too high a percentage of awesome games to qualify. I'm only judging the systems based on how low a percentage of good games there are. The only way to truly judge a system is by it's games. Not by how much of a weird and terrible idea it was or how well the controllers worked. The 5200 is an exception to this rule, however. Maybe that should be an honorable mention. As the Angry Video Game Nerd has said: "What's the point of owning a f*cking console if you aren't able to f*cking play it?"

Edited April 30, 2007 by Segataritensoftii

[Jess Ragan]

Why are the Jaguar and 32X on there? They aren't that bad.

 

Yes, they ARE that bad. Especially the 32X. Did you know that the Sega Saturn was planned to be backward compatible with the Sega Genesis? Sega decided not to do this because they were afraid it would bite into sales of the 32X, an upgrade that should never have been made in the FIRST PLACE!!! That gives me one more reason to loathe the system. If the Saturn had backward compatibility and the 32X had never existed, you can guarantee that the console war of the late 1990's would have gone much differently...

 

JR

[ApolloBoy]

Why are the Jaguar and 32X on there? They aren't that bad.

 

Yes, they ARE that bad. Especially the 32X. Did you know that the Sega Saturn was planned to be backward compatible with the Sega Genesis? Sega decided not to do this because they were afraid it would bite into sales of the 32X, an upgrade that should never have been made in the FIRST PLACE!!! That gives me one more reason to loathe the system. If the Saturn had backward compatibility and the 32X had never existed, you can guarantee that the console war of the late 1990's would have gone much differently...

 

JR

 

True, but at least the 32X had some good games going for it. Star Wars Arcade and Virtua Racing Deluxe to name a few...

[Segataritensoftii]

A "worst" console should have at least these characteristics:

 

1. Bad physical design. I.e., it is uncomfortable, difficult, or inconvenient to use.

2. Low quality. It should break easily or work inconsistently. If it is also expensive, bonus!

3. Outdated audiovisuals and/or controls. It should have fewer buttons than the competition. It should have buttons on the console that other, contemporary consoles have on the controller. It should be digital while the competition is analog. It should have worse graphics and sound than its competition. And don't argue specs, the differences should show up obviously in the games. Humiliating screenshots should be used whenever possible.

4. Bad software selection. It should have few titles and entire genres should be poorly represented, if at all.

5. Presentation. It should be poorly marketed. It should have a crappy pack-in game. It should have few launch titles. It should have no "killer app."

 

Let's take the XEGS as an example:

1. The keyboard cable is too short and the joystick ports are difficult to access, being angled and hidden. Also, the keyboard does not have a great feel (mushy).

2. It is fairly well put together.

3. Can we say 8-year-old technology? Compared to the competition (NES, SMS), this thing is a joke. The graphics were noticeably worse:

The sound wasn't much worse than the NES, but it was worse. And have a look at the controllers: That's right, the same controller, with a single button, that was released with the 2600 ten years earlier.

4. This is a mixed bag. There were only about 30 games released for the XEGS - but it was compatible with the vast majority of 800/XL/XE games released over the previous 10 years. However, it can't be considered much of a selling point when most of your library is 5+ years old - which also meant that new genres were utterly dominated by the competition. The XEGS had almost no scrolling shooters of any note, nothing that could really compare with Zelda, nothing that could compare with Metroid, nothing that could compare with Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. Let alone games like Super Mario Bros. 3, Crystalis, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, Tecmo Bowl, Castlevania, Contra, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!, Baseball Stars, etc.. The XEGS held its own in the genre of early 1980s coin-op ports, though.

5. Look at the stupid thing: Pastels? Outdated hardware, with limited software, released two years after the competition? Join that with quite possibly the worst pack-in games of all time, Bug Hunt and Flight Simulator 2, and I'm surprised anybody bought it at all.

 

Conclusion? The XEGS is among the worst consoles of all time.

The Mattel Hyperscan has nearly all those attributes. And the ones it does have, it does much worse than the XEGS ever could. Refer to this thread.

[supercat]

And have a look at the controllers: That's right, the same controller, with a single button, that was released with the 2600 ten years earlier.

 

Even the stock 2600 controller is better than the 5200 or 7800 controllers. And third-party alternatives were better yet.

 

The only really good thing I can say for the 7800 is that it plays 2600 games. Were it not for that, I think it'd make this list pretty easily. Not sure why the animosity toward the XEGS. Sure it's a repackaging of the 8-bit series, but if it's cheaper and runs the same games, what's the problem? Better IMHO than the 5200 which was deliberately incompatible.

[8th lutz]

On that list, I have only played the 32x. The system itself does have good game like Mortal Kombat 2, Virtual Fighter, Virtua Racing Deluxe to name a couple good games for the system. The problem for the game system was, a good amount of games released were released on the genesis or the snes 4 or 5 months berfore the 32x versions were at least. The only difference between the 32x and the genesis versions of the games were the graphics. This did get solved later on for the system, but it was to late.

 

It was system that shouldn't have been made. It does make it a good choice to be on the list, but the Xegs should've been the choice to be on the list, but it is a toss up. I have no problem with the 8 bit computer line. What I problem with was the timing of turning the late part of the 8 bit computer line as game console.

 

I remember seeing it in Sears Christmas Wish Book catalogs in the late 1980's for $179.00 at least. I think I saw it in the 1987 or 1988 Sears Wishbook over $200.00 for a game console. At the time it was a big deal, it was more expensive the the sms, or the nes were. While I never owned the system, it was as almost as outdated as the 2600 jr was at the new in the late 80's by marketing it against the nes. Having the Xegs as new game console to compete against the nes was not a smart idea. The only difference between and the older versions of atari's 8 bit computer was the memory.

Edited April 30, 2007 by 8th lutz

[kevincal]

5200, 7200, NUON, PC-FX, Turbo Duo, Turbo CD, Virtual Boy, N-Gage, TG-16, SegaMaster System, Neo Geo CD, Odyssey 2, Neo Geo Pocket Color could all be considered for the list if it were top 25, imo. I know I'll get flamed for some of the systems I mentioned. I also think the Jaguar and 32X shouldn't be in the top 10...

[8th lutz]

Even the stock 2600 controller is better than the 5200 or 7800 controllers. And third-party alternatives were better yet.

 

The only really good thing I can say for the 7800 is that it plays 2600 games. Were it not for that, I think it'd make this list pretty easily. Not sure why the animosity toward the XEGS. Sure it's a repackaging of the 8-bit series, but if it's cheaper and runs the same games, what's the problem? Better IMHO than the 5200 which was deliberately incompatible.

The problem was the the xegs was advertised as a game console and clamed to beter then the nes. It was released 4 or 5 years to late. The price was not cheap for a game console after the crash at the time. It was either $179.99 or 219.99. It was the only type of a package the xgs had unlike the nes, with its power pad with the game system package, and the sms 3d glasses with the game system. It was more expensive then the standard nes and sms. You would expect it to have the same graphics for the price and the type of games it had. While the xegs was able to play the same games, it was not was consumers wanted in 1987, 1988, or in 1989 for the style of games it played for the most part.

 

It suffered what the 7800 suffered in 1986 and in 1987: precrash games being released, when games like Super Mario Bros., Metroid, etc. Lets compared the best graphical games for the 7800 to the xegs.

[supercat]

5200, 7200, NUON, PC-FX, Turbo Duo, Turbo CD, Virtual Boy, N-Gage, TG-16, SegaMaster System, Neo Geo CD, Odyssey 2, Neo Geo Pocket Color could all be considered for the list if it were top 25, imo. I know I'll get flamed for some of the systems I mentioned. I also think the Jaguar and 32X shouldn't be in the top 10...

 

To my mind, a question should be "Is there any way (including price) in which the system was better than others that preceded it?" If one eliminates all systems that had at least one really good unique title, I wonder how many systems would remain in the "worst" list?

Edited April 30, 2007 by supercat

[8th lutz]

5200, 7200, NUON, PC-FX, Turbo Duo, Turbo CD, Virtual Boy, N-Gage, TG-16, SegaMaster System, Neo Geo CD, Odyssey 2, Neo Geo Pocket Color could all be considered for the list if it were top 25, imo. I know I'll get flamed for some of the systems I mentioned. I also think the Jaguar and 32X shouldn't be in the top 10...

In my mind it, in order to make in a worst list, it has to be based unique tiles, along with how good was the system World Wide along with the time it was released, but at the same, the system has to have less then 5 good games then system. I wonder how many consoles would make on the worst game list the?

Edited April 30, 2007 by 8th lutz

[Lemmi]

whoa look at all the color on the add reply page now

 

 

ive only played the CDi, 32X, and Jag from that list

i would use the 5200 and Channel F to knock off the CDi and Jaguar from that list other than that i wouldnt change a thing

[supercat]

i would use the ... Channel F to knock off the CDi and Jaguar from that list

 

Come now, at the time the Channel F debuted it blew the socks off its competitors. It didn't retain its edge for long, but I hardly think a console that successfully started a revolution(*) deserves to be in a "worst-10" list.

 

(*)Yes, I know the Atari 2600 was in the pipeline when the Channel F debuted, but I believe the Channel F was the first such machine to establish the 'razors and blades' marketing concept. Though come to think of it, had the razor companies really taken off with that concept yet, or was everyone still using the interchangeable standard-size razor blades?

[BassGuitari]

Any "worst-of" list that includes the Atari 5200 is complete bullshit to begin with.

[supercat]

Any "worst-of" list that includes the Atari 5200 is complete bullshit to begin with.

 

How did the 5200 compare in price with the A400?

 

Though I guess if one's going to attack the 5200 the Max Machine would seem another logical target. Some Max cartridges apparently included an extra 2K of RAM (to bring the total to 4K) but the whole thing still seems rather silly.

[ApolloBoy]

How did the 5200 compare in price with the A400?

 

IIRC, the 5200 was significantly cheaper than the 400.

[nester]

Hmm, well there haven't really been that many systems to begin with. I love my Jaguar, but I certainly can't think of 10 systems that were worse. I'm not even sure if the simi systems like Pippin and VIS even belong in the same category. Maybe in 20 years or so we can make a more accurate list.

[JB]

And have a look at the controllers: That's right, the same controller, with a single button, that was released with the 2600 ten years earlier.

 

Even the stock 2600 controller is better than the 5200 or 7800 controllers. And third-party alternatives were better yet.

The stock 2600 stick is among the worst controller designs ever.

ESPECIALLY for a system released in the 80s, where damn near everything required more than one button.

[liveinabin]

Where is the Amstrad GX4000 in that list? Surely the worst atrocity ever committed to plastic.

[bomberpunk]

i must be 1 out of like 5 people in the world that adore the Virtual Boy.

 

more rarities for us.