Are the bit wars really dead.

[ATARI7800fan]

I have noticed on many comparison videos on YouTube comparing games that were on the PC engine/TurboGrafx, Genesis, and SNES that there is at least one person who starts to bring up bits and how the TurboGrafx is actually 8-bit just because its CPU is not 16-bit. Brick wall Which I find aggravating and strange seeing as consoles since the PS1 have relied on GPU's just like how the TurboGrafx did. consoles these days run off of 32-64 bit CPU's so by there thinking modern consoles are still 32-64 bit which makes no sense it is the GPU that matters right? What are other people's thoughts on this. Thanks for your time.

[Pilsner73]

I think the bit wars are dead per se, I doubt most people even know what bits their 360/PS3/Wii are at. Seems they more care about the movie like experience (HD, 3D, surround sound) and live motion interface.

[StoneAgeGamer]

I think the Dreamcast was the last system to really advertise its bits (128) as a selling point.

[+bennybingo]

The PS3 just "BIT" the big one, with regards to protecting consumer privacy...does that count???

[AtariLeaf]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

[ATARI7800fan]

Do you guys think people are warranted calling the PC engine 8-bit just because of its CPU while it does have a 16-bit GPU or is that just nonsense. Also bennybingo that does count.

[ATARI7800fan]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

I agree, unluckily enough though the spec part still seems to go on today with people that say none of the Wii games are fun because they look worse and because the system is not strong enough to be considered part of the next gen(this generation).

[AtariLeaf]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

I agree, unluckily enough though the spec part still seems to go on today with people that say none of the Wii games are fun because they look worse and because the system is not strong enough to be considered part of the next gen(this generation).

 

That's ironic, to me personally anyway, as I see the Wii as the system with games that appeal to me the most.

[Algus]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

 

I agree now. When I was a kid though, man the Book of Nintendo had me convinced that it mattered. It sure was an interesting experience when I started collecting in college and discovered how many awesome consoles and games were out there that didn't have the Nintendo stamp on them.

[AtariLeaf]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

 

I agree now. When I was a kid though, man the Book of Nintendo had me convinced that it mattered. It sure was an interesting experience when I started collecting in college and discovered how many awesome consoles and games were out there that didn't have the Nintendo stamp on them.

 

Yep, That's just it too. Its not us - the consumers - who make this a big deal, but like all advertising, we're fed to believe that it matters.

[Emehr]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

I agree, unluckily enough though the spec part still seems to go on today with people that say none of the Wii games are fun because they look worse and because the system is not strong enough to be considered part of the next gen(this generation).

Who are these "people" that say a game can't be fun because it looks like it's from a previous generation? That's like the worst argument I've ever heard.

 

As for the bit wars...they're dead. It was market-speak and didn't accurately portray the quality of the games. They might as well be arguing console color schemes.

[SlowCoder]

That's ironic, to me personally anyway, as I see the Wii as the system with games that appeal to me the most.

 

My son is always asking me what my favorite music/game/restaurant/store/etc. is. My answer is always "whatever I'm in the mood for at the time". So on any particular evening my "favorite" game may be on the PS2, PS3, Wii, or one of my older consoles. But I will say the Wii is the one I consider my "just sit back and relax for an easy game experience" console. The PS2 or PS3 is my "get my anger on" console.

[Rex Dart]

The Bit Wars have been over since the 90's.

[DracIsBack]

Anyone remember when people would refer to the 2600 as a "4bit system" because of the later 'bit wars"?

[raskar42]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

 

whoever dies with the most bits wins.

[Seob]

We'll to some it never has ended. Was at a friend the other day. And he kept asking what console was better hardware wise. I kept telling him that it didn't matter. It's all about the gameplay. But he kept asking.

[+Random Terrain]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

I agree now. When I was a kid though, man the Book of Nintendo had me convinced that it mattered. It sure was an interesting experience when I started collecting in college and discovered how many awesome consoles and games were out there that didn't have the Nintendo stamp on them.

Did you also play it loud? If you did and need a hearing aid now, you can probably sue Nintendo.

[toptenmaterial]

Anyone remember when people would refer to the 2600 as a "4bit system" because of the later 'bit wars"?

 

Yes. Although it seems silly, I understand why this classification was made in terms of discerning a time or generation, even if the "4" isn't really based on anything.

 

The bit was are bs and always have been. The INTV was 16 bit, but how does it stack up to the SNES? The GBA is 32bit, the same as the PS3. I believe that the N64, Gamecube and Wii are all 64 bit, but each one is superior in performance to the last. So much for "do the math"!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aEsvcQSjlI

[sheath]

The bit wars are dead because the idea lost its marketing power. Same thing as the megahertz wars on PCs, or the "core wars". It has always been just a way to catch peoples interest. I liked this sort of salesmanship better when it actually applied to a generational leap, rather than an incremental thing that might do one thing the other cant.

 

Researching consumer products is way too time costly these days, and nobody, nobody, considers how long something will last in their reviews. I guess the brave new world likes to waste money on repurchasing the same thing every year.

[Zing]

The CPU is irrelevant on modern systems. The bottleneck is now the GPU. Most GPUs of the same generation are reasonably equivalent in terms of functionality. I'm sure we won't be seeing any form of bit wars ever again.

 

The CPU did matter in the pre-3D days as it handled most or all functions in software. The data bus was an easy method of guessing which system had more advanced features. We can see from the Nintendo 64 that it isn't always accurate. Although, I suspect the Nintendo was 64 bit more to satisfy their deal with Rambus than for true performance.

[+Random Terrain]

Dude 1: "We have more polygons, bitch!"

 

Dude 2: "We have better shadows!"

 

Dude 1: "Our water looks more realistic!"

 

Dude 2: "Just look at our clouds!"

 

Dude 1: "Screw your clouds! Look at our smoke and fog! You lose, bitch!"

 

Dude 2: "What about clothing? Yours looks like it's made out of plastic."

 

Dude 1: "We still have more polygons, so suck it!"

[AtariLeaf]

 

Dude 2: "What about clothing? Yours looks like it's made out of plastic."

 

 

Hey! Recycling is cool!

[ATARI7800fan]

I never understood the idea of bit wars. If a game is fun, I don't care what the systems specs are.

I agree, unluckily enough though the spec part still seems to go on today with people that say none of the Wii games are fun because they look worse and because the system is not strong enough to be considered part of the next gen(this generation).

Who are these "people" that say a game can't be fun because it looks like it's from a previous generation? That's like the worst argument I've ever heard.

 

As for the bit wars...they're dead. It was market-speak and didn't accurately portray the quality of the games. They might as well be arguing console color schemes.

 

mostly from more modern games like my younger brothers friends who say that if a game looks bad it is not fun, in there opinion a game has to be fun to play and look good to be considered good. They say the Wii is just a babies toy because it can't handle the games that are on the PS3 and that it looks last gen. Same thing with the PSP versus DS.

[ATARI7800fan]

The CPU is irrelevant on modern systems. The bottleneck is now the GPU. Most GPUs of the same generation are reasonably equivalent in terms of functionality. I'm sure we won't be seeing any form of bit wars ever again.

 

The CPU did matter in the pre-3D days as it handled most or all functions in software. The data bus was an easy method of guessing which system had more advanced features. We can see from the Nintendo 64 that it isn't always accurate. Although, I suspect the Nintendo was 64 bit more to satisfy their deal with Rambus than for true performance.

Which I find strange the people used to make comments about the PC engine for saying it was 16-bit even though it had a 8-bit CPU, that's just like how modern systems with the GPU being what is most important. They were just ahead of there time.

[+wood_jl]

This thread can't go on without the mention of "Blast Processing" on the Genesis HA HA HA.

 

Also, "ACM Graphics" on SNES. Sounds more cryptic and mysterious than "pre-rendered."