Lesser Known Consoles - What if You Got One Growing Up

[empsolo]

But the N64 could have given us a great Metroid game, We don't need to get into CD vs. cart, but Symphony of the Night is arguably the most beloved Castlevania game ever, and it was 2D gameplay on a 3D oriented console. Nintendo has the benefit of not having to follow the regular conventions because people would love to pay $30 for a new 8-bit Mario game, if not more. Metroid 64 would have been the 4th Metroid 2D exploration game in like 14 years, it's not like people could grow tired of a quality game at that rate.

 

Nintendo has always dominated the handheld market, and while it needed quality games on the 3DS, that's a different story altogether, and games can coexist with one another. We all have a soft spot in our hearts for Nintendo and that's fine, but if any other console pulled the shit they have with first party titles not getting adequate games, there'd be an outrage. That's part of what I was saying earlier about Nintendo fanboys, they criticize the shit out of everything but they don't hold their own favorite company accountable for the same shit, which makes those people totally useless in terms of their opinons. Like it or not, there is no excuse for fanboyism in credible video game history. History books aren't written by fanboys, they're written by people who gather facts. So all the Youtubers out there who act like they have some sort of journalistic integrity would and should be laughed at.

 

The yin to the yang is Sega was the badasses and Nintendo played it safe, that's why the Genesis sold so many consoles. It would make no sense for Sega to just copy Nintendo's every move, that's why they did what they did. People take it to heart when it really was the only option. A smart business creates an alternative. The Sega Master System really didn't create an alternative and it failed because you can't duplicate the home runs the NES had and it tried to just be NES lite. With the Genesis, it was different, and that's why it was successful. In the industry, the Xbox and Gamecube faltered while the PS2 became perhaps the greatest console in history, pound for pound. The 360 got a year jumpstart and PS3 was a $700 system here in Canada, unreasonable, and it took Sony a long time to catch up. With the success of the 360 on their side, Microsoft tried to shoe-in digital games, mandatory Kinect and no used game sales to which Sony realized they needed to be the alternative that took away those restrictions and be in the favor of the people, and now PS4 is kicking everyone's ass. It's all about being with the times, that's it, that's all. And then we have Nintendo who can't give me a Metroid or Zelda game three years after I bought a Wii U on launch day when the only reason to buy their console is for the IPs. It's really impossible to defend that chicanery. If it was anyone but Nintendo, we would never excuse the $300 we spent on the Wii U in hopes the NX is better, we'd feel shafted and not want to deal with that company again. Sega is shit on to this day for not fully supporting its consoles, yet Nintendo has done the same with the Wii U and people want to sweep it under the rug. That's not fair. And the most insulting thing is Atari was grasping at straws and struggling and failed, Sega did too much too fast and failed, but Nintendo has all the money in the world and they still choose not to deliver what fans paid for. Nintendo is the reason 8-bit games are so beloved, and in the height of the resurgence in popularity, they haven't made official retro sequels or anything of the ilk. It's all a missed opportunity. If the PS4 passed on that niche, it'd be understandable with their goal of forcefeeding mainstream ideas down a willing consumer gullet, but Nintendo's home console is fledgling, it needs all the help it can get, and that help is there, but not used. And if Nintendo isn't a kiddy console (Lord knows I hate that term, but hear me out), why in the blue hell do they not put some of their enormous riches into making exclusive M-rated games? They're complacent.

This is all true for the most part with some minor quibbles. One being Nintendo wanted the N64 to be a showcase of the how Nintendo's top IP can handle the shift to 3D hence why Nintendo ended holding up the development for a new Metroid series. Nintendo ended up releasing Metroid Fusion as a GBA launch title while releasing Metroid Prime as a GCN launch title later on. At any rate Nintendo's big problem is that they were caught supporting two systems and couldn't equally give both systems attention without suffering on both ends, Nintendo went with saving the 3DS because it seemed like the logical move. The NX most likely will unify the handheld and consoles so that we don't get the droughts we did with the wii-u.

 

Now we are still getting Zelda U, but it most likely will be the swan song given that Nintendo is moving on to a system that better suits Nintendo's vision. Yes, I can see where the comparisons to the Saturn are coming from. But from what I am looking at though, aside from superficial similarities, the fundamental difference I think is that Nintendo still puts out quality games for both consoles despite the lag in sales and actually put a little effort into making the Wii-U a joy for the people who own it. Sega, on the otherhand, put out some great games for the Saturn but kept a great number of 2D RPG and fighting game franchises in Japan and instead tried thier mediocre hand at 3D instead of putting a good quality effort for the American consumer. I think, though what really burned people with Sega was not just the fact Sega ended up putting out a not so will received product but the way in which Sega handled it.

 

I mean you had Bernie Stolar saying that the Saturn wasn't their console going forward, despite asking Sega fans eat another 300 dollar console that SoA hadn't fully invested themselves in. Furthermore, you had Sega churning a lot of low quality titles for both systems having no Sonic game that could sell systems. (This is one of my bigger problems with Sega at the time, they put so much effort into the Sonic mascot that they neglected other IPs. Something Nintendo didn't do by not sticking with just Mario). Plus both the 32x and the Saturn had a combined shelf life of little over three years and people ended up feeling like Sega was phoning it in.

 

And then there was the way Sega was so cavalier about changing systems. I mean they would announce out of the blue that they would dropping support for the 32x one and the Saturn the next and then promising some better down the line...maybe. Sega was believing that the fans that Sega earned through the Mega Drive would stick with Sega as an alternative to Nintendo or the untried and untested Sony even after being insulted. Say what you will, Nintendo by contrast, has been very upfront as to why the wii-u failed and why Nintendo had the droughts it's in. And they have been very upfront that they recognize that they need a new system to better compete with Sony and Microsoft and to bring a console that can better showcase what Nintendo can offer. They also differ from Sega in that will continue to support the wii-u so as to make the transition to the NX seem more palatable. It seems that most Nintendo fans and even fans of the other consoles seem open to what Nintendo can deliver going forward. So there is hope.

 

Though I will say if the NX fails it's over. Period. Nintendo will end up in the dustbin of history as far as a first party console manufacturer and developer. Which will be sad as Nintendo represents the last of the pre-crash video game companies still making hardware. It's not just the legacy of Hiroshi Yamauchi and his decision to go into the video game market that's at stake. In a lot of ways Nintendo still carries the torch handed down to it by the legacy of Atari, by the legacy of Coleco, of the legacy of Mattel and Magnavox. If Nintendo goes down, it truly will be an end of an era.

[bretthorror]

This is all true for the most part with some minor quibbles. One being Nintendo wanted the N64 to be a showcase of the how Nintendo's top IP can handle the shift to 3D hence why Nintendo ended holding up the development for a new Metroid series. Nintendo ended up releasing Metroid Fusion as a GBA launch title while releasing Metroid Prime as a GCN launch title later on. At any rate Nintendo's big problem is that they were caught supporting two systems and couldn't equally give both systems attention without suffering on both ends, Nintendo went with saving the 3DS because it seemed like the logical move. The NX most likely will unify the handheld and consoles so that we don't get the droughts we did with the wii-u.

 

Now we are still getting Zelda U, but it most likely will be the swan song given that Nintendo is moving on to a system that better suits Nintendo's vision. Yes, I can see where the comparisons to the Saturn are coming from. But from what I am looking at though, aside from superficial similarities, the fundamental difference I think is that Nintendo still puts out quality games for both consoles despite the lag in sales and actually put a little effort into making the Wii-U a joy for the people who own it. Sega, on the otherhand, put out some great games for the Saturn but kept a great number of 2D RPG and fighting game franchises in Japan and instead tried thier mediocre hand at 3D instead of putting a good quality effort for the American consumer. I think, though what really burned people with Sega was not just the fact Sega ended up putting out a not so will received product but the way in which Sega handled it.

 

I mean you had Bernie Stolar saying that the Saturn wasn't their console going forward, despite asking Sega fans eat another 300 dollar console that SoA hadn't fully invested themselves in. Furthermore, you had Sega churning a lot of low quality titles for both systems having no Sonic game that could sell systems. (This is one of my bigger problems with Sega at the time, they put so much effort into the Sonic mascot that they neglected other IPs. Something Nintendo didn't do by not sticking with just Mario). Plus both the 32x and the Saturn had a combined shelf life of little over three years and people ended up feeling like Sega was phoning it in.

 

And then there was the way Sega was so cavalier about changing systems. I mean they would announce out of the blue that they would dropping support for the 32x one and the Saturn the next and then promising some better down the line...maybe. Sega was believing that the fans that Sega earned through the Mega Drive would stick with Sega as an alternative to Nintendo or the untried and untested Sony even after being insulted. Say what you will, Nintendo by contrast, has been very upfront as to why the wii-u failed and why Nintendo had the droughts it's in. And they have been very upfront that they recognize that they need a new system to better compete with Sony and Microsoft and to bring a console that can better showcase what Nintendo can offer. They also differ from Sega in that will continue to support the wii-u so as to make the transition to the NX seem more palatable. It seems that most Nintendo fans and even fans of the other consoles seem open to what Nintendo can deliver going forward. So there is hope.

 

Though I will say if the NX fails it's over. Period. Nintendo will end up in the dustbin of history as far as a first party console manufacturer and developer. Which will be sad as Nintendo represents the last of the pre-crash video game companies still making hardware. It's not just the legacy of Hiroshi Yamauchi and his decision to go into the video game market that's at stake. In a lot of ways Nintendo still carries the torch handed down to it by the legacy of Atari, by the legacy of Coleco, of the legacy of Mattel and Magnavox. If Nintendo goes down, it truly will be an end of an era.

 

I just can't figure out why they don't hire some more people to make more games for the Wii U and not leave it kind of hanging dry - ironically, what Sega kept doing over and over again and rightfully get shit on for it. I know you can't just pop great games out of thin air, but there has to be a way they can do more than what they are doing. NES Remix is a perfect example of a couple games that got people talking and they literally didn't have to do anything to make the game. The Dr. Mario online game is another example of what they could do. I just hate that I have no idea what's going to come out next on the Wii U and can't fathom how Nintendo isn't doing something to keep games rolling on the system. I'm not even saying the Wii U has a bad library, it's just their games unfortunately lack replay value of an online shooter or a big co-op experience like Destiny. Once you're done with Super Mario 3D World, you could definitely play it again and again, but the mentality of today is move on to something else to beat. But I'm not even certain I'm right here because my mind says, well, there's no reason not to have a Wii U Punch-Out game because why would you sit on that IP? But if Metroid Other M only moved 500 000 units, that means a small amount of hardcore Nintendo fans like me were only interested. But that game also came well into the Wii's lifespan when people had stopped caring about the console. That's another reason I hate Zelda Wii U taking so long to come out, then when it finally does, people are going to have moved on and the game can't sell systems because everyone knows the NX is coming. That and if Zelda Wii U does launch next year, what are the odds we get a new Zelda game for NX any time soon? So the cycle could begin over again.

 

And you're spot on with the NX, if it is what we think it is, finally there should be no lack of games on a Nintendo console because of portable and in home becoming one. I hope for a change they pack in a headset and have normal online friends lists like every other system, though. I was so disheartened when Nintendo Land launched with no online multiplayer and I was just like, what the fuck? For the love of God it's 2012 by then, at the very least you could have caught up to 2004 by now. That's kind of my issue with the NX because Nintendo always finds a way to alienate my gaming interests on their consoles. Like why was Wii Sports not online? I don't care if they're trying to encourage real in person multiplayer, why alienate people? Ship your shit with a fucking headset and a real structure to have a friends list so that third party games can come to your system instead of shutting the doors on them before they can even give it a chance. I know they're getting better with this, but I lack the faith that they will hit it out of the park with the NX like they could because they'll do something that negates their "sure thing" like they always do. In the new 2D Mario game there's four players, but no online. Again, why? Why must they prevent me from being able to play with a friend across town or find someone to play with if I have no one to? Hyrule Warriors is co-op... no online in 2014! I understand their position of being the alternative with lower tech, but why they go out of their way to alienate potential consumers is beyond me. Making your games less enjoyable by including only bare minimum online experience isn't being a good alternative.

[CatPix]

What I personally don't get with Nintendo is their abysmal lack of communication.

 

I see ads for video games on every major channel here. Except for Nintendo. Maybe 1 out of 10 video gaming related ad is for a Nintendo game.

And It feels like that they only have two games for sale : Mario Kart 8, and Smash Bros Brawl. Oh, and Splatoon, sometime.

But there is never any advert that is based on the consoles like Sony and Microsoft do.

They never advertise 3rd party game on their system.

And people's perception of their systems is also lacking hard.

I've got multiple people asking me 'but you had a DS, why buying a 3DS?" They though that the 3DS was the same console than a DS, but with the 3DS screen. So there is actually a large pool of people that might buy 3DS consoles, but doesn't because they aren't aware that it's a different system. And are probably confused as well by the 2DS.

Some people also think that the Wii U is just a redesigned Wii with HDMI output.

 

Even worse, when I browse through the e-shop, I swear, even if I just go through "all" the games, I find only about 50 games. Don't tell me there is only 50 games on the Wii U and on the 3DS.

 

Interesting point on the multiplayer. I can't care enough for online, so I never noticed, but I guess it's something that Nintendo should work on.

Edited December 5, 2015 by CatPix

[empsolo]

What I personally don't get with Nintendo is their abysmal lack of communication.

 

I see ads for video games on every major channel here. Except for Nintendo. Maybe 1 out of 10 video gaming related ad is for a Nintendo game.

And It feels like that they only have two games for sale : Mario Kart 8, and Smash Bros Brawl. Oh, and Splatoon, sometime.

But there is never any advert that is based on the consoles like Sony and Microsoft do.

They never advertise 3rd party game on their system.

And people's perception of their systems is also lacking hard.

I've got multiple people asking me 'but you had a DS, why buying a 3DS?" They though that the 3DS was the same console than a DS, but with the 3DS screen. So there is actually a large pool of people that might buy 3DS consoles, but doesn't because they aren't aware that it's a different system. And are probably confused as well by the 2DS.

Some people also think that the Wii U is just a redesigned Wii with HDMI output.

 

Even worse, when I browse through the e-shop, I swear, even if I just go through "all" the games, I find only about 50 games. Don't tell me there is only 50 games on the Wii U and on the 3DS.

 

Interesting point on the multiplayer. I can't care enough for online, so I never noticed, but I guess it's something that Nintendo should work on.

 

Personally, I blame Reggie and NoA for being complete and utter idiots.

[bretthorror]

How many of us bought those Tiger LCD games or LCD games in general growing up? I had a Game Boy and can say I survived relatively unscathed, the only thing I bought was a used R-Zone for ten bucks and a Razor's Edge CD. I got a TMNT II one for Christmas, but they seemed to have been quite expensive for what they offered. I have amassed a little collection of them in recent years because the artwork is kinda neat and unlike carts, it was something I couldn't really emulate, so I got into them slightly. How the fuck those things lasted as long as they did though.

 

On the flipside, I'm more interested in who was buying the Coleco tabletops with the VFD displays. Those things were awesome. The color LCD Game & Watch ones as well, my cousin had a Donkey Kong Jr. and I thought it was the coolest thing. He sold it at our garage sale for $7. I begged my mom for it and thank God she let me get it because I may have been wrecked. I have a large collection of tabletops nowadays and I just find them really cool, obviously the color VFD ones are the ideal ones, but the odd LCD curio is pretty interesting. I have one called Copter Attack that actually has 2 player joysticks on it and branches out with wires so each player can hold, but when stationary it looks like a mini 2 player arcade when you snap it together. I'm sure the Coleco ones were more expensive than 2600 games, but what about the Radio Shack types? Surely someone out there must have picked one of those over a cart a time or two.

[gamecat80]

Everyone seems to like what they grew up with.....

 

First gaming system was a C-64 in the mid-80's. We were the only ones in our little neighborhood that had one. One family across the street had a Tandy computer and a kid up the street had an Atari (2600?) that my older bro played before we got our C-64.

Then in the summer of '88 we moved to another neighborhood and got an NES. Several other kids/families in the neighborhood had NES; one family had a SMS. Then later in 1990 or 1991 we got a TG-16CD, which was amazing for it's time. We were the only ones in our area and school that had one. Also got an Atari 7800 about the same time, as my own present. Even back then I could tell it wasn't on the level of our NES, but it was still fun with it's "old" arcade-style games. About a year or so later we got a SNES, which was our last family console. It was fun playing Mario Paint and Mario World. Soon after I entered high school and lost interest in video games until YEARS later after graduating from college. Been playing video games on-and-off for the last 5 or so years on various "retro" consoles.

 

 

With the Master System d-pad it feels like I need to be extra careful when making movements, lest I accidentally hit the pad diagonally. This is something I never had as a problem with my NES back in the day.

 

 

That's the reason why I pointed out the first Alex Kidd game. A game that came out about a few years after the release of Super Mario Bros in Japan and hadn't really learned the fact what made Mario great was the relatively easy controls to master early that you need to have perfected for later stages. Something that Sega didn't really learn until they had released Alex Kidd a second time that had corrected the button layout issue on the SMS 2.

 

What I am getting at is that the Master System is playable but it isn't fun to play. I don't like it when I feel I have to fight with the controls and now a controller on a standard first party game. I think it's the design issue that really hurt the Master System as a viable product in the United States and Canada as well as in Japan. I think had the Master System Controllers been better designed, it would had a better perception in the realm of consumer confidence. Both when Sega initially released the thing back in 1986 and as well as a better showing than the dismal showing that the Master System II suffered when it was released in 1990 on the eve of the SNES's North American debut.

 

 

Yeah, it's a combo of that and just how the games are programmed. Early SMS games like Alex Kidd may look good and have good layout/gameplay for their time, but they sure don't control well. Alex slips and slides all over the damn place, and the hit detection is terrible. And that is where the NES shines in comparison = tight, smooth controls with good hit detection. Most NES games just play/control very well and are fun to play.

[CatPix]

That is one clear and right argument here. Yes, I always found Alex Kidd's controls not as good as SMB, but not because of reversed buttons, because it's not as good.

Tho I'm not sure that "most games" play better on the NES. It might je be tho that I've been exposed to more recent SMS games where programming was improved.

Games like Castle of Illusion have great, tight controls. And games like Castlevania are a punishment to play with too goddam stiff controls

[empsolo]

That is one clear and right argument here. Yes, I always found Alex Kidd's controls not as good as SMB, but not because of reversed buttons, because it's not as good.

Tho I'm not sure that "most games" play better on the NES. It might je be tho that I've been exposed to more recent SMS games where programming was improved.

Games like Castle of Illusion have great, tight controls. And games like Castlevania are a punishment to play with too goddam stiff controls

But as I noted even the devs agree that Alexx Kidd kind of sucks from a control stand point.

[Retro-Z]

As a kid, I actually played on both the Sega Master System and the NES quite a bit. Personally, I think they are both pretty awesome, and some games are MUCH better on the SMS (for instance, check out the difference in Choplifter between the SMS and NES). There are other really nice titles for the SMS, with some favorites of mine being Ninja, Astro Warrior, Fantasy Zone, and Ys Vanished Omens. I never once saw the SMS as an inferior system.

 

In about 1992/93, our NES was replaced by a SNES, and the SMS seems to have disappeared at some point (sold in a garage sale, given to a family member, who knows...). I rocked that SNES up till we got a PS2 in 2002/2003. By that point, most everyone else had LONG since moved past the old SNES, but to be honest, I never once felt like the SNES was lacking. It was a great system that held up well for the types of games I played, and besides, all of my friends had the N64s, PS1s, Dreamcasts, etc. if I ever wanted to play on one. I also had quite a few games on an old 486 computer my father snagged from his work when they sold off some of their surplus equipment. That SNES and the 486 with Doom, Commander Keen, Descent, Warcraft, and a few other shareware games were all I needed for video gaming throughout basically all of the 90s.

 

In the end, I guess I'm just the type of person where it wouldn't have mattered what system I had. I mean seriously, my SNES setup had a Super Scope 6 with most of the compatible games made for it, and it was an absolute blast (though many people report how bad the Super Scope 6 was). I had fun with what was available, and enjoyed the heck out of it. Who cares what may have been the "hot setup" in 1989 when you are zipping through space and destroying an alien army in Astro Warrior, or in 1999 when you are enjoying the insane tunnels and awesome soundtrack of Descent?

[bretthorror]

As a kid, I actually played on both the Sega Master System and the NES quite a bit. Personally, I think they are both pretty awesome, and some games are MUCH better on the SMS (for instance, check out the difference in Choplifter between the SMS and NES). There are other really nice titles for the SMS, with some favorites of mine being Ninja, Astro Warrior, Fantasy Zone, and Ys Vanished Omens. I never once saw the SMS as an inferior system.

 

In about 1992/93, our NES was replaced by a SNES, and the SMS seems to have disappeared at some point (sold in a garage sale, given to a family member, who knows...). I rocked that SNES up till we got a PS2 in 2002/2003. By that point, most everyone else had LONG since moved past the old SNES, but to be honest, I never once felt like the SNES was lacking. It was a great system that held up well for the types of games I played, and besides, all of my friends had the N64s, PS1s, Dreamcasts, etc. if I ever wanted to play on one. I also had quite a few games on an old 486 computer my father snagged from his work when they sold off some of their surplus equipment. That SNES and the 486 with Doom, Commander Keen, Descent, Warcraft, and a few other shareware games were all I needed for video gaming throughout basically all of the 90s.

 

In the end, I guess I'm just the type of person where it wouldn't have mattered what system I had. I mean seriously, my SNES setup had a Super Scope 6 with most of the compatible games made for it, and it was an absolute blast (though many people report how bad the Super Scope 6 was). I had fun with what was available, and enjoyed the heck out of it. Who cares what may have been the "hot setup" in 1989 when you are zipping through space and destroying an alien army in Astro Warrior, or in 1999 when you are enjoying the insane tunnels and awesome soundtrack of Descent?

 

I kinda did the same and skipped the 64 bit era. I remember thinking it might be hard to use those sticks, but when I played with it, they were easy to pick up. I remember going to my little cousin's and playing off road games and just ramping and trashing vehicles. It wasn't until Vice City that I found a game that looked like fun where I didn't have to play it to play it. I could drive around shooting shit and just have a blast. But in the down period, I still played my Genesis any time I'd get a hankering, or use my SNES for Super Mario All Stars since NES systems never worked right. I'd play 16 game playoff series of NHL '95 like it wasn't nothing. At one point I got so good at the game, I scored like 120 or 140 goals in a single game. After 99 goals, the scoreboard wraps to shapes. I always wondered if that'd be a world record because it was basically a perfect game. I won every face off, walked in, scored every time. Given the 60 minute time limit (and I think it's a case of where a 60 minute game is about 40 because the timer moves faster than real time), I don't know if someone could score more times. I certainly destroyed at that game every time I played it, but that game was just sick.

 

I can understand why the 64 bit era didn't catch on with me. I was into sports games and old school styles - the games I liked like Streets of Rage 2, Punch-out or Double Dragon were not getting sequels. I'm sure there were wonderful hockey games in the era for the time, but the 64 bit graphics just didn't do it for me, at least earlier on. They somehow looked worse to me than what was on my Genesis. I didn't play RPGs or fighters. Having got the Dreamcast later on, I would have liked that system a lot more. These days, I look at PS1 games and I just think it probably is done better on the PS2 or later. I'm sure there are hundreds of exceptions, but it's not that intriguing to look into, honestly.