Why is the importance of ColecoVision almost never brought up historically?

[Bill Loguidice]

For the time, maybe. Chop suey compared to NES scrolling, though.

 

Only a handful of original ColecoVision games smooth-scrolled. I can think of Nova Blast and River Raid top of my head. In any case, it was a known issue with the widely used graphics chip, nothing specific to the ColecoVision. Thinking back to the time, we really didn't consider it much of an issue. This was really one of those things that became more evident when systems that did feature smooth scrolling started to appear (a key innovation). Many of the games of the day - at least when the ColecoVision was commercially viable - were flick/flip-screen.

 

Again, while the ColecoVision would have suffered versus systems like the NES and SMS that featured smooth scrolling platformers, I'm sure in an alternate history a ColecoVision 2 would have solved all of those problems and more. Personally, I was actually most excited for what Mattel had planned for the Intellivision 3 and 4. I never recall seeing any plans for a ColecoVision 2.

[Bill Loguidice]

I noticed a few guys here like fojomojo and others think the Jaguar wasn't a significant leap from the gen/SNES/neogeo/cdi which I find very odd.

 

I mean uh, what exactly looked like cybermorph, voiced roaming flying shooting game at the time? 5fps jaggy starfox?

 

Heck Alien VS. Predator cane out in the first year. PSX didn't come up with large improvements until 96/jewel case

 

A significant leap over Neo Geo? I'd argue against that. The CD-i, at least when paired with the MPEG option, had certain advantages over other systems as well, including the Jaguar, although it was obviously limited itself in significant ways. The problem with the Jaguar as we know was not only a general lack of premium developer/publisher support, but significant performance bottlenecks. I think we can all agree that with a few tweaks to its architecture, it could have been a lot better, but as released, was crippled in many ways.

 

I'd also take issue with your PS1 comments. Although it's launch line-up seems mediocre now, at the time, it was a revelation. It easily bested all that came before it, including the contemporary Sega Saturn, which had a botched launch line-up. The Jaguar wasn't even in the same conversation anymore.

[Flojomojo]

Yes, it's clear in hindsight. In my personal experience, we were so taken by the high(er) resolution graphics, we didn't notice.

 

MSX (same hardware as Colecovision, lots of Konami ports) is *notorious* for choppy scrolling.

 

[godslabrat]

I noticed a few guys here like fojomojo and others think the Jaguar wasn't a significant leap from the gen/SNES/neogeo/cdi which I find very odd.

 

I mean uh, what exactly looked like cybermorph, voiced roaming flying shooting game at the time? 5fps jaggy starfox?

 

Heck Alien VS. Predator cane out in the first year. PSX didn't come up with large improvements until 96/jewel case

JV,

 

You seem like a good guy, and were glad to have you here on Atariage. Its all right to have a soft spot for underdog systems (I love a few myself) but your tone seems slightly resentful of the systems that did perform and go on to be market leaders. You act surprised that the Coleco or Jag didnt do as well as their competitors, but all you need to see why is to look at history. If you like the Coleco and Jag, thats awesome, but its no mystery why the rest of the world looked at them and said Lol, no.

 

It might be best to express, from your own perspective, why you like these systems, and leave the comparisons out of it.

[Osgeld]

I noticed a few guys here like fojomojo and others think the Jaguar wasn't a significant leap from the gen/SNES/neogeo/cdi which I find very odd.

 

I mean uh, what exactly looked like cybermorph, voiced roaming flying shooting game at the time? 5fps jaggy starfox?

 

Heck Alien VS. Predator cane out in the first year. PSX didn't come up with large improvements until 96/jewel case

 

 

what does the jag vs snes have anything to do with this thread

[82-T/A]

The Colecovision is arguably the most important console in the world (maybe even more overall than the Channel F) and it's basically a foot note these days.

 

 

 

 

I had a Coleco Vision... it was IMMACULATE... I think I got it for like 20 bucks when I was 19, so obviously not as a kid. I remember playing some games on it, Zaxxon and such. The graphics were as-good as the NES more or less... just that the games weren't as deep. It felt like a really high-quality Atari 2600.

 

 

What about this console that doesn't get any mention

 

 

 

It is pretty clear that Nintendo ripped the design off for the Wii. Everyone forgets about the Zone 40.

 

 

Is this video game machine even remotely decent, or is it just a cheap piece of junk? I guess you can't put new games on it? Hence the "40?"

[Bill Loguidice]

JV,

 

You seem like a good guy, and were glad to have you here on Atariage. Its all right to have a soft spot for underdog systems (I love a few myself) but your tone seems slightly resentful of the systems that did perform and go on to be market leaders. You act surprised that the Coleco or Jag didnt do as well as their competitors, but all you need to see why is to look at history. If you like the Coleco and Jag, thats awesome, but its no mystery why the rest of the world looked at them and said Lol, no.

 

It might be best to express, from your own perspective, why you like these systems, and leave the comparisons out of it.

 

The Jaguar was one of the worst selling major consoles in history so it really shouldn't be lumped in with the ColecoVision, which sold quite a bit in a relatively short time period. It was a victim of overall market conditions - the worst industry downturn in history - and Coleco making some poor strategic moves outside of videogames. I think it's also fair to say that the ColecoVision was hands-down the most powerful console, at least until the release of the Atari 5200 several months later. With the 3DO launch predating the Jaguar launch, I don't feel like the Jaguar was ever the most powerful console, even on paper, for any period of time.

[racerx]

The Colecovision is arguably the most important console in the world

 

I can't believe such an insane premise has generated 8 pages of replies.

[JaguarVision]

There seems to be some confusion with odd Dreamcast CV comparison and the whole crash

The ColecoVision survived the crash. I have no clue where people are getting CV didn't, even wiki got that one fact right surprisingly.

 

The CV had steady game releases in 84 and into early 85. After start of 84 most of the other consoles were losing shelf space and had crap software output.

 

Coleco moved out of electronics for the Adam and decided that the CBK fad is what they would chase since the Adam costed them quite a bit of money despite it's higher than expected sales.CV was fine.

 

And this notion the CV couldn't compete with the NES is faulty. The module they set up to add more memory to games may have made the CV on par with the 7800 with competing with the NES but with more games. In fact I think it's not far off to say a continuing CV would have caused the SMS and 7800 to be dead on arrival. CV already had the 260)'s library, a cheaper price, and no games, and the SMS was a horrible seller the first couple years.

[JaguarVision]

Lol at flojo saying I'm pumping up market losers then mention the 3DO Saturn thread which both of those were losers.

[JaguarVision]

As for the other guy, helper chips don't count. They are expanded hardware.people ignorant enough to say the NES can run ninja gaiden and megaman and compare them to 83 ColecoVision games via YouTube is bs. The BES hardware can't run those games.

 

Mmc chips were in high use in 87 just starting to increase in usage in 86, that's 3 years from 83-86. That 3 year time contains the most the NES can do by itself and is much closer to the CV in technical prowess.

 

I have not a clue why some try to dodge the fact the coleco and famicom are the same generation of machine. The 7800 blurs the line even further even with the first gen if mmcs

[Bill Loguidice]

As for the other guy, helper chips don't count. They are expanded hardware.people ignorant enough to say the NES can run ninja gaiden and megaman and compare them to 83 ColecoVision games via YouTube is bs. The BES hardware can't run those games.

 

Mmc chips were in high use in 87 just starting to increase in usage in 86, that's 3 years from 83-86. That 3 year time contains the most the NES can do by itself and is much closer to the CV in technical prowess.

 

I have not a clue why some try to dodge the fact the coleco and famicom are the same generation of machine. The 7800 blurs the line even further even with the first gen if mmcs

 

Helper chips do count. You're the only one who thinks they don't. It's not a separate add-on someone has to buy. You buy the game and play it in your system, period. It just works.

 

And yes, ColecoVision and Famicom/NES are the same generation, unless, like all arbitrary generation markers someone decides to cut off a generation at 1982 and begin another generation at 1983. The fact that the Famicom/NES is more powerful than the ColecoVision is irrelevant. There's almost always something more powerful than something else released around the same time.

[JaguarVision]

They are additional hardware you have to buy at the prices those cartridges were sold at I'll tell you that for free.

 

But glad you agree. I mean Intelkivisionbwas years away from Channel F but it's closer to that than the CV.

[Bill Loguidice]

They are additional hardware you have to buy at the prices those cartridges were sold at I'll tell you that for free.

 

But glad you agree. I mean Intelkivisionbwas years away from Channel F but it's closer to that than the CV.

 

Cost is irrelevant. And does that mean you don't count Pitfall II as a standard Atari 2600 cartridge or Commando as a standard Atari 7800 cartridge or Virtua Racing as a standard Genesis cartridge? You're creating arbitrary divisions to make a point that literally no one agrees with.

 

And I don't necessarily agree with any one generational system, even any of my own. We can slice and dice these things in a dozen different logical ways, each just as valid as the other. While I would consider the ColecoVision a newer generation over the one that featured the Atari 2600/Intellivision/etc., they still competed in their commercial primes at the same time and featured many of the same game types. If we in fact used game types as a delineating factor (and again, why not, because it's all arbitrary, right?), then it's easy enough to argue that the NES/SMS reflected a true generational shift because they introduced game types/engines not commonly seen on the previous batch of consoles. Of course, the sticky bit is that the Famicom came out in 1983 and the SG-1000 was a contemporary, as was the 1984 7800, which had a dearth of the newer game types (and games in general).

[JaguarVision]

I'm not creating arbitrary lines. The CV/NES comparisons should be a stock hardware when talking about which is more powerful. Helper chips ARE @add ons no matter how much you want to deny that. It's not a simple memory bump stock NES cannot run those games.

 

A CV game like Alcazar can run on a stock coleco, Zelda can't run on a stock NES

[Flojomojo]

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm not creating arbitrary lines. The CV/NES comparisons should be a stock hardware when talking about which is more powerful. Helper chips ARE @add ons no matter how much you want to deny that. It's not a simple memory bump stock NES cannot run those games.

 

A CV game like Alcazar can run on a stock coleco, Zelda can't run on a stock NES

 

Who cares if the base hardware capabilities of the ColecoVision, 5200, 7800, SMS, NES, etc., are roughly equivalent. The proof is in what software a particular system can run. Zelda literally runs on a stock NES, period. No matter how you twist the discussion, that fact doesn't change. Making use of helper chips is literally built into the base hardware design of the Famicom/NES.

[JaguarVision]

Zelda doesn't run on full stock NES but ok.

 

It matters if the argument being made to you is that the reason that the CV should be separated from third are NES games the hardware can't run. As you saw with the YouTube videos posted earlier in the third.

 

Your comments aren't relevant in context. The counter argument the stock NES is not leaps above the CV crushes the power=generations narrative that user on that page insisted on.

[+5-11under]

 

Let's show that dog again, and add this...

[godslabrat]

Zelda doesn't run on full stock NES but ok.

It matters if the argument being made to you is that the reason that the CV should be separated from third are NES games the hardware can't run. As you saw with the YouTube videos posted earlier in the third.

Your comments aren't relevant in context. The counter argument the stock NES is not leaps above the CV crushes the power=generations narrative that user on that page insisted on.

 

I literally have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

[Osgeld]

Zelda doesn't run on full stock NES but ok.

 

walks over to his stock nes, inserts zelda, game runs

 

[JaguarVision]

That cartridge has expanded hardware in it don't do the strawman.

[Osgeld]

no your argument is zelda doesnt run on a stock nes, it does, even if it has helper chips in the game cart

 

atari 2600 games have helper chips in them too, 2600 != NES get over it

[godslabrat]

That cartridge has expanded hardware in it don't do the strawman.

Doesn’t matter.

[JaguarVision]

Yes when the argument is to say the CV and the NES aren't the same gen by using a YouTube video of smb3 as an example it does matter. As seen earlier in the thread.

 

The NES capable games of 83 and 86 are in the same really as the ColecoVision. Comparing Turbo to smb3 is completely ignoring the core hardware of both. Which are both third generation.