Worst console ever

[Video]

Back when the Rzone was still selling new, I was always looking for the one you held in your hand with it's own screen on it, rather than the stupid headset, that thing sucked, but the handheld looked like it might have been cool, if you could find it incredably cheap anyways.

[ApolloBoy]

If you can call them consoles, the TV games systems are extremely bad. Of normal consoles, I particularly hate the PS2.

 

amen... i hated mine, ... cheap pos. major let down from the psx.

 

Hm, my PS2 was bought new about 4 years ago and it still works perfectly. Guess some people have all the luck...

[darklord1977]

If you can call them consoles, the TV games systems are extremely bad. Of normal consoles, I particularly hate the PS2.

 

amen... i hated mine, ... cheap pos. major let down from the psx.

 

Hm, my PS2 was bought new about 4 years ago and it still works perfectly. Guess some people have all the luck...

hmm got my ps2 on launch night ,and i never had a problem with mine either:)

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

LOL, I love that term!.....shovelware!

 

Hmm... worst system ever... that's a tough one. Note to take on The Grand daddy of them all, especially since I've never been hands on with one. But from what I understand, The original Magnavox Odyssey was nothing more than dots moving around and an overlay that you tape to the screen so you can see where you're going. Problem one: what if you lose an overlay? Problem two: what if you have the wrong sized TV? Problem three: they're dots just moving about! And before you say: "But John, that's what all games are... even the newest ones." Think about the scale. Even the 2600 had some blocks of dots that at least semi resembled the character they were representing, and even the 2600 was able to render environments. The odyssey, as I understand it is just a few plain dots moving around in empty space that it takes an overlay to enterperet...therefore, it gets my vote for worst system.

 

You should talley this up.

 

Shovelware...I love it!

[darklord1977]

LOL, I love that term!.....shovelware!

 

Hmm... worst system ever... that's a tough one. Note to take on The Grand daddy of them all, especially since I've never been hands on with one. But from what I understand, The original Magnavox Odyssey was nothing more than dots moving around and an overlay that you tape to the screen so you can see where you're going. Problem one: what if you lose an overlay? Problem two: what if you have the wrong sized TV? Problem three: they're dots just moving about! And before you say: "But John, that's what all games are... even the newest ones." Think about the scale. Even the 2600 had some blocks of dots that at least semi resembled the character they were representing, and even the 2600 was able to render environments. The odyssey, as I understand it is just a few plain dots moving around in empty space that it takes an overlay to enterperet...therefore, it gets my vote for worst system.

 

You should talley this up.

 

Shovelware...I love it!

yeah, the odyssey was awful..i got one one year as a gift..and i exchanged it even the 2600 was better than that

[SteveW]

Well, considering that in 1971-1972 the Magnavox Odyssey was the very first home videogame ever, and there was no pre-existing template for what a videogame was supposed to be, I think it did a pretty good job. The overlays helped to put the games into context, since the public didn't know what a videogame was supposed to represent or how to play it. And I believe that the Odyssey games came with two different sized overlays to fit the television screen sizes that were fairly standard back then.

 

This is not mistaking it for the Odyssey2, which was a competitor for the Atari 2600. It wasn't much to jump up and down about, either.

[supercat]

Hmm... worst system ever... that's a tough one. Note to take on The Grand daddy of them all, especially since I've never been hands on with one. But from what I understand, The original Magnavox Odyssey was nothing more than dots moving around and an overlay that you tape to the screen so you can see where you're going.

 

Look at Mezrabad's blog for more info about the original Odyssey. Laugh at it derisively if you want, but for about two years it was without a doubt the greatest video game system available; some might argue it was the best single system on the market until the advent of the Fairchild Channel F in 1976--about four years after the Odyssey's debut. (Note: I'm aware that there were some single-function game machines available that were better than any single game on the Odyssey, but the Odyssey had more different games than any competitor until the channel F).

 

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release. Ralph Baer (designer of the Odyssey) can't be faulted for the fact that later technology allowed better games. But the creators of the RCA Studio II or the CD-I platform can be faulted for the fact that their systems were pretty feeble even compared with others that existed at the time.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Hmm... worst system ever... that's a tough one. Note to take on The Grand daddy of them all, especially since I've never been hands on with one. But from what I understand, The original Magnavox Odyssey was nothing more than dots moving around and an overlay that you tape to the screen so you can see where you're going.

 

Look at Mezrabad's blog for more info about the original Odyssey. Laugh at it derisively if you want, but for about two years it was without a doubt the greatest video game system available; some might argue it was the best single system on the market until the advent of the Fairchild Channel F in 1976--about four years after the Odyssey's debut. (Note: I'm aware that there were some single-function game machines available that were better than any single game on the Odyssey, but the Odyssey had more different games than any competitor until the channel F).

 

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release. Ralph Baer (designer of the Odyssey) can't be faulted for the fact that later technology allowed better games. But the creators of the RCA Studio II or the CD-I platform can be faulted for the fact that their systems were pretty feeble even compared with others that existed at the time.

 

 

Well, the CD-i actually had pretty decent hardware for the time, and while I know the selection of games is pretty weak, I have way too much in sentiment tied up in it to be able to really damn it as the worst system ever. There are more popular and successful systems than the CD-i that I have gotten less wholesale joy out of than it (such as Atari 5200....gasp!...) so I just can't do it. Besides, I really do like CD-i Tetris, and while I admit that the CD-i Link and Zelda games are terribly hokey and the controls dreadfully bungled, I like them all the same. Really, they are the illegitamate children of Zelda II. And I was part of the minority that liked Zelda II better than the original. All of Nintendo's Zelda games are offsprings of the original game design. And then there's Kether. Even if those games alone are all there is to the system's credit, I still see enough merit to not be able to name it the worst ever ever. (double on purpose)

[Ferris]

Bravo. I couldnt have said it better myself.

[super_dos_man]

even the 2600 was better than that

 

@ darklord 1977

 

are you saying that the 2600 sucks?

Edited July 3, 2006 by super_dos_man

[darklord1977]

even the 2600 was better than that

 

@ darklord 1977

 

are you saying that the 2600 sucks?

no, not at all...it was good for its time, but when the other systems came onto the scene like the colecovision and the 5200... and even the Intellivision ..the 2600 kind of lost its spark..even at that time the system was showing its age. but i will give it props..the 2600 lasted a long time..longer than expected i bet

Edited July 4, 2006 by darklord1977

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Bravo. I couldnt have said it better myself.

 

Thank you.

[DeathAdderSF]

Worse console ever: Funtech Super A'Can. Released in 1995, its hardware is very similar to the Neo-Geo yet all the games look like badly programmed Genesis games only with a more vibrant color palette. Debuted way too expensive for anyone in Taiwan to purchase, and had a run of only 12 titles: ALL which completely sucked eggs and will give you a headache if you play them for too long.

 

 

...and yet, I am completely obsessed with this system and have a complete, boxed game collection for it. Surely, there's little hope for me.

[supercat]

no, not at all...it was good for its time, but when the other systems came onto the scene like the colecovision and the 5200... and even the Intellivision ..the 2600 kind of lost its spark..even at that time the system was showing its age. but i will give it props..the 2600 lasted a long time..longer than expected i bet

 

Well, unless someone's still making games for the Channel F, I think the 2600 holds the record for system longevity... Actually, with proper programming the 2600 really holds up quite well.

[darklord1977]

no, not at all...it was good for its time, but when the other systems came onto the scene like the colecovision and the 5200... and even the Intellivision ..the 2600 kind of lost its spark..even at that time the system was showing its age. but i will give it props..the 2600 lasted a long time..longer than expected i bet

 

Well, unless someone's still making games for the Channel F, I think the 2600 holds the record for system longevity... Actually, with proper programming the 2600 really holds up quite well.

true, the 2600 was great but its so primitive now .. i forgot all about it when the 5200 came out and so on...it was only recently i dug out my 2600 and thought this was the bomb?? wow we have come a long way! but i still like the 2600 version of space invaders so go figure:)

[JagFan422]

Hmm... worst

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release.

 

again, 7800

Edited July 10, 2006 by JagFan422

[8th lutz]

Hmm... worst

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release.

 

again, 7800

The only thing inferior about the 7800 is it's sound chip and its Proline controllers and to the sms. The sms is naturally better then the nes and the 7800 without any graphic chips. The nes without graphics chips is weaker them the sms. The sms version of street fighter 2 looks impressive to the point the 7800 and nes can't make Street fighter 2 look as good for graphics if atari and nintendo tried for their systems.

 

Any system can be inforerior compare to its competition if money not spent on the games for its system. If a game company spends money like Nintendo did, the games will look better due to adding memory, and graphic chips in a game Cartridge. The 7800 was started in 1983, the nes was Released in Japan in 1983, and the sms was ready to be released by 1984 but wasn't. The nes and the 7800 around the same time when they being made.

 

The 2600 jr, and the xegs was were the inferior systems when the nes was around and the 2600 was the system with bankswitiching not the 7800 in 1987. The only reason with the 2600 doing backswitch games was because it was chaper to do 8k to 16 k games then do then then 7800 games being 128k or 256k. Atari had a weeked plan for the 2600,xe and the 7800 as it appears.

 

No one in the right mind would give full support to 3 systems at the same time from 87-89 and released games that were about ready to be released in 84 to the 3 systems. They were wasting money from that stand point and was hurting their market. Common sense says spend money on the 7800 instead of 2600 and the xegs, and the 7800 gets deeper games like midnight Mutants sooner. The Xe was a weaker system compared to the 7800 in graphics see rampage as an example or commando for that.

 

Atari didn't spend money on the 7800 like the they did for the jaguar. Jaguar was on tv ads and the 7800 didn't. Atari spent more advertising money on the 2600 when the money should be on the 7800. If they spent money on the 7800 for backswitching from the start and graphic chips by 1988.

 

Did you even play midnight Mutants? If you didn't play it, I think you need to. It is a game that the 2600 was not capable of or the chances are the 5200 wasn't capable of it either.

 

Midnight mutants is a impressive game for the 7800 for what it can do. When I first played the game, I was shocked what the 7800 was capable of compared to galaga, Donkey Kong, Food Fight, Pole postition 2. Midnight Mutants is a nes style game not a 2600 style game.

 

Atari didn't spend money on memory and on sounds parts for the 7800. The games for the 7800 update to 1988 can be done on a 5200, or a 2600.

 

The 7800 was capable of doing 512k games by atari didn't spend the money for it.

 

You are dealing with a different time with atari with the 7800 years (86-90) compared the jaguar years(93-96).

Atari under jack crippled the 7800 because he wanted the xegs to go against the nes despite the 7800 was capable of doing game the the xegs was not able to like midnight mutants. When Jack realized the xegs was not doing well against the nes and the 7800 was doing better then the xegs, the 7800 was allowed to do 128k, but were doing that against games that had 256k when the 7800 capable of of doing more.

 

The Jaguar was prime Atari's focus and during the 7800 years, atari was focused on 3 games ystems the 2600,7800, and the xegs.

 

Your claim of the 7800 being inferior to the nes is false with with one company spending money on making games better then the technical spec suggests.

 

Lets say if nintendo didn't spend money on the nes and atari did for the 7800 like memory, sound chips, and graphic chips in Cartridge and is focused on the 7800 only.

 

You would say the nes is inferior to the 7800 in types of games.

 

The nes without Graphic chips in the Cartridge and banckswitiching wouldn't have been able to do games like Super Mario, and Kirby's adventure to name a couple. The nes is was only capable of doing games like ice climber and super Bros.

Edited July 10, 2006 by 8th lutz

[n8littlefield]

I can't see how you could even consider the 7800 as one of the worst systems. I had at least 8 or 10 games for it that I loved at the time, stuff like Donkey Kong JR and Joust were great translations. There is no way that the Game.com has 10 decent playable games. If the game moves it either is blurry or has such a low framerate that it becomes unplayable.

[JagFan422]

Hmm... worst

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release.

 

again, 7800

The 7800 was competing with the 2600 and XE but that's Atari's own stupidity, but it's direct competitors were the SMS and NES.

 

Yes i have midnight mutants, and I don't care for it. Yes it is more advanced than the 2600, but it still sucks balls compared to what the NES or SMS can do. The 7800 may have some fun games, i have rampage also, but i also have it for the NES and the NES is better, and play them side by side, it's amazing how much the 7800 sucks.

 

The 7800 was inferior from the moment it was released, it was inferior in the amount of money spent on it, it was inferior by the games it was getting released for it, it was all around inferior. And again, you play the "what if" game. or the "could have" game. The 7800 could've had games like Mario 3 or Mega Man or Metal storm if they spent the money on special chip sets and such. WHO CARES, they didn't, so you can't compare systems by "what ifs" and "could haves"

 

My parents bought me a 7800 back in the day when it first came out because my 2600 broke. My Uncle at the time had an NES, after playing that I sold my 7800 for $55 to save up for an NES. I think i was 10 at the time. And until I realized I wanted to collect video games, i never had any inkling at all to play this system ever again, even as a kid i was smart enough to realize the 7800 would never have games like Castlevania, Contra, or anything else that wasn't an already re hashed port of an arcade game from 1981.

Edited July 10, 2006 by JagFan422

[super_dos_man]

Hmm... worst

IMHO, to qualify as a "Worst console ever', a console has to have been inferior to its competition from the moment of release.

 

again, 7800

 

the 7800 was perfectly fine.

[JB]

The 7800 is solid platinum next to the Studio 2.

[supercat]

Yes i have midnight mutants, and I don't care for it. Yes it is more advanced than the 2600, but it still sucks balls compared to what the NES or SMS can do.

 

Yeah, but the 7800 can play all the cool 2600 carts that really put the NES/SMS to the test.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Compare between the NES and 7800 the following games: Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Joust. I don't think you will find a game on both platforms that looked better on the 7800 than the NES. If you do, let me know...I'll wanna see it for myself.

 

Now, to be fair, the 7800 did have it's own merits. I doubt that say, Ball Blazer would've moved as fast, or as fluidly on the NES, perhaps even the Master System. But numbers are theoretical. Look at actual performance. If not 100% of the time, then darn near, the NES wins. And in a match between NES and SMS, the SMS 9 times out of 10 has larger characters, more level detail, and more colors, but NES has a cleaner, sharper picture. (Compare NES to SMS Rampage...since it was brought up...it makes a great example of the typical differences)

 

You be the judge, but majority consensus (and I would agree) is that the SMS had the best graphics of the three....now and then, it's graphics would even begin to rival the TG-16 which was the Atari7800 of the 16-bit era both in terms of hardware and software....it's still one of my more beloved systems though.....as is the 7800 (for it's 2600 backwards compatability, mostly. Were it not backwards compatible, I probably wouldn'tve been all that blown away by it.)

[JB]

Now, to be fair, the 7800 did have it's own merits. I doubt that say, Ball Blazer would've moved as fast, or as fluidly on the NES, perhaps even the Master System.

It didn't sound as nice on the NES/FamiCom, either.

Actually, the entire thing had such an amateurish feel that I'm not sure how much is system limitations and how much is just crappy code.

[SteveW]

I doubt that say, Ball Blazer would've moved as fast, or as fluidly on the NES, perhaps even the Master System.

Didn't Ballblazer come out on the NES? I remember hearing that it was terrible, with slow and choppy scrolling and all around weaker gameplay.