WAR!

[The_Laird]

first of all, atari may have had 8-bit systems in the sense of chips and such, but i don't recall ever seeing an 8-bit game with as good of quality as the NES or SMS, so I picked NES for that.

 

16-bit would be SNES only because i own more games for that than for the Genesis so i don't know really what is good for the Genesis and Neo Geo was not a choice anywhere so I couldn't pick that.

 

64-bit. Again, chip wise and spec wise, the Jaguar somehow was 64-bit, but in the sense of gaming quality, the games are truely not much better than something a Snes or Megadrive or Neo Geo couldn't handle so I chose N64

There are many Atari 8-bit games that blow away what the NES and Master System could do but its not just about graphics and sound.

 

The SNES, Megadrive or Neo Geo could NEVER in a million years have handled the likes of Iron Soldier 1 & 2, Battlemorph, Alien Vs. Predator, Missile Command 3D . . . . . The list goes on.

[Collector]

yeah maybe 5 games, i bet the neo could've handled them, but when at war with N64, the Jaguar has nothing to compare against, the quality is extremely low.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

40 votes so far. Not such a dumb poll after all apparently.

Right. Because dumb things are never popular.

 

Brought you here (at least) twice.

 

 

Zzzzzziiinnnnggg!!!

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

yeah maybe 5 games, i bet the neo could've handled them, but when at war with N64, the Jaguar has nothing to compare against, the quality is extremely low.

 

Agreed. Putting the Jaguar up against the N64 is like putting the atari2600 up against the nes, or the intellivision up against the Genesis. In all three cases, both systems are technically the same number of bits, but in raw reality, there really is not contest whatsoever. If you really prefer the Jag over the N64 for software reasons (which is defintiely a stretch in my opinion) then God Bless you, but if you're trying to match hardware... heh..... ha..... ha ha....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! (sorry) At a maximum (and probably not that) you might be able to squeeze the Jaguar into competitive range with PS1 or Saturn...and again, probably not. The Jaguar would be in fairer competion against the 3DO.

[JB]

8-bit Went with Atari because:

1. They had more than one 8-bit console - 2600, 7800 and the XE

...

And the 5200. Which I consider a less retarded move than the XEGS(which was, let's face it, just a 5200 with a 2600 joystick and a few more years of aging on the chipset).

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

I want to stuff a spare SNES and Genny in a blender, and see what comes out.

 

A Neo Geo.

[JB]

I want to stuff a spare SNES and Genny in a blender, and see what comes out.

 

A Neo Geo.

An AFFORDABLE NeoGeo!

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

A Neo Geo with RPGs and Mario and Sonic and Zelda and Metroid. And a slew of sports titles.

[sega saturn x]

A Neo Geo with RPGs and Mario and Sonic and Zelda and Metroid. And a slew of sports titles.

A neo geo with a rounded library, no way!

[thomasholzer]

If Mr_8bit_16bit

doesn't believe the Jaguar is not 64 bit, than you must call the SNES 8 bit, as it is not really 16 bit (hybrid)

 

Also, graphics are important on 64 bit machine, the N64 loses on the factor that 99% of games are fuzzy and give people headaches (including me), hence awful gameplay involved

 

8 bit, yeah Atari XL wins over NES anytime (the truth, the NES didn't really have that many quality titles, maybe 100 out of the total library of 2000)

Edited July 21, 2006 by thomasholzer

[The_Laird]

8-bit Went with Atari because:

1. They had more than one 8-bit console - 2600, 7800 and the XE

...

And the 5200. Which I consider a less retarded move than the XEGS(which was, let's face it, just a 5200 with a 2600 joystick and a few more years of aging on the chipset).

 

Yeah sorry I always forget to mention it because we didn't have them over here.

[The_Laird]

yeah maybe 5 games, i bet the neo could've handled them, but when at war with N64, the Jaguar has nothing to compare against, the quality is extremely low.

 

Ok here's 5 more games the Neo Geo could NEVER have handled (it was only good at 2D and no where near as powerful as the Jag)

Tempest 2000, Black Ice/White Noise, Hoverstrike: UL, Zero 5 and Fight For Life . . . . .

 

I can give you 5 more if you want.

 

I am totally aware that he Jag's hardware couldn't compare to the N64, as I stated I picked it for its charm

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

If Mr_8bit_16bit

doesn't believe the Jaguar is not 64 bit, than you must call the SNES 8 bit, as it is not really 16 bit (hybrid)

 

Also, graphics are important on 64 bit machine, the N64 loses on the factor that 99% of games are fuzzy and give people headaches (including me), hence awful gameplay involved

 

8 bit, yeah Atari XL wins over NES anytime (the truth, the NES didn't really have that many quality titles, maybe 100 out of the total library of 2000)

 

LOL, there's no way the N64 is graphically inferior to the Jaguar! Sure there was too much fog and some smudgy blurriness. But the Jaguar's 3D capabilities were even less impressive, hyper pixelated, slower and more ponderous. And more limited. Utilizing nowhere near the colors or special effects. But if you really would rather have clunky chunky clarity over something vastly superior minus some admitted blurrienss issues, well, then God Bless you.

 

Heck, Jaguar even loses in the 2D realm. Trevor McFur might be noteworthy, but apart from that, most of the Jaguar's 2D stuff doesn't look all that much better than a SNES. I doubt very much that the Jaguar would ever have been able to do some of the 2D games that graced the N64. I'll name just two: Yoshi's Story and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub Zero.

 

And as far as gameplay: N64 was very revolutionary when it came out with the analog joystick in addition to the D-Pad. Jaguar's controls were actually very very archaic, even for it's time. The controller belonged in 1982, not 1992. And my experience with the two systems is that neither one of them are perfect when it comes to control, but I've got less complaints about the N64.

 

I stand by my original statement: Trying to compare the Jaguar to the N64 just because they're both 64-bit is like trying to compare the Intellivision to the Genesis just because they're both 16-bit, or the Atari 2600 to the NES just because they are both 8-bit. And currently 47 out of 57 people (or 82.46%) say I'm right. And this isn't N64fanboys.com either, this is an Atari Message Board.

 

On the NES side: Nobody is denying that the NES produced a bunch of crap, but I think your ratio of Good to Crap is way off. I think you really underestimate the number of quality NES games. And even if there are only about 100, those 100 are among the most popular games ever, and the most important. Even if atari XL beats NES in quantity of quality titles (which I very much doubt) it doesn't beat the NES in the quality of quality titles.

[thomasholzer]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the Jaguar games, I got about 50, and only 4 - 5 are really worth playing. Potential was never reached in it's short lifetime, and it never had any real good programmers.

Nevertheless, I can only play N64 games for 7 - 8 minutes, and the visuals give me a headache, what's the point of being all revolutionary and it backfires big time.

I can play my VB longer without any problems.

 

On the other hand, your original statemant is totally wrong. I mean comparing the Intellivision with Genesis? We're talking different time areas here man, get a reality check. If the Intellivision would have been a product of 1990 and not 1979ish, you would have had an argument, but comparing a 70s product with a 90s product, you gotta be kidding.

Edited July 21, 2006 by thomasholzer

[Collector]

 

 

On the other hand, your original statemant is totally wrong. I mean comparing the Intellivision with Genesis? We're talking different time areas here man, get a reality check. If the Intellivision would have been a product of 1990 and not 1979ish, you would have had an argument, but comparing a 70s product with a 90s product, you gotta be kidding.

 

you need to go back and read his post again. he's comparing it based upon a bit arguement. and is very much valid.

[thomasholzer]

Exactly, and the Jaguar and N64 are both 90s products, 64 bit technology, with 90s chip technology (Tom & Jerry), so a Jaguar/N64 comparison is valid, further Mr_8bit_16bit has no idea what the Jaguar is capable or not capable of (Well ok I presume, maybe mr 8/16 is a fully fledged programmer with many years of coding experience, but judging by his previous replies, I don't believe so)....

 

At least I speak facts with the N64 = fuzzy graphics= headaches...bad system, end of story.

Jaguar, awful programmed games with little or no playability, stupid joypad...bad system, end of story.

 

I know what I read...Intellivision - Genesis = both 16 bit, but we're still talking 70s and 90 technology here, so a comparison is totally inaccurate due to later developements of special Graphics chips, programming techniques and so forth

 

Of course, Mr Collector, if we're talking 'bit argument', you wanna drop the SNES out of the 16 bit comparison? :-)

 

You Nintendo guys must keep things in perspective, and don't just open your mouth and blah, blah, blah comes out of it....

Edited July 21, 2006 by thomasholzer

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Exactly, and the Jaguar and N64 are both 90s products, 64 bit technology, with 90s chip technology (Tom & Jerry), so a Jaguar/N64 comparison is valid, further Mr_8bit_16bit has no idea what the Jaguar is capable or not capable of (Well ok I presume, maybe mr 8/16 is a fully fledged programmer with many years of coding experience, but judging by his previous replies, I don't believe so)....

 

At least I speak facts with the N64 = fuzzy graphics= headaches...bad system, end of story.

Jaguar, awful programmed games with little or no playability, stupid joypad...bad system, end of story.

 

I know what I read...Intellivision - Genesis = both 16 bit, but we're still talking 70s and 90 technology here, so a comparison is totally inaccurate due to later developements of special Graphics chips, programming techniques and so forth

 

Of course, Mr Collector, if we're talking 'bit argument', you wanna drop the SNES out of the 16 bit comparison? :-)

 

You Nintendo guys must keep things in perspective, and don't just open your mouth and blah, blah, blah comes out of it....

 

(Shakes head) Thom, Thom, Thommy. My dear Thommy Boy. You're calling me on comparing systems from different eras. Yet, the Jaguar was an early 90s' system in it's (LOL) prime at more or less the same time as the SNES/Genesis. The N64 was a late 90's system in it's (shrugs) prime at about the same time as the PS1 and Saturn, really, more like Dreamcast. The performance of the Jaguar is typical of an early 90's system, and the N64's performance is typical of a late 90's/early D2K system. Nothing at all alike.

 

And who cares whether I'm comparing a 70's 16-bit system vs an 80's-not 90's..16-bit chip. Genny is circa 1989 and uses technology that was in use as early as 1984 in apple computers not to mention the Z80 borrowed from the circa 1986 Master System....BTW, the Intellivision was 1979, so essentially 80's hardware itself.

 

So, in essence, we're comparing early 80's to late 80's. How is that different from the early 90's vs. the late 90's? Especially when in terms of numbers, there was less of a hardware difference between the early 80's and the late 80's than there was between the early 90's and the late 90's. So my comparison IS valid...also, I had compared the Atari2600 and the NES. Night and frickin day difference, and they both use the exact same CPU. Valid comparisons.

 

There is a huge performance difference between 8-bit Atari 2600 and 8-bit NES. There is a huge performance difference between 16-bit Intellevision and 16-bit Genesis...and.. oh yes... a huge performance difference between 64 (sorta) bit Jaguar and 64 bit N64. The fact that the 2600 and NES are from different eras, like the Intel and Genny makes no difference...because the Jaguar and N64 are not from the same paleozoic era either.

 

If the N64 hurts your eyes, I am sorry. You have a special (sorta) medical reason to choose the Jaguar. God Bless you. But the 90% of us that aren't such affected can see clearly that there's really no contest whatsoever.

 

You might as well claim that the NES is more capable than SNES....and if SNES is in fact 8-bit as you alone claim, then that only strengthen's my case, not weakens it.... The TG-16 is in fact 8-bit and it performs much closer to 16-bit Genesis than 64-bit Jaguar compares to N64. If the SNES is 8bit that would not only prove that two different systems of the same bit count can have night and day performance difference, but that two systems of different bittage can perform very similarly (SNES/Genny)

 

More proof? The PS2, GameCube and X-Box are very similar in terms of performance, and not a one of them are the same number of bits. In fact, X-Box, the undisputed performance champion of the three only has a 32bit CPU in it...the lowest of the three. Do you dare to asses that the "64-bit" Jaguar is gonna outperform the 32-bit X-Box? Lets see who takes you seriously after that.

 

My point is that long gone are, and never really were here the days where you could judge by bit count. The Jaguar is 64-bit, but depending upon context, it sometimes performed like a 32 bit system, and sometimes performed like a 16-bit system. The N64 performed like, guess what: a 64 bit system.

 

Do the math. (well, take some tylonol, and then do the math)

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

You Nintendo guys must keep things in perspective, and don't just open your mouth and blah, blah, blah comes out of it....

 

Don't forget Tom Bombadil, that this is an Atari site and most of us here consider ourselves Atari guys as well. We're not, I repeat not just blindly being biased towards Captain N (which by the way has been a bit of a let down since the SNES days). But are being pretty objective here. Examine yourself...are you so much an Atari guy that you are being subjective? Hmmmm.....food for thought.

 

Or in other words.....blah blah blah blah blah.

[AtariJr]

but you forgot something... blah blah blah blah.

 

i know this was definately a big issue when i compaired the two consoles. Non nintendo fans who dont know our super complicated language need not reply .

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Ah, but us Sega fans can go you one better.... we've got Telepathy.... shutup JB! I heard that!

[thomasholzer]

8/16 you just repeating the same lame argument over and over, like I (you) said, blah, blah. One gets bored reading your reply, as it's just drivel, skipped 3/4 of it....But don't shake your head if you don't believe in yourself. (Don't be so nervous, this is only a poll)

 

One joke you made:and the N64's performance is typical of a late 90's/early D2K system. Haha, I've seen (I have) early 90s PC stuff better than N64's lame performance. Gosh, I have PSX titles outperforming N64 feeble efforts

 

Or you just don't understand the question: Who made the best 64 bit system. Shrug shoulders won't help you either, I didn't put the question.

 

On second thoughts, the N64 is way old, based on 1980s Silicon Graphics technology.

 

Maybe you are right after all, a Jaguar/N64 comparison is not valid, N64 is more comparable to Intellivision and you lost the argument because you resort to abuse?!?

 

But leave God out of it, he's just a devil in disguise

Edited July 22, 2006 by thomasholzer

[JB]

So yeah...

Jaguar VS Studio 2?

[thomasholzer]

Also, NES vs Computer 8-bit.

I remember CGW introducing a console section in their magazine focusing mainly on NES. After a few issues the console section was dropped 'due to the inferior quality of games' (NES) when compared to the 8 bit products (thats Apple ][, C64, XL).

Edited July 22, 2006 by thomasholzer

[thomasholzer]

>>>>JB said:So yeah... Jaguar VS Studio 2?<<<

 

true, isn't he silly, next he'll be comparing the N64 to my Odyssey.

 

Keep it up guys, I can go on for weeks.......

 

 

Actually, I just remembered, all the facts about the 64 bit Jaguar mr 8/16 can read in Retro Gamer issue 26, until then he knows nothing.

 

Nintendo fanboys, don't you just love 'em? Bless !!

Edited July 22, 2006 by thomasholzer

[chuckwalla]

In the early 90's I bought both the Genesis and SNES.

 

I've always had a preference for the Genesis because of the huge number of fun games relative to the SNES, especially action/sports/shooters that feature fast/furious/nonstop gameplay!

 

Like many others on this site, great gameplay ALWAYS took preference over superior graphics and sound (hence, the line of Atari's & Colecovision are my all-time favorites)

 

I know the SNES excelled in RPG's but i've never been a big fan of RPG's (and like a buddy of mine said, the Commodore 64 probably will always be the king of RPG's/adventure games in all their forms - meaning text or graphic, for those who were too young to remember, know, or care).

 

Also, i've always liked the Sega Genesis controllers in particular with their ergonomic design and larger buttons which made extended gameplay a pleasure compared to the SNES controllers which cramp the hell out of my hands after about 15 minutes - it's just more of a gamers controller that you can GRIP with both hands and drive into ground playing (BUT, those shoulder buttons on SNES controllers were a great idea (Starfox and Contra III anyone?)

 

...and that's my $.02