INTV Thunder Castle

[Rik]

I just got INTV THUNDER CASTLE,which I won on E-bay.The graphics in this game have got to be the best ive ever seen for this system,game is pretty damn challenging also.What is everybodys take on this game,?also,do you guys know of any other INTV games with graphics as good as THUNDER CASTLE?.Oh yes,the music was fantastic also!!!!!!!

Edited October 2, 2006 by Rik

[SteveW]

I think Thunder Castle has the best graphics and music on the console. Graphics-wise, there's a few that have really good graphics but not as truly impressive. Masters of the Universe has halfway decent graphics (in comparison to Thunder Castle), and Diner! has a nice three dimensional playfield with something like 16 different levels, many of them with animation and changing layouts like elevators and openings in the floors. Tower of Doom isn't all that great looking in comparison, but it's got a D&D style gameplay that's much deeper. Stadium Mud Buggies has nice impressively large scrolling levels, but the graphics tend to be chunky looking. Hover Force has good graphics too. It takes place from an overhead viewpoint, as you fly a helicopter over a very large island city and shoot down terrorist helicopters and put out fires that they start. The scrolling graphics look great.

 

Can you imagine what it would have been like if Thunder Castle had been the pack-in game back in 1979? The first generation pack-in games for those consoles were usually the most primitive looking, and gave programmers a starting point to try to improve from that. Intellivision games would have looked outstanding, rather than looking like lame games such as Sub Hunt or Armor Battle.

[chrisbid]

i think the game is great from a technical standpoint, but the gameplay is a tad too slow for it be fantastic

[Numan]

I was amazed by the graphics and music.

 

Gameplay is rather simplistic, but it does speed up after awhile.

[BrianC]

I love Thunder Castle. Beamrider is another game that looks sweet on the intellivision with it's pseudo 3D graphics. Imagic games in general also look very good.

 

 

Can you imagine what it would have been like if Thunder Castle had been the pack-in game back in 1979? The first generation pack-in games for those consoles were usually the most primitive looking, and gave programmers a starting point to try to improve from that. Intellivision games would have looked outstanding, rather than looking like lame games such as Sub Hunt or Armor Battle.

 

 

That would have been something, though rather unrealistic. Also, I found Armor Battle to look quite nice, especially for the time it came out, though the slow turning version can be annoying to play. I didn't find Sub Hunt lame. Graphics aren't the best, but I found the gameplay to sweet. Now, if Thunder Castle released when it was originally planned to be released, in 1983, that still would have been sweet.

 

Wasn't Las Vagas Poker/Blackjack the pack in for the Intellivision? Compared to similar games on other systems, like the 2600 Casino, the graphics were much better and there were more features. The fact that there is a visable dealer in it was probably quite impressive for the time.

Edited October 2, 2006 by BrianC

[Dr. Morbis]

Forget the graphics (good as they are), it's the music that blew me away when I first played it. Thunder Castle is, by far, my favourite game on the system and I think the gameplay is just right. It really gives me that creepy running-through-a-haunted-forest-in-medieval-times feeling when I first boot it up and hear its eery tunes.

[Dusk2600]

this game is a gem for intv

[Paranoid]

I've been playing, oddly enough, Brian, Frogger (a Parker Bros. title) on my INTV, along with Donkey Kong, Atlantis, and Demon Attack...

 

The INTV is just... quirky. It feels like a lot of Mattel toys from the Mid 70s and early 80s. Very corporate, conservative, cautious.

 

Donkey Kong is actually a decent version, despite the sound being sorta wonky (yet closer than the 2600 version). The wierd thing is just the graphics in general, though. Everything looks more or less like Donkey Kong should look... but, Mario looks more like a Bearenstein Bear or a Chipmunk (ala Alvin And the...) then he looks like Mario.

 

Frogger is the same deal. It looks remarkably like the 2600 version, actually, if a little improved. But it does some strange things... like the playfield "reset" at the beginning of each new life.

 

And Demon Attack is really a completely different game. It *is* a Phoenix rip off, and very little like Demon Attack from the Atari line.

 

Whereas Atlantis seems to be pretty much like the Atari version in graphics, sound and gameplay, but with a Missile Command like cursor.

 

All of these things just add to that "One Of These Kids Is Doing His Own Thing" feeling around INTV, IMO.

 

I think I really touched on it with the idea that it had something to do with Mattel's place as a giant in the TOY industry at that time. Their approach just seems a little more oriented toward developing something consumer oriented... as opposed to something built by propeller heads who saw consumer potential with their nerdly pursuits.

 

Does that distinction make sense?

[BrianC]

Whereas Atlantis seems to be pretty much like the Atari version in graphics, sound and gameplay, but with a Missile Command like cursor.

 

Atlantis has more over the Atari version than just a missile command like cursor. It has more enemy types, varied whether conditions, and the ability to control the ship (I think the 8 key launches it). There is also a musical tune that plays when you die, if I remember correctly.

 

I like the Intellivision Frogger, though I prefer the 2600 one. The Intellivision one does have the otters, but it doesn't seem to have 2 snakes at once or the ability to walk on the backs of the snakes. Like you said, it's odd in some aspects. I wish Tutankham and Super Cobra weren't so rare, or I would be getting my hands on those.

Edited October 2, 2006 by BrianC

[jaybird3rd]

I've been playing, oddly enough, Brian, Frogger (a Parker Bros. title) on my INTV, along with Donkey Kong, Atlantis, and Demon Attack...

 

The INTV is just... quirky. It feels like a lot of Mattel toys from the Mid 70s and early 80s. Very corporate, conservative, cautious.

 

Donkey Kong is actually a decent version, despite the sound being sorta wonky (yet closer than the 2600 version). The wierd thing is just the graphics in general, though. Everything looks more or less like Donkey Kong should look... but, Mario looks more like a Bearenstein Bear or a Chipmunk (ala Alvin And the...) then he looks like Mario.

 

Frogger is the same deal. It looks remarkably like the 2600 version, actually, if a little improved. But it does some strange things... like the playfield "reset" at the beginning of each new life.

 

And Demon Attack is really a completely different game. It *is* a Phoenix rip off, and very little like Demon Attack from the Atari line.

 

Whereas Atlantis seems to be pretty much like the Atari version in graphics, sound and gameplay, but with a Missile Command like cursor.

 

All of these things just add to that "One Of These Kids Is Doing His Own Thing" feeling around INTV, IMO.

 

I think I really touched on it with the idea that it had something to do with Mattel's place as a giant in the TOY industry at that time. Their approach just seems a little more oriented toward developing something consumer oriented... as opposed to something built by propeller heads who saw consumer potential with their nerdly pursuits.

 

Does that distinction make sense?

When evaluating any game console based on its games, it's important to distinguish games that were unique to that console from games that were ports from arcades or from other platforms. The latter category includes all of the games you cited here, which were developed on other platforms and tailored to the strengths of those platforms, and were then moved to the Intellivision after the fact (and sometimes as an afterthought).

 

Remember that most third-party Intellivision publishers, like Imagic and Activision, were started by Atari alumni and made most of their money with the 2600. The "rock stars" (Crane, Kaplan, Miller, Fulop, Koble, etc) did little or no Intellivision development themselves; from what I've heard, they mostly brought in fresh college grads or students on summer internships to staff their Intellivision groups. Some of what they produced was great, and some of it wasn't. The Parker Brothers games are all mediocre at best IMHO, and Donkey Kong in particular is widely considered one of the worst Intellivision games.

 

You really have to look at the first-party titles that came from Mattel before making any decisions about the Intellivision. The Blue Sky Rangers understood the system and what it could do better than anyone else, and I think it's impressive that their total output has a much lower percentage of stinkers than the output of Atari's consumer group. They also seemed more willing to push the envelope and experiment with the new medium; many Mattel games (particularly Utopia) were not conservative corporate creations, but were instead very unique and experimental. Toward the end, they really started to figure it out and their games started to get really good, and many of the titles that were produced from 1983 through the INTV era looked and sounded better than many Atari 800 games.

 

Thunder Castle is definitely one of those, and really shows what the Intellivision was capable of in the right hands. It's one of those games that makes me wish that INTV could have lasted longer. I would have loved to see what other ideas could have been created on the Intellivision, but by 1990 the market wasn't there for them anymore.

Edited October 2, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[BrianC]

When evaluating any game console based on its games, it's important to distinguish games that were unique to that console from games that were ports from arcades or from other platforms. The latter category includes all of the games you cited here, which were developed on other platforms and tailored to the strengths of those platforms, and were then moved to the Intellivision after the fact (and sometimes as an afterthought).

 

IMO, there should be a third category, games that were based on games from other platforms, but were designed from the ground up for another system. The Intellivision versions of Atlantis and Demon Attack are vastly different from their 2600 counterparts and programmed from the ground up for the Intellivision. Atlantis completely smashes the 2600 version, IMO. Demon Attack Intv is a great game in its own right and I like how it's not a port of the 2600 version.

 

Remember that most third-party Intellivision publishers, like Imagic and Activision, were started by Atari alumni and made most of their money with the 2600. The "rock stars" (Crane, Kaplan, Miller, Fulop, Koble, etc) did little or no Intellivision development themselves; from what I've heard, they mostly brought in fresh college grads or students on summer internships to staff their Intellivision groups. Some of what they produced was great, and some of it wasn't. The Parker Brothers games are all mediocre at best IMHO, and Donkey Kong in particular is widely considered one of the worst Intellivision games.

 

Actually, Imagic was the company that brought in the fresh college grads. You also forgot one important thing, both Imagic and Activision had former Mattel programmers backing them up. David Rolfe, who made some great games for Mattel and help create the EXEC, made Beamrider. It later got ported to many other systems, but the Intellivision version is the original and quite nifty.

 

Microsurgeon and Truckin' were designed by Rick Lavine (I think), the designer of PBA Bowling for the Intellivision. I heard mixed things about Truckin', but it is rather unique. I heard a lot of good things about Microsurgeon, which is also rather unique. Some of games designed by college grads like Atlantis, Dracula, and Demon Attack turned out quite well and was probably helped by the fact that Imagic had some former Mattel staff working for them. Oddly enough, one of the worst Imagic Intellivsion games, Fathom, was designed by a former Mattel employee. Tropical Trouble was actually designed by Steve DeFrisco, the designer of Secret Quest for the 2600.

 

Edit: Doh. I forgot to talk about Parker Bros games and DK. Parker Bros games vary in quality, but in general, I like what I tried of them. Also, none of their Intellivison games are ports of other versions besides the arcade, except for Empire strikes back, which is ported from the 2600. Popeye is ugly, but plays well and has most of the arcade elements intact. Q*Bert seems to be very good aside from the choice to use the diagonals to control it. Super Cobra and Tutankham seem to be very good too.

 

As for DK, I didn't like the port very much. The collision detection is terrible. However, I like some of the other Coleco Intellivision games like Venture, Mouse Trap, Ladybug and Donkey Kong Jr. Carnival suffers from poor control, but has most of the elements intact. Zaxxon probably would have worked better if it was kept in the isometric perspective. The Intellivision isn't good at pseudo 3D scrolling. The attempt at pseudo 3D on Zaxxon fails badly.

You really have to look at the first-party titles that came from Mattel before making any decisions about the Intellivision. The Blue Sky Rangers understood the system and what it could do better than anyone else, and I think it's impressive that their total output has a much lower percentage of stinkers than the output of Atari's consumer group. They also seemed more willing to push the envelope and experiment with the new medium; many Mattel games (particularly Utopia) were not conservative corporate creations, but were instead very unique and experimental. Toward the end, they really started to figure it out and their games started to get really good, and many of the titles that were produced from 1983 through the INTV era looked and sounded better than many Atari 800 games.

 

Again, you forget that former Mattel employees went to Activision, Atarisoft, and Imagic. Activision and Imagic also produced some unique and experimental games like Beamrider, Dreadnaught Factor, Microsurgeon, Dracula, White Water, and Truckin'. Many of the best Intellivision games did come from BSR, though. I haven't heard too much mention of the sports games. They made some very good ones and the later ones produced by INTV are better than some NES games and still stand the test of time.

 

Thunder Castle is definitely one of those, and really shows what the Intellivision was capable of in the right hands. It's one of those games that makes me wish that INTV could have lasted longer. I would have loved to see what other ideas could have been created on the Intellivision, but by 1990 the market wasn't there for them anymore.

 

Agreed. Thunder Castle, Chip Shot Super Pro Golf, and many other INTV releases are quite impressive. What's even more impressive is that some of the later releases like Hover Force, Thin Ice, and Thunder Castle were originally planned to be released earlier. Hover Force for 1984 and the other two for 1983.

Edited October 2, 2006 by BrianC

[Paranoid]

I think Brian's rebuttals kind of hit anything I would have had to say about this.

 

I'm surpised Donkey Kong is derided. It isn't THAT bad... it is ODD... kind of different... but, I don't know that it is inherently WORSE than some of the other versions... 2600, for example. Although, honestly, the Colecovision and 7800 versions of DK are odd too. My favorite console interpetation is the 8-bit PC version ported to the 5200... which still has it's unique quirks.

 

The first party titles I have are all (more or less) original release titles... and, frankly, it is easy to see why the Atari got such a big lead so early on. Even the titles that had potential just weren't pushed right (like AD&D, which could have been an INTV killer app, at that time, if they had just gotten people to give it a *chance*). I was really more interested in seeing what the innovative 3rd party publishers did with the INTV... and I'm not disappointed, but I can see that the INTV was a weird niche player.

[jbanes]

I can see that the INTV was a weird niche player.

By 'niche', I presume you mean, "second only to Atari"? It was kind of hard to miss Plimpton's "Intellivision looks more like the real thing!" speeches.

[jaybird3rd]

Actually, Imagic was the company that brought in the fresh college grads. You also forgot one important thing, both Imagic and Activision had former Mattel programmers backing them up. David Rolfe, who made some great games for Mattel and help create the EXEC, made Beamrider. It later got ported to many other systems, but the Intellivision version is the original and quite nifty.

Again, you forget that former Mattel employees went to Activision, Atarisoft, and Imagic. Activision and Imagic also produced some unique and experimental games like Beamrider, Dreadnaught Factor, Microsurgeon, Dracula, White Water, and Truckin'. Many of the best Intellivision games did come from BSR, though. I haven't heard too much mention of the sports games. They made some very good ones and the later ones produced by INTV are better than some NES games and still stand the test of time.

Yes, I certainly remembered the Mattel guys who moved on to greener pastures at other companies, but I got the impression they were usually brought over to train other programmers and to help set up Intellivision groups and to do management stuff rather than solo game development. I didn't want to make an already-long post even longer, so I simply said the other companies (particularly Imagic) mostly used college kids for their Intellivision work.

 

But yes, in addition to the ones you mentioned, I know that Peter Kaminski (who originally came to Mattel from APh) went to Activision and did Intellivision River Raid, and that John Sohl also went to Activision. And I had forgotten that Bob Whitehead did Intellivision Stampede (based on his 2600 original) and Carol Shaw did Happy Trails, so the Intellivision did in fact get some support from Activision's high-profile developers. DeFrisco is an interesting case because he worked on the Intellivision exclusively during its heyday and only got to develop for the 2600 much later.

 

My comments about the third-party developers that failed to live up to the BSR standards were mostly aimed at Parker Brothers; I certainly won't deny that Imagic and Activision did some great work on the Intellivision. I've got all of Imagic's Intellivision cartridges in my collection (except Fathom), and Atlantis and Demon Attack are probably my favorites. I like how they took the concepts of the 2600 originals and ran with them, but I think Atlantis was more successful at this than Demon Attack (which had some bugs and was a little clunky IMHO). On the Activision side, I liked Dreadnaught Factor, Beamrider, and the aforementioned Happy Trails. These titles are especially impressive considering that they were done without any support from Mattel, since Mattel made most of their money on software and didn't want third-party "competition" (even though it was supporting their system).

Edited October 2, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[Paranoid]

I can see that the INTV was a weird niche player.

By 'niche', I presume you mean, "second only to Atari"? It was kind of hard to miss Plimpton's "Intellivision looks more like the real thing!" speeches.

 

 

We had this basic debate in a Mac thread, too...

 

Yeah... #2...

 

in a two horse race...

 

Is *last*.

 

 

 

Or... that FIRST step is a DOOZY between "#1" and #2 and the rest...

 

Or however you want to look at it.

 

I'd argue that Intellivision survived long enough to watch itself drop to #4 against Colecovision, Atari 5200, and it's old adversary, the Atari 2600. Depending on how you look at it... this could be a good thing or a bad thing. But I'd *guess* from an overall figures perspective, the Intellivision has more in common with the Odysee 2 than with any of the other systems mentioned here. For a number of reasons.

[Rik]

Does anyone have a good strategy for beating the 2nd maze,which is the "WIZARD" maze in THUNDER CASTLE?,I've been trying all night and cant do it,im dying to advance and see what the "DEMON"dungeon looks like,thanx guys.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Rik

[Rik]

I can see that the INTV was a weird niche player.

By 'niche', I presume you mean, "second only to Atari"? It was kind of hard to miss Plimpton's "Intellivision looks more like the real thing!" speeches.

 

 

We had this basic debate in a Mac thread, too...

 

Yeah... #2...

 

in a two horse race...

 

Is *last*.

 

 

 

Or... that FIRST step is a DOOZY between "#1" and #2 and the rest...

 

Or however you want to look at it.

 

I'd argue that Intellivision survived long enough to watch itself drop to #4 against Colecovision, Atari 5200, and it's old adversary, the Atari 2600. Depending on how you look at it... this could be a good thing or a bad thing. But I'd *guess* from an overall figures perspective, the Intellivision has more in common with the Odysee 2 than with any of the other systems mentioned here. For a number of reasons.

Hmm,interesting,could you elaborate on why you think the INTV has alot in common with the ODYSEE 2?

Edited October 3, 2006 by Rik

[jbanes]

But I'd *guess* from an overall figures perspective, the Intellivision has more in common with the Odysee 2 than with any of the other systems mentioned here. For a number of reasons.

Hmm,interesting,could you elaborate on why you think the INTV has alot in common with the ODYSEE 2?

Don't mind Paranoid. We have to whack him with a clue stick every once in awhile.

 

FWIW, the Intellivision sold over 3 million units before the crash. Supposedly, another 3 million were sold in the next 7-9 years of its existence for a total of 6 million units, but I have not yet seen a definitive source on that. We do know that the original Intellivision was sold long past 1983, and that the remanufactured Intellivision III was brought to the market as stock dwindled. Either way, the 3 million by 1983 figure compared favorably with the VCS's 10 million units by 1983. Remember, the VCS had a three year head start.

 

The Colecovision sold 6 million units in its lifetime, but it was benefiting from the growing gaming market that the first generation consoles had created. If the total number of Intellivision units is to be believed, then the first-gen Intellivision established a parity with its second generation cousin. Quite a feat.

 

The Odyssey^2 sold about 1 million North American consoles in its lifetime, probably due to K.C. Munchkin. European figures are apparently unavailable. We know there were 15,000 units of the "next gen" model. A liberal estimate thus might be a total of 2,015,000 units altogether. Considering it was introduced only a year after the 2600, it didn't have that great of a showing.

 

The rest of the players (Bally Astrocade, Emerson Arcadia 2001, Channel F, etc.) followed the dropoff curve, having sold very few units overall. You'll have to look those up for yourself, however.

[Paranoid]

The Colecovision came out shortly before the crash, and yet sold twice as many units as the Intellivison sold across it's entire life? (And I'm wondering if this figure includes ADAM sales, or if ADAM sales would increase the total number of Colecovision sales during this period)... and this is DESPITE 3 different incarnations of INTV? Intellivision, INTV-2, INTV 3?

 

I think your post illustrates my point nicely, and illustrates how the Intellivision really has more in common from a sales numbers perspective with the Odysee 2 than with the 2600, 5200, or Colecovision.

[SteveW]

I just wanted to mention that Fathom wasn't all that great a game on the Intellivision because it was based on an Atari 2600 game that itself wasn't very good. According to one of the Imagic programmers, Fathom started out life as a nifty animation of a dolphin jumping out of the water. It looked good, so they tried to program a game around that theme, and they admitted that it didn't work too well. I've never played the Intellivision version, but I have the TI-99/4A version, and it seems that they managed to add a little more gameplay to it by that point. But still, it's not all that fun to play.

 

Rik: There's not any tips I can give you to help you get past the wizard level. Other than to stay a very short distance from the mice until a wizard is nearly on you, then touch it. If you can pick up the icon that will extend your 'power pill' time, hang on to it and use it strategically. Good luck to you. The devil levels are pretty cool looking, with the animated skulls and all.

[jbanes]

I think your post illustrates my point nicely

You mean, in twisted Paranoid logic?

 

 

The Colecovision came out shortly before the crash, and yet sold twice as many units as the Intellivison sold across it's entire life?

Yes. A second-gen console sold more than the Intellivison. Would you like to include the numbers for the Nintendo and SMS while you're at it? The Famicom was a pre-crash system. Shall we look at it's lifetime numbers? (Hint: It sold more than every other game console before it, combined.) By all rights, the Colecovision should have been the NES, but Coleco dragged themselves down with their Adam.

 

Plain and simple: Atari and Intellivision were first generation machines. Comparing the Colecovision to these would be like comparing the PS2 and N64. Video game machines have slowly been increasing the size of the video game market over the years. The PS2 sold 103 million units! If you look back through history, every generation has gotten a bigger pie to divide up. These days a console isn't successful unless it's sold a minimum of 20 million units or so.

 

But wait! The Colecovision wasn't a success because the... err... Playstation 2 sold 103 million units. Which I think illustrates your point nicely.

 

...

 

Um...

 

What was you point again?

 

...

 

 

DESPITE 3 different incarnations of INTV? Intellivision, INTV-2, INTV 3?

Did you know that the 2600 sold only 10 million units DESPITE a half a dozen versions including the HEAVY SIXER, LIGHT SIXER, 4 SWITCHER, VADER, and 2600 JR!?!

 

I think your post illustrates my point nicely, and illustrates how the Intellivision really has more in common from a sales numbers perspective with the Odysee 2 than with the 2600, 5200, or Colecovision.

Would that be the Odysee [sic] by Homer... Simpson?

[Paranoid]

You know, Jbanes, it is useless arguing with you about stuff like this, because you're the kind of guy that will insist that Beta was the superior format until you're blue in the face, in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary. The way that you draw distinctions in your comparisson and weigh your data for comparisson is telling, though, and illustrates how you come to your (sadly mistaken) conclusions about the success or relative failure of this or that piece of hardware. There is no arguing with someone who admits the numbers, but fails (or refuses) to understand their real significance.

 

I never know if you're just being obstinante, or you're just loony-toons, on a lot of these arguments. I find it interesting that you chose to illustrate that the *Famicon* was a pre-crash console... because, that is an interesting assertion. In fact, the NES revitalized the POST-crash market, and the NES is the incarnation of the Famicon that had any significant global impact. So... while the Famicon itself may have existed, in Japan, pre-crash, what really counts, the NES, is in fact a post-crash console. And I don't think anyone but YOU would deny that this is the conventional wisdom about the NES. The domestic release of the NES revitalized an all but flat-line video game console industry.

 

I am also entertained that distractions from the actual arguments are so amusing to you. Seems you would rather engage in ad homienem attacks than actually confront the arguments... which is no real surprise.

[Paranoid]

Anyhow,

 

I downloaded Bliss and I'm playing around with a bunch of INTV bins...

 

I've got to say, the INTV benefits *significantly*, via emulation, in having easy access to a digital 8 way microswitch joystick (via the Speedlink Competition Pro USB). Although it seems that INTV emulation development still lags behind the various Atari emulators in refinement.

 

Is Bliss the de facto emulator for Intellivision on PC?

 

And, JBanes, I'm sure you can answer this one for me, what is the favored INTV emulator on Mac?

 

I went ahead and visited some of the titles I've been curious about. I don't *really* see any significant difference between Dreadnaught Factor on INTV and 5200, despite lots of claims that the INTV version was far superior. It scrolls differently, seems to be the main thing... and maybe the INTV has the difficulty bumped up a notch by default. I've still got to tweak the stick to get it working right for this title, so maybe I'm missing something or being premature... but graphics and gameplay seem pretty much the same, and I can't see how there could be any significant differences that would alter the game that much to make the INTV so popular while the 5200 version is widely regarded as a turkey.

 

I downloaded Thunder Castle, and, maybe I just don't have it in the right context, but I'm not blown away by the game. Actually, the original INTV AD&D seems a lot more innovative (if graphically crude) than this title. Of course, I also am playing it in emulation, and I'm not certain the emulation is anywhere near 100% accurate. I mean, if we're comparing it to 2600 titles, I guess I can see that, yeah... the INTV had the capabilities for more finely detailed graphics than the VCS... Although, clearly, there is more to a successful and enduring console than graphics alone.

[ubersaurus]

You know, Jbanes, it is useless arguing with you about stuff like this, because you're the kind of guy that will insist that Beta was the superior format until you're blue in the face, in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary. The way that you draw distinctions in your comparisson and weigh your data for comparisson is telling, though, and illustrates how you come to your (sadly mistaken) conclusions about the success or relative failure of this or that piece of hardware. There is no arguing with someone who admits the numbers, but fails (or refuses) to understand their real significance.

 

I never know if you're just being obstinante, or you're just loony-toons, on a lot of these arguments. I find it interesting that you chose to illustrate that the *Famicon* was a pre-crash console... because, that is an interesting assertion. In fact, the NES revitalized the POST-crash market, and the NES is the incarnation of the Famicon that had any significant global impact. So... while the Famicon itself may have existed, in Japan, pre-crash, what really counts, the NES, is in fact a post-crash console. And I don't think anyone but YOU would deny that this is the conventional wisdom about the NES. The domestic release of the NES revitalized an all but flat-line video game console industry.

 

I am also entertained that distractions from the actual arguments are so amusing to you. Seems you would rather engage in ad homienem attacks than actually confront the arguments... which is no real surprise.

 

 

Pfft, you've never been to Japan, and seen the impact the Famicom made there. There was practically no home console market of worth in japan until the Famicom came along in 1983. The damn machine saw production up until 2003, and the sheer amount of merchandise and pop culture that surrounds the machine dwarfs the NES here. The NES may have revitalized the US console market, but the Famicom MADE the japanese one, and up until recently, that was more important.

 

I'm totally confused, though. How did the Odyssey 2's 1 million units sold by 83 compare equally to 3 million sold by the Intellivision til 83? Considering that like 6 horse race had the Intellivision at a comfortable 2nd place against the company that owned most of the hot arcade title rights and had a several year headstart, I'd say they did pretty damn well for themselves. Certainly the late 80s efforts for both machines were technically excellent.

[rjchamp3]

This game is great, and so hard to find