Best console by generation polls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obviously

Looking at the 2600 game list for 1982 there were actually a lot of fantastic titles, even in the 3rd party list though there's also a lot of tripe in the 3rd party list.

---

Note my list wasn't a complete 1982 list, but one pared down to include the most "original" games . . . or good quality/evolutionary developments of common genres. (I did leave out a few quality games that were closer to being clones than evolved -and noted a few I did list as boarderline clones . . . plus I included some "original" games that are rather mediocre or crappy -or good in their own right, but niche in terms of marketability -I can't see most average gamers liking Raiders of the Lost Ark very much, definitely not pick-up and play but rather difficult and frustrating even in the adventure genre)

Also, regardless of quality, you can also see that there was just too much being put out at the time (and overproduction of individual titles on top of that). So even good/fun/marketable games would end up flooding the market. (which meant poor returns on R&D and manufacturing investment, distribution problems, confusion of retailers and consumers, etc)

The good to bad ratio was honestly no worse than most popular consoles there after (aside from the porn game issue going far more mainstream than anything subsequent -outside of Asia), but there was just too much coming too fast for the market at the time. (and this was largely due to the aforementioned flawed distribution systems that fostered highly inflated market growth and demand figures)

Quote:

---

A good deal of Atari's own games were top notch. Vanguard, which I feel is often ignored considering how much it innovated, and Berserk are two of my personal favorites.

---

Many of them were arcade ports of non-atari games. Both Vanguard and Berzerk were ports, but well done by Atari for sure. (as was jungle hunt, Ms Pac Man, etc)
Centipede was an Atari Arcade game, but Atari developed for sure. (and Star Raiders was a port of an A8 game -unfortunately not a very good port, though several 3rd party games in that genre were quite good in '82 -including Starmaster and the more arcade-style Star Voyager -not to be confused with the NES game, which is less arcade-oriented than Star Raiders and involves a lot of strategy to play properly . . . many dislike it for that)

Demons to Diamonds, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Sword Quest, Yar's Revenge, Haunted House, and Atari Video Cube were all Atari console originals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

Says who? certainly not any magazine I've read from the mid to late 80s carrying A8 sales figures.

---

The early figures may be accurate, but the 1982 and (especially) '83 onward seems oddly low/nonexistent. (he also lists "Atari 400 and 800" . . . which could imply that the 1200XL, 600XL, 800XL, and XE series are not included)

I sent Curt and Marty messages yesterday on this issue (or that site in general), but haven't heard back yet.

Quote:

---

PET was not very popular in the US BTW, I remember reading an article once where they said 70% of PET sales happened outside of North America (PET was probably the "serious" machine of choice in the UK before the home market took off, I don't know about other Euro countries though)

---

The PET was the dominant comupter in schools prior to the Apple II taking hold in the educational market. (and that's theonly places I've seen PETs personally, old machines that never got dumped from schools . . . sitting around in the back of a few classrooms or in storage)

Quote:

---

Coco is also a problem if not included with TRS-80 in the Reimer graphs (which I've heard to be the case, and sales figures I've seen elsewhere seem to back up)

---

He should have kept the TRS-80 model 1/3 separate from the model II as well. (they're totally different and incompatible systems)

There's no way the coco figures are included since the CoCo sold far more than the Z80 based machines ever did.

Quote:

---

Not surprising since C64 came out during 1982 and was priced very highly that year.

---

Priced high compared to what it was dropped to, but priced shockingly low for all the competition and market experts of the time. (the Atari staff at the CES that year were shocked at the price compared to the new 64k 1200XL . . . or the 48k 800)

It was expensive compared to what the average consumer might afford at the time, but incredibly cheap as a computer with the hardware/memory it offered. (a combination of vertical integration, cost-cut design -though some cut corners cost them reliability and recalls/returns- and far lower profit margins than any of the competition -oh, that and CBM's general lack of customer service/tech support vs what competitors were investing . . . plus marketing through discount mass retailers who were willing to sell at lower margins than dedicated computer dealers -and probably less than Sears was willing to do as well for their Atari products)

Quote:

---

A8 decreased in sales in 1983, when a huge increase had previously been forcast.

---

Yeah, that was due to a combination of the C64's aggressive marketing/pricing and the halt of Atari operations early that fall (delaying full distribution of the 600 and 800XL and software and giving the holiday sales season to CBM on a silver platter).
Morgan's halt/evaluation period was a necessary part of his reorganization efforts, but it was extremely unfortunate that it came when it did. (halting operations a year earlier for similar evaluation might have even been a godsend -especially if it happened prior to the 5200 or ET going into full production and release)

1984 might have had a good chance to rectify the situation, but then there was the whole sloppy transition (or lack thereof) of Warner's liquidation of the company and Atari Corp being formed. (and Tramiel and Co having to wade through the ensuing mess . . . lots of wasted time/money/talent due to that -Tramiel obviously would have shifted priorities regardless, but a well-managed transition should have kept things far better off)

You did have Tramiel dumping the 600XL and slashing the 800XL to $99 in mid '84 . . . though with limited advertising and a damaged distribution network, they still had a hard time selling it. (honestly, they probably shouldn't have cut the price so much until they could ensure a steady flow of product to retailers . . . and enough advertising to make people reasonably aware of the price drop)
I don't think the 64k A8 ever went above $100 again . . . I think the 65XE retained that price in '85/86 and I've seen ads (and news clips of retailers) selling it for $99 in 1987. (oddly, the XEGS was way more expensive than the 65XE) Albeit they may have been dumping the 800XL in the short term to generate as much revenue as possible in their bad position. (it wouldn't make sense to sell the XE for a loss though)

OK, I'll give you Pitfall as being a revolutionary game.

Quote:

---

IMO Gameplay wise Smurf is neither evolutionary, not revolutionary (great game for its time though). Its main improvements were with presentation, as far as I'm concerned the gameplay itself is inferior to Pitfall, Pitfall has more dynamic environment elements affecting the gameplay, its also faster and smoother with the joining screens, whilst each screen in Smurf feels disjointed and unconnected.

---

How can Pitfall be revolutionary but not Smurf? Smurf can Pitfall were begin developed at the same time, and both were the first multi-screen side-scrolling (page flipping) run and jump platformers

Quote:

---

Eh? fresh?, this is a list of all the games i'm criticising (in many cases, such as with Demon Attack I mean that literally)

---

No, I listed games that either were notable evolutions/enhancements of existing genres (if not substantial gameplay changes, at least significant graphics/sound upgrades -enough to make people want to play several games in that genre).

Then I also listed some more "original" games or less common genres (pseudo 3D roaming 1st person space shooters were relatively uncommon for the most part, but 1982 saw a burst of support in that genre). I included both good and bad games in this group, since there were a few quite original or unique games that just weren't very good. (there were also some new/unique games that were good for their genre, but just not very appealing to the average gamer -somthing that's true to this day, hence some genres being niche . . . or some becoming niche between different generations . . . or moving from niche to mainstream ;))

Then there were some new/fresh games that had parallel/similar developments releases around the same time (so not a bunch of the same from previous years, but similar new/fresh games appearing together).

Quote:

---

Virtually everything on this list is a fixed screen shooting games of one form or another, on top of that you even bring up what games they're derived from in many of the write-ups, and you listed many games which you even admitted were actually bad games (bad games are not going to keep people interested in gaming, misplaced originality or not) :?

---

No, there's a lot of fixed-screen shooters (of several distinct genres -and even more tweaks/changes within each genre -ie "space invaders" format vs "missile command" and variations within those, etc), but there's a lot of other genres too, and a few that only had 1 or 2 games in that genre.

There's several scrolling SHMUPs there, some grab/collect type action games (of several sub-genres -Journey Escape obviously being very different from Dragon Fire), Berzerk and at least 1 similar game, 1st person sim-style pseudo 3D space shooters, pseudo 3D railshooters, fixed-screen arcade style platform games (Donkey Kong and the like), run and jump platformers (Pit Fall and Smurf), roaming shooters in the vein of Defender (some with substantial differences), few puzzle games, frogger (highway was in '81), pac-man style maze games (which were definitely new/fresh for '82 on the system), action/adventure games, a few different genres of racing games (though I don't think any fixed-screen circuit racers like the several seen in the 70s), and a few others. (including some one-off games like Towering Inferno)

Fixed scree shooters (of all genres) may have been the most common single chunk of game types, but they certainly weren't the majority of games on the system.

Quote:

---

I'd say there's barely 15 good, trully original games in that entire list (I'm not criticising the quality of many of the games on the list, such as Demon Attack, but they're following fairly strict formula's)

---

Again, the same is true for most subsequent generations too, a ton of games that are not truly "original" . . . the thing is that as games get more complex, there obviously going to be more room for fine differences and sub-genres . . . so the sub-genres and tweaks/differences to gameplay/graphics/sound/etc for the time was really no different IMO.
The good to bad ratio isn't really different from the average of subsequent generations either.

However, what WAS different was the sheer volume of software (good or bad, old or new) relative to the real market size at the time. Similar distribution of quality and genres/game types at a far lower volume would have been what the market needed (as far as software went), and obviously lower production volumes from manufacturers. (so no massive overstock leading to collapse) Except more so for 3rd parties . . . Atari's own output was pretty reasonable for the time. (aside from massive overproduction of Pac Man and ET -and being unwilling to delay Pac Man for a higher quality release . . . all they really had to do was make it before the holiday season -though fear of clones flooding the market may also have been an issue . . . but you don't produce 12 million copies of a stop-gap release -the ET mess was a separate issue, and under the circumstances, the best case was to cut their losses with a moderate production run -a few hundred thousand tops- and eat the losses from the licensing deal -maybe recoup that with ET games on other platforms or another game on the 2600 -as it was there was a decent game on the A8)

The industry was growing faster than the consumer market for the products were . . . again due to faulty market growth and demand figures caused by faulty unregulated distribution producing inflated demand figures.

Quote:

---

I also don't think Starpath Supercharger games should be included, being that they required a $50 add-on (taking into account inflation thats over $100)

---

Yeah, but how about the cost of the games. (compare average new cart prices for the VCS with Starpath tape releases)

Quote:

---

Also, where did you get your info on the release dates?, a lot of these games are written down as 1981, and 1983 releases on Mobygames, IGN, and Gamefaqs

---

A mix of Atariage and Wiki . . . though I should check RF Generation too. Not ideal, but I stopped trusting Mobygames, Game Faqs, and IGN (especially Game Faqs) with the increasing number of errors I've found. (especially for some old PC games -some being >4 years off :shock: )

I didn't check all the wiki figures, but I corrected a few of them from cross-refrences. (Miner 49er I and II were flipped on wiki, for instance)

Quote:

---

Anyway, as I said before, even if we remove my own personal feelings from the discussion, as I said earlier I'm telling you what people of the day were saying in magazines of the time in readers letters, what reviewers were saying, what was written in editorials, and what newspapers reported after the crash.

---

You have to take that in context though . . . the users obviously couldn't have an understanding of the whole picture, and their criticism or suggestions may not have helped at all. (especially the more fundamental problems)

A big part of that was simply too many games coming out at once. The good to bad ratio and spread of genres was perfectly fine.

Quote:

---

It looks like a reverse version of Kaboom to me, there was also a game like that I played once with Chicken eggs I think, but I can't remember the system

---

Yes, that was on the 2600, I intentionally omitted that as it was an almost exact Kaboom clone. (I omitted all the direct clones -good or bad)

Quote:

---

Yeah, unfortunately Kassar didn't create a proper business infrastructure at Atari, he wanted to run everything personally, instead of trusting in his staff and allowing more autonomy he created more of a dictatorship :D

---

Yeah, but better than Bushnell at least. (who tried to run things he didn't understand and hired staff to handle things they didn't understand either -like hiring a salesman as head of marketing)

Quote:

---

The guy obviously had no mind for the future either, and was only interested in making short term profits without looking at the long term effects, but thats another issue.

---

He did have some interesting ideas (including plans for the Atari 8-bit line that mirrored what Apple did with the i-Mac years later), but he didn't have the right balance of understanding to run the company for sure. (and there was the massive issue of Warner's meddling as well)

Quote:

---

Well, essentially I see it as a similar point, Atari needed to wind down the 2600 and move people towards the next console.

---

Yes, though there's a lot of factors and options there. (and problems way bigger than hanging onto the 2600 too long)

Quote:

---

Personally I hadn't seen the 7800 stuff in internal records, I saw mentions of the sales and market share in old newspaper reports I ran into when I was looking into SMS sales figures

---

It was never publically available and would have been lost to the world had Curt Vendel not salvaged it from Atari Corp trash. (massive amounts of information came that way -tons of old documents being thrown away during the liquidation of the company -and a number of other documents and hardware items arriving from communication with Atari Corp staff prior to that -including getting some prototypes of canceled Atari Inc projects that had been put in the company store) Then there's all the interviews and information from actually talking to people. (many of whom The Ultamate History of Vidoe Games failed to look into -including Dabney)

There's so much that's been corrected or expanded upon with Curt and Marty's efforts. (makes me question other companies history)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

he also lists "Atari 400 and 800" . . . which could imply that the 1200XL, 600XL, 800XL, and XE series are not included

---

Thats a possibility, on top of whether this list is for worldwide or not (I believe it is, due to the two C64 sales breakdowns listed, each totaling close to the worldwide 17 million figure, and the fact that Amiga sales seem much too high for the US based on other sources I've seen http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/sales.html )

Notice the source I posted, under the title Worldwide Sales by Year

1992

A600 - 200,000
A1200 - 44,000
Other Amigas - 146,000

Which would total 390,000, in the Reimer graphs for Amiga 1992 they have 390,000 exactly.

Now being that it seems as though the figures are for worldwide, according to the "Happy Computer 2. Atari XL/XE Sonderheft" the XL sold over 90,000 in Germany during 1987 (they're very surprised by this as its considered a feat for the machine there). This 90,000 can't be seen in the Reimer graphs, therefore it indicates that XL aren't included (the graphs don't actually say they're including XL anyway to be fair)

But to be honest, when we look at how the software support dried up extremely quickly after 1983, I would be very surprised if the XL systems sold particularly noteworthy amounts in the US (possibly the main reason why it wasn't included in the graphs). Reimer seems more interested in the worldwide sales of systems popular in the US (not just the biggest selling computers, as this would have included Spectrum on Euro sales alone). So XL sales were most likely mainly in Euro countries from the mid 80s onwards (its also often stated in magazines that Euro sales are what kept the machines going from mid 80s onwards).

Being that it was only really popular in Poland, and East Germany (with fair sales in West Germany), you're going to be looking at much lower than 1 million sales total for Europe (for instance 100,000 in one year in Germany was considered to be surprisingly high, so we can surmise that the preceding years were notably lower than that). All in all I feel that my earlier estimate total sales of 3 million (for the computers) is still well within reason, and 4 million would probably be unlikely.

--------------------------------------

Actually, taking into account the 600,000 odd TS-1000 figures, and 700,000 TI-994A figures from 1982, both of which nosedived in sales during 1983 (as well as dropping VIC-20 sales), you could very realistically say that more than anything else the C64 ate into, and consolidated the home computer market, I mean, there's not really that much growth in the low end market when you take into account how much of the competition was taken out of the running during 1983, certainly not enough to indicate the low end home computer market taking away notable sales from the console market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

How can Pitfall be revolutionary but not Smurf? Smurf can Pitfall were begin developed at the same time, and both were the first multi-screen side-scrolling (page flipping) run and jump platformers

---

As far as I'm concerned Smurf had nothing notable not already seen in Pitfall, if it added nothing fundamental to the genre then obviously its not revolutionary, if it really was in development at the same time as Pitfall, but beaten to the punch then that's a shame, but Pitfall was the earlier, revolutionary game, whilst by the time Smurf arrived it had already been superceded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

No, I listed games that either were notable evolutions/enhancements of existing genres

---

No, you didn't, you listed games which were literally the prior point of criticism, you can't disagree that all games weren't like Demon Attack, or Centipede, and that many were original, and then subsequently list Demon Attack and Centipede, that makes no logical sense. Changing enemy behaviour does not suddenly make something fresh.

Demon Attack, and Centipede are great games, but are not "fresh" they are varients on established games, do you honestly think that someone who had grown utterly sick to the sight of Space Invaders, and its arcade varients, would pick up Demon Attack and Centipede and think "wow, this is fresh" :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I included both good and bad games in this group, since there were a few quite original or unique games that just weren't very good.

---

Except the prior point was that there was a flood of "been there done that" games AND bad games causing the consumer apathy, original games which play like crap aren't going to combat consumer apathy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

No, there's a lot of fixed-screen shooters (of several distinct genres -and even more tweaks/changes within each genre -ie "space invaders" format vs "missile command" and variations within those, etc)

---

Those are not "genre's", they are all sub genre's of one genre "shooter"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Fixed screen shooters (of all genres) may have been the most common single chunk of game types, but they certainly weren't the majority of games on the system.

---

In regards to releases in 1982 they were, which is clearly highlighted by your list of games.

I was actually quite surprised when I saw your list, I expected there to at least be more Pac-Man style maze games, but really the primary focus was shooters by quite a huge degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Again, the same is true for most subsequent generations too, a ton of games that are not truly "original"...

---

Except by later generations gaming had already branched out into many distinct genre's offering very different types of gameplay, even now, with the emphasis on FPS there's still a lot of other stuff out there (especially when looking at the handheld, and downloable markets).

In fact even in 1983 the Apple II, A8s, and Spectrum were already branching out into many, many different areas and genre's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

A mix of Atariage and Wiki . . . though I should check RF Generation too. Not ideal, but I stopped trusting Mobygames, Game Faqs, and IGN (especially Game Faqs) with the increasing number of errors I've found.

---

Gamefaqs is waay more reliable than Wiki, Atariage I'm not so sure about, I was under the impression that they tended to write down copyright dates, and not release dates, but I don't really have that much experience there to be honest.

1st Generation: Could care less

2nd Generation: Again who cares.

3rd Generation: NES

4th Generation: Sega Cd / Snes

5th Generation: Playstation bar a far

Transitional Generation: Dreamcast

6th Generation: Xbox

7th Generation: 360 Made up for how horrible the last generation truly was.

1st Gen - n/a
This was way before my time.

2nd Gen - n/a
Still before my time. I've tried the 2600 and Intellivision once or twice, that's it.

3rd Gen - NES
It was the only 3rd Gen system I played, so it wins by default. So many good games, so many bad games...but regardless of quality, most of them found a way to lodge in your memory.

4th Gen - Genesis
An awesome system. Fast, smooth, great library, stayed relevant for almost a decade. More fun games in more genres than the SNES.

5th Gen - Nintendo 64
Better multiplayer system, better 3D system, stronger overall library than the PlayStation. If not the second-best console Nintendo ever put out, it's at least the third-best.

6th Gen - Playstation 2
And I loved the Dreamcast...but there's no getting around the awesome library, stunning longevity and DVD feature.

7th Gen - n/a
AFTER my time. I don't know why, I just don't care about the 7th generation at all. I already have a ton of great games, and I already have hard drives and the Internet on my computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBMW

3rd Gen: Atari 800 - I guess this fits in that generation.... its what I grew up on. Many a night was spent cornering the market on crystite in MULE.

4th Gen: Turbo Grafx 16 / Super CDROM2 / PC engine - Easily my most favorite system of them all. I love shooters, and this system has some of the best. Its too bad they couldn't spell Grafx properly in the poll...

5th Gen: (puts on fire shield) N64 - I guess it was a timing thing. When it came out in 96, I was 12 and was really into video games. The N64 produced some great memories for me.

6th Gen: (keeps fire shield on) Nintendo Gamecube - I love this system, even though it seems like not many others like it.

7th Gen: None. Like others, I seem to be stuck in the retro games and the new ones just dont get me excited like the old ones do.

---

The N64 and the 'cube? Seriously Beemer, WTF? Also, PC Engine? Come on man, seriously. Nobody has even heard of that thing!

Quote:

---

5th Gen - Nintendo 64
Better multiplayer system, better 3D system, stronger overall library than the PlayStation. If not the second-best console Nintendo ever put out, it's at least the third-best.

---

1. SNES
2. NES
3. DS
4. Gameboy Advance
5. Gameboy
6. Wii
7. N64

It is the seventh-best.



Also, what does Kool Kitty and thenewguy's conversation have to do with this thread???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

Thats a possibility, on top of whether this list is for worldwide or not (I believe it is, due to the two C64 sales breakdowns listed, each totaling close to the worldwide 17 million figure, and the fact that Amiga sales seem much too high for the US based on other sources I've seen http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/sales.html )

Notice the source I posted, under the title Worldwide Sales by Year

1992

A600 - 200,000
A1200 - 44,000
Other Amigas - 146,000

Which would total 390,000, in the Reimer graphs for Amiga 1992 they have 390,000 exactly.

---

My argument wasn't that all of the figures were wrong, but that they were inconsistent with some things missing or erroneous. And honestly, that's a far more dangerous situation than being totally inaccuracy, since it makes things look legitimate. (The Ultimate History of Video games is a great example of this: a great compilation of quotes/interviews, facts/figures, and some accurate commentary, but a general lack of fact-checking and interviews with counter arguments or other perspectives -let alone from those closer to first hand experience or with clearer memories . . . or from people who aren't prone to lying -like Nolan Bushnell- . . . having something that looks professional and is full of good information, but also full of inaccuracies and incomplete research is very dangerous from a historian's perspective)

That's why the work of people like Curt and Marty (and a few others doing similar in-depth research on other parts of the computer/tech industry -let alone other fields) are so important. It's a lack of people like that involved in Sega stuff (AFIK) that makes me question a lot of the current information available. (especially on things that were never fully detailed and have limited supporting evidence) Albeit Melf's own interviews and correspondence has done a fair bit to shed light on Sega's history, but only a fraction of what's been done for Atari. (then again, without access to Sega's private doccumentation, that's always going to be limited, more so with the limited options for interviewing Sega staff -especially anyone on the Japanese end- though there's still a fair bit more untapped sources from SoA personnel who haven't heen interviewed or have been but not with the right questions -not to mention SoE)

Quote:

---

Now being that it seems as though the figures are for worldwide, according to the "Happy Computer 2. Atari XL/XE Sonderheft" the XL sold over 90,000 in Germany during 1987 (they're very surprised by this as its considered a feat for the machine there). This 90,000 can't be seen in the Reimer graphs, therefore it indicates that XL aren't included (the graphs don't actually say they're including XL anyway to be fair)

---

That was one of my points: the graphics don't explicitly include XL or XE sales, so they may be totally missing (like VIC, TI/99, CoCo, etc) . . . and I believe those figures are for US only. (the ST and Amiga figures are oddly low if they're worldwide)

Quote:

---

But to be honest, when we look at how the software support dried up extremely quickly after 1983, I would be very surprised if the XL systems sold particularly noteworthy amounts in the US (possibly the main reason why it wasn't included in the graphs).

---

There was still significant software support through 1984 at the very least (with minor support in the mid/late 80s -to different extents for games and other applications), plus the separate category in the budget market segment in general, relying on back-library and low price point. (the 130 XE had some technical potential, but not a lot of actual software support -honestly, it may have made more sense to focus more on the ST . . . unless they had released an XEGS-like unit in '84 or '85 and never released the 7800 ;) -with the bonus of a massive loophole in Nintendo's licensing restrictions)

Quote:

---

Actually, taking into account the 600,000 odd TS-1000 figures, and 700,000 TI-994A figures from 1982, both of which nosedived in sales during 1983 (as well as dropping VIC-20 sales), you could very realistically say that more than anything else the C64 ate into, and consolidated the home computer market, I mean, there's not really that much growth in the low end market when you take into account how much of the competition was taken out of the running during 1983, certainly not enough to indicate the low end home computer market taking away notable sales from the console market.

---

Lack of capable competition also limits a market, though too much competition can also cause problems (especially in markets favoring oligopoly -as with consoles and computers) . . . then again, crappy management will ruin things either way. (panic and make stupid decisions in the face of competition, or similar stupidity with a monopoly -or act totally stubborn and ignore competition like Nintendo did to a fair extent -especially in Japan, especially with the SNES and N64)

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned Smurf had nothing notable not already seen in Pitfall, if it added nothing fundamental to the genre then obviously its not revolutionary, if it really was in development at the same time as Pitfall, but beaten to the punch then that's a shame, but Pitfall was the earlier, revolutionary game, whilst by the time Smurf arrived it had already been superceded.

---

How much earlier was Pitfall than Smurf? Were they in development at the same time?

If 2 (or more) games are parallel/convergent developments of a new/revolutionary style/genre (or sub-genre), neither should be seen as less significant or a copy-cat. (Freeway and Frogger were obviously totally independent developments -though with similar inspiration)

Quote:

---

No, you didn't, you listed games which were literally the prior point of criticism, you can't disagree that all games weren't like Demon Attack, or Centipede, and that many were original, and then subsequently list Demon Attack and Centipede, that makes no logical sense. Changing enemy behaviour does not suddenly make something fresh.

---

No, I listed some of those games (as they were really good games at the time, and fun for anyone who liked the genre regardless of whether they had others of that genre already -especially with the limited frequency and quantity the average consumer would buy games).

Quote:

---

Demon Attack, and Centipede are great games, but are not "fresh" they are varients on established games, do you honestly think that someone who had grown utterly sick to the sight of Space Invaders, and its arcade varients, would pick up Demon Attack and Centipede and think "wow, this is fresh" :?

---

Some of those are significant improvements or modifications of the base genre, absolutely no different than what happens with popular genres/sub-genres in basically every gaming generation.

The differences were, again: all gaming being simpler, thus the genres having fundamentally more limited "unique" qualities between games (in an apples to apples comparison with later generations -though true of all comparisons from each generation to the next with increasing complexity), the number of established (popular) genres being relatively limited (again always an issue going from one generation to the next -many new genres appear and/or shifts in genre preference), and the major issue of too many games being released in a short period relative to the actual/real market demand. (not the perceived market/demand -which was deeply flawed and skewed)

Quote:

---

Except the prior point was that there was a flood of "been there done that" games AND bad games causing the consumer apathy, original games which play like crap aren't going to combat consumer apathy.

---

Again, aside from there being so many games in general (relative to market size), and the inherently limited variety of genres (due to the young market), this was no different than happened with every subsequent generation.

Quote:

---

Those are not "genre's", they are all sub genre's of one genre "shooter"

---

A few of those are sub-genres (some very substantial -like scrolling vs fixed, or roaming vs auto-scrolling, especially relative to the inherent simplicity of the time), but there's also several totally distinct genres in there.
I'd definitely put railshooters in a different genre (not sub-genre) than overhead 2D shooters, and sim style 1st persion shooters in a different genre as well (even more so). Though Battle Zone and Star Raiders would both be sub-genres of 1st person simulation style vehicle based combat games. (Star Raiders and Starmaster would be within the same sub-genre, though Star Voyager would be separate -since it lacks the strategy elements)

Some genres just were't very popular at the time, partially due to technical limitations and partially due to general tastes in genres. (adventure games were relatively niche in general, especially more complex ones or those in the style of computer text/graphics adventures or RPGs in the early 80s -games that stuck with a simpler, more arcade-like formula like Adventure, but enhanced graphics/sound/level design/duration might have been a good idea rather than trying to add complexity in other areas -especially in ways that become confusing or frustrating to average users)
The really serious simulation style games (like some flight sims approaching PC-sim complexity) really didn't fit well at all with the general console market. (it's surprising that so many appeared on the Genesis -as well as 2600 and 7800)

In regards to releases in 1982 they were, which is clearly highlighted by your list of games.

I also tried to totally avoid the really horrible games, but include some arguably mediocre ones that some people might consider "good." (especially if they tried new/interesting things)

I was also making that list entirely in the context of 2600 users, with no added context for games appearing in the arcade, on computers, or competing consoles. (ie games of generes/sub-genres that were new/fresh compared to 2600 releases in previous years)

Quote:

---

I was actually quite surprised when I saw your list, I expected there to at least be more Pac-Man style maze games, but really the primary focus was shooters by quite a huge degree.

---

There weren't many in that genre on the 2600 that weren't really poor or so much like Pac Man that it wasn't notable. (Ms Pac Man was included due to Pac Man being so poor and due to it being one of the most definitive games ever made in that genre)

I probably should have included more of the fixed-screen platform games though, but those were getting too similar too. (King Kong is obviously a direct rip-off of Donkey Kong)

Quote:

---

Except by later generations gaming had already branched out into many distinct genre's offering very different types of gameplay, even now, with the emphasis on FPS there's still a lot of other stuff out there (especially when looking at the handheld, and downloable markets).

---

That's part of my point: the industry was young, and there were few established genres to push . . . and the games themselves were simpler and thus more limited in variety between games in the same genre. (relative to complexity of the games, some of the space invaders-like games are about as different as Half Life and Unreal)

Albeit, even with many more genres actually established, it's still up to the popular (or perceived popular) genres to define the vast majority of games available.
Given the reception of Pitfall and Jungle Hunt, that genre would undoubtedly have been pushed/cloned/expanded had the market not been troubled as it was. (the more complex games -especially new and more complex- also obviously took more development time, so they'd be more limited in quantity and frequency than some of the simpler or more common/established game types -fixed-screen arcade-like platform games were far more frequent and common than the multi-screen action/exploration based ones)

Quote:

---

In fact even in 1983 the Apple II, A8s, and Spectrum were already branching out into many, many different areas and genre's

---

Many of which remained super niche in the US and generally limited to computers (some becoming staples of PCs -and creating the substantial contrast of PC and console gaming in the US), and some were totally 1-off or ceased to exist after a handful of games of that style or genre (like the fractal engine games or BallBlazer).

The 2600 itself had branched out substantially by 1983 as well, while computers also had a ton of the "more of the same" stuff too

Quote:

---

Gamefaqs is waay more reliable than Wiki, Atariage I'm not so sure about, I was under the impression that they tended to write down copyright dates, and not release dates, but I don't really have that much experience there to be honest.

---

I really don't like any of those anymore (aside from Wiki pages I know are being updated and policed by reliable/knowledgeable people)

RF Generation seems to be the best retro archive site out there . . . I should have used that in the first place. (I should make another list . . . and probably comply with the "no fixed/scrolling/roaming/rail shooter" qualification you specified, and probably add a couple of the good/decent fixed-screen platform games I omitted)

http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/search.pl
Hell, the search results are even really well organized and easy to read as a list. ;) (better than wiki's dedicated list pages)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breetai

The N64 and the 'cube? Seriously Beemer, WTF? Also, PC Engine? Come on man, seriously. Nobody has even heard of that thing!

---

Is this supposed to be favorite console during generation or from a generation? (ie from the context of the time, or from today)

Quote:

---

1. SNES
2. NES
3. DS
4. Gameboy Advance
5. Gameboy
6. Wii
7. N64

It is the seventh-best.

---

You're supposed to pick 1 console from each generation, not a list of favorites.

Quote:

---

Also, what does Kool Kitty and thenewguy's conversation have to do with this thread???

---

We were arguing over how to define different generations . . . and it evolved into a general discussion on the US market in 1082-84. ;) (which, granted WAS the area of contention in defining those generations :p )


Also, shouldn't this thread have polls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

Thats a possibility, on top of whether this list is for worldwide or not (I believe it is, due to the two C64 sales breakdowns listed, each totaling close to the worldwide 17 million figure, and the fact that Amiga sales seem much too high for the US based on other sources I've seen http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/sales.html )

Notice the source I posted, under the title Worldwide Sales by Year

1992

A600 - 200,000
A1200 - 44,000
Other Amigas - 146,000

Which would total 390,000, in the Reimer graphs for Amiga 1992 they have 390,000 exactly.

---

My argument wasn't that all of the figures were wrong, but that they were inconsistent with some things missing or erroneous. And honestly, that's a far more dangerous situation than being totally inaccuracy, since it makes things look legitimate. (The Ultimate History of Video games is a great example of this: a great compilation of quotes/interviews, facts/figures, and some accurate commentary, but a general lack of fact-checking and interviews with counter arguments or other perspectives -let alone from those closer to first hand experience or with clearer memories . . . or from people who aren't prone to lying -like Nolan Bushnell- . . . having something that looks professional and is full of good information, but also full of inaccuracies and incomplete research is very dangerous from a historian's perspective)

That's why the work of people like Curt and Marty (and a few others doing similar in-depth research on other parts of the computer/tech industry -let alone other fields) are so important. It's a lack of people like that involved in Sega stuff (AFIK) that makes me question a lot of the current information available. (especially on things that were never fully detailed and have limited supporting evidence) Albeit Melf's own interviews and correspondence has done a fair bit to shed light on Sega's history, but only a fraction of what's been done for Atari. (then again, without access to Sega's private doccumentation, that's always going to be limited, more so with the limited options for interviewing Sega staff -especially anyone on the Japanese end- though there's still a fair bit more untapped sources from SoA personnel who haven't heen interviewed or have been but not with the right questions -not to mention SoE)

Quote:

---

Now being that it seems as though the figures are for worldwide, according to the "Happy Computer 2. Atari XL/XE Sonderheft" the XL sold over 90,000 in Germany during 1987 (they're very surprised by this as its considered a feat for the machine there). This 90,000 can't be seen in the Reimer graphs, therefore it indicates that XL aren't included (the graphs don't actually say they're including XL anyway to be fair)

---

That was one of my points: the graphics don't explicitly include XL or XE sales, so they may be totally missing (like VIC, TI/99, CoCo, etc) . . . and I believe those figures are for US only. (the ST and Amiga figures are oddly low if they're worldwide)

Quote:

---

But to be honest, when we look at how the software support dried up extremely quickly after 1983, I would be very surprised if the XL systems sold particularly noteworthy amounts in the US (possibly the main reason why it wasn't included in the graphs).

---

There was still significant software support through 1984 at the very least (with minor support in the mid/late 80s -to different extents for games and other applications), plus the separate category in the budget market segment in general, relying on back-library and low price point. (the 130 XE had some technical potential, but not a lot of actual software support -honestly, it may have made more sense to focus more on the ST . . . unless they had released an XEGS-like unit in '84 or '85 and never released the 7800 ;) -with the bonus of a massive loophole in Nintendo's licensing restrictions)

Quote:

---

Actually, taking into account the 600,000 odd TS-1000 figures, and 700,000 TI-994A figures from 1982, both of which nosedived in sales during 1983 (as well as dropping VIC-20 sales), you could very realistically say that more than anything else the C64 ate into, and consolidated the home computer market, I mean, there's not really that much growth in the low end market when you take into account how much of the competition was taken out of the running during 1983, certainly not enough to indicate the low end home computer market taking away notable sales from the console market.

---

Lack of capable competition also limits a market, though too much competition can also cause problems (especially in markets favoring oligopoly -as with consoles and computers) . . . then again, crappy management will ruin things either way. (panic and make stupid decisions in the face of competition, or similar stupidity with a monopoly -or act totally stubborn and ignore competition like Nintendo did to a fair extent -especially in Japan, especially with the SNES and N64)

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned Smurf had nothing notable not already seen in Pitfall, if it added nothing fundamental to the genre then obviously its not revolutionary, if it really was in development at the same time as Pitfall, but beaten to the punch then that's a shame, but Pitfall was the earlier, revolutionary game, whilst by the time Smurf arrived it had already been superceded.

---

How much earlier was Pitfall than Smurf? Were they in development at the same time?

If 2 (or more) games are parallel/convergent developments of a new/revolutionary style/genre (or sub-genre), neither should be seen as less significant or a copy-cat. (Freeway and Frogger were obviously totally independent developments -though with similar inspiration)

Quote:

---

No, you didn't, you listed games which were literally the prior point of criticism, you can't disagree that all games weren't like Demon Attack, or Centipede, and that many were original, and then subsequently list Demon Attack and Centipede, that makes no logical sense. Changing enemy behaviour does not suddenly make something fresh.

---

No, I listed some of those games (as they were really good games at the time, and fun for anyone who liked the genre regardless of whether they had others of that genre already -especially with the limited frequency and quantity the average consumer would buy games).

Quote:

---

Demon Attack, and Centipede are great games, but are not "fresh" they are varients on established games, do you honestly think that someone who had grown utterly sick to the sight of Space Invaders, and its arcade varients, would pick up Demon Attack and Centipede and think "wow, this is fresh" :?

---

Some of those are significant improvements or modifications of the base genre, absolutely no different than what happens with popular genres/sub-genres in basically every gaming generation.

The differences were, again: all gaming being simpler, thus the genres having fundamentally more limited "unique" qualities between games (in an apples to apples comparison with later generations -though true of all comparisons from each generation to the next with increasing complexity), the number of established (popular) genres being relatively limited (again always an issue going from one generation to the next -many new genres appear and/or shifts in genre preference), and the major issue of too many games being released in a short period relative to the actual/real market demand. (not the perceived market/demand -which was deeply flawed and skewed)

Quote:

---

Except the prior point was that there was a flood of "been there done that" games AND bad games causing the consumer apathy, original games which play like crap aren't going to combat consumer apathy.

---

Again, aside from there being so many games in general (relative to market size), and the inherently limited variety of genres (due to the young market), this was no different than happened with every subsequent generation.

Quote:

---

Those are not "genre's", they are all sub genre's of one genre "shooter"

---

A few of those are sub-genres (some very substantial -like scrolling vs fixed, or roaming vs auto-scrolling, especially relative to the inherent simplicity of the time), but there's also several totally distinct genres in there.
I'd definitely put railshooters in a different genre (not sub-genre) than overhead 2D shooters, and sim style 1st persion shooters in a different genre as well (even more so). Though Battle Zone and Star Raiders would both be sub-genres of 1st person simulation style vehicle based combat games. (Star Raiders and Starmaster would be within the same sub-genre, though Star Voyager would be separate -since it lacks the strategy elements)

Some genres just were't very popular at the time, partially due to technical limitations and partially due to general tastes in genres. (adventure games were relatively niche in general, especially more complex ones or those in the style of computer text/graphics adventures or RPGs in the early 80s -games that stuck with a simpler, more arcade-like formula like Adventure, but enhanced graphics/sound/level design/duration might have been a good idea rather than trying to add complexity in other areas -especially in ways that become confusing or frustrating to average users)
The really serious simulation style games (like some flight sims approaching PC-sim complexity) really didn't fit well at all with the general console market. (it's surprising that so many appeared on the Genesis -as well as 2600 and 7800)

In regards to releases in 1982 they were, which is clearly highlighted by your list of games.

I also tried to totally avoid the really horrible games, but include some arguably mediocre ones that some people might consider "good." (especially if they tried new/interesting things)

I was also making that list entirely in the context of 2600 users, with no added context for games appearing in the arcade, on computers, or competing consoles. (ie games of generes/sub-genres that were new/fresh compared to 2600 releases in previous years)

Quote:

---

I was actually quite surprised when I saw your list, I expected there to at least be more Pac-Man style maze games, but really the primary focus was shooters by quite a huge degree.

---

There weren't many in that genre on the 2600 that weren't really poor or so much like Pac Man that it wasn't notable. (Ms Pac Man was included due to Pac Man being so poor and due to it being one of the most definitive games ever made in that genre)

I probably should have included more of the fixed-screen platform games though, but those were getting too similar too. (King Kong is obviously a direct rip-off of Donkey Kong)

Quote:

---

Except by later generations gaming had already branched out into many distinct genre's offering very different types of gameplay, even now, with the emphasis on FPS there's still a lot of other stuff out there (especially when looking at the handheld, and downloable markets).

---

That's part of my point: the industry was young, and there were few established genres to push . . . and the games themselves were simpler and thus more limited in variety between games in the same genre. (relative to complexity of the games, some of the space invaders-like games are about as different as Half Life and Unreal)

Albeit, even with many more genres actually established, it's still up to the popular (or perceived popular) genres to define the vast majority of games available.
Given the reception of Pitfall and Jungle Hunt, that genre would undoubtedly have been pushed/cloned/expanded had the market not been troubled as it was. (the more complex games -especially new and more complex- also obviously took more development time, so they'd be more limited in quantity and frequency than some of the simpler or more common/established game types -fixed-screen arcade-like platform games were far more frequent and common than the multi-screen action/exploration based ones)

Quote:

---

In fact even in 1983 the Apple II, A8s, and Spectrum were already branching out into many, many different areas and genre's

---

Many of which remained super niche in the US and generally limited to computers (some becoming staples of PCs -and creating the substantial contrast of PC and console gaming in the US), and some were totally 1-off or ceased to exist after a handful of games of that style or genre (like the fractal engine games or BallBlazer).

The 2600 itself had branched out substantially by 1983 as well, while computers also had a ton of the "more of the same" stuff too

Quote:

---

Gamefaqs is waay more reliable than Wiki, Atariage I'm not so sure about, I was under the impression that they tended to write down copyright dates, and not release dates, but I don't really have that much experience there to be honest.

---

I really don't like any of those anymore (aside from Wiki pages I know are being updated and policed by reliable/knowledgeable people)

RF Generation seems to be the best retro archive site out there . . . I should have used that in the first place. (I should make another list . . . and probably comply with the "no fixed/scrolling/roaming/rail shooter" qualification you specified, and probably add a couple of the good/decent fixed-screen platform games I omitted)

http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/search.pl
Hell, the search results are even really well organized and easy to read as a list. ;) (better than wiki's dedicated list pages)

I feel like I can't use RF Generation, just on principle, because I never used RF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

I feel like I can't use RF Generation, just on principle, because I never used RF.

---

:lol:

I still need to upload my collection lists to that site . . . and possibly add some variations not yet archived. (Apolloboy got me to start doing that, and make an account, but I haven't actually posted yet . . .)

Oh, and I never posted, but my personal favorite/best consoles for each generation are:
(using Newguy's generation definitions)

1st gen - Coleco Telstar Combat! (I technically haven't played this in person, but of all the early built-in/fixed function games, that's my favorite -the Pong derivatives aren't bad though)
2nd - Atari 2600
3rd - . . . not really sure how this one is divided (presumably 5200, CV, Vectrex, and maybe SG-1000), but I guess it's a toss-up between CV and 5200 (probably 5200 though . . . or maybe SG-1000)
4th - probably NES (SMS's library is more limited, but it obviously has some strengths, 7800 has a few good arcade and computer ports and remixes -one of the best versions of asteroids IMO, and definitely the best version of Joust prior to the compilations- and some interesting exclusives, but noting to remotely win over the NES -unless you have an extremely narrow genre/sub-genre preference, which I don't)
5th - SNES (Genesis is a close second, closer if I included the Sega CD library, but I've had more fun on the SNES overall . . . albeit part of that was growing up playing it in the late 90s)
6th - N64 (due to genre preference and multiplayer support . . . and general experiences I've had with the system from the mid 90s to today -I've probably spent more time on that than any other Nintendo platform -or probably any other non-computer game platform; Saturn doesn't have much to offer to my tastes, and PSX does have a lot to consider, but I think the multiplayer and general genre set puts theN64 on top -though the PSX does certainly have some great games in genres I like that are poor or absent on the N64, though some are better on PC from that period)
7th - GC with Xbox as a close second (in terms of actual fun I've had over the years on those systems . . . though like the PSX, the PS2 has a list of exclusive games I like and enough that I'll probably get one eventually . . . or maybe opt for emulation)
8th - . . . not sure: we only have a Wii, but from the games I've seen (and played), the PS3 looks to be best for exclusives. (especially in terms of games not available -or not well done- on PCs)

Again, this excludes all computer platforms (regardless of how console-like they are). Otherwise I'd have computer platforms listed for several of those generations. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

. . . and I believe those figures are for US only. (the ST and Amiga figures are oddly low if they're worldwide)

---

I just went over this using separate sources.

And ignoring the breakdown I just gave you from two separate Amiga magazines (which both stated US sales were ~1 million total), Amiga is still supposed to have sold pretty poorly in the US according to all British magazines, they're often talking about Commodore's British and German companies basically carrying the "useless" US division.

Looking at the graphs I honestly don't see where the Amiga fits into the US market, the IBM market seems to be huge (and Macintosh sales are higher than Amiga too) in the serious market, so Amiga wasn't going to break into that area, and the NES is ridiculously huge in the gaming market, so Amiga's only going to be getting tiny marketshare there too.

I mean, I'm sorry, but how the heck did the Amiga sell over 1 million in the US in 1991?! that nearly puts it at Mega Drive levels, and yet American gaming magazines of that time were giving zero coverage to Amiga games, and US companies like EA were already dumping Amiga to support Mega Drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Some of those are significant improvements or modifications of the base genre, absolutely no different than what happens with popular genres/sub-genres in basically every gaming generation.

---

No, I'll give you an example of what they are, they're as if someone took Super Mario Bros, kept all the level designs exactly the same, but increased the number of Goombas, and made them hop along the floor instead of walking, and then made Mario's flower power shoot straight forwards instead of downwards.

Hacks tend to have more differences than most of those Space Invaders derivitives (in fact, from what I can remember a lot of the arcade games literally were hacks of Space Invaders anyway)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I'd definitely put railshooters in a different genre (not sub-genre) than overhead 2D shooters

---

Well the standard is to put them in the same genre, so this is an area where you are at odds with the norm (not right or wrong I guess, its just opinion)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

RF Generation seems to be the best retro archive site out there . . . I should have used that in the first place.

---

Hmmmm, that place seems interesting, I notice that it has Miner 2049er A8 as a 1983 release, which I've been wondering about for ages (everywhere I checked said 1982, but all the magazine coverage I ran into was from 1983).

Also the US release list I found in a old UK magazine which I posted here last year (that had loads of the NES releases later than what people were saying) seems to correlate pretty well.

Lastly Alex Kidd in Miracle World is written down as a 1986 US release, which you disagreed about in a discussion we had last year :p

1st Gen: Pong, my old mate in my hometown found an old knock off in the loft, we had a laugh playing it until I realised player 2's controller was crapped out and I kept losing. So much for my mate saying he hates competitive Games, all he did was gloat!

2nd Gen: I'm not sure where the Vectrex fits, but I assume its here. I was stuck in a caravan next to an old farm house one summer, somewhere in the middle of nowhere near Manchester (I have no fucking idea why my Mother thought that was a great idea for a holiday). My mothers first partner after my dad owned the farm house or I think his parents did, funnily enough this is also the first and only time I've ever played a Game Gear as he also had one lying around. The Vectrex only had Asteroids but it was awesome. I miss the Vectrex but I don't miss that douche-bag my Mother was with for a while despite him being a gamer. At least she stole his Super Mario All-Stars cart from him when they split up.

3rd Gen: This gen really did little for me, I guess it was a 'had to be there' sort of thing, I found the Nes colour palette hideous, and the SMS main library full of lacklustre downports. I'd say the Nes won here for a few token titles I enjoyed. I picked up both consoles after the 4th gen due to my age, and probably had my expectations set too high which tainted my experiences.

4th Gen: If you'd have asked me when I was 10 what was my favourite I would have said the SNES, now I say the Megadrive. Theres just so much more worth discovering, the SNES always felt like it had a core selection of All-time greats, but once you go past the dozen or so titles theres not as much that appeals to me, the Megadrive I keep discovering excellent stuff. I think the Megadrive in the UK suffered 'mainstreamitis' where theres masses of popular stuff that hides the real greats much like the original PS1, its only after the generations over and the dust is settled do you realise how much awesome slightly more obscure stuff there was in great quantity.

5th Gen: The Saturn, it just keeps on giving. I'm having a blast picking up lots of cheap Jap imports lately. The N64 was fun in its day for me as my other console but since most of the best titles are adventure type rare collect-athons I just don't have the time nor the patience these days to bother with clunky mechanics and craptacular composite fuzz when I can have refined crisp RGB arcade bliss on the Saturn.

6th Gen: I owned a Dreamcast and Gamecube, and whilst I had a little bit of fun on GC I eventually sold it after a drought of decent software, F-Zero GX was awesome though. I'd tie the Dreamcast and the PS2, the PS2 came out back when I was an ignorant anti-Sony fanboy but I love the ugly bastardised Atari Falcon now. The DC has a special place for me since I bought it with some money my Great Grandma left me when she died and gave me hours of pleasure.

7th Gen: Hmm, I haven't really dipped my toes in this Gen so I'm not really able to comment, besides I'm catching up with old classics after a long hiatus from gaming. I do love the Halo series despite the ire it brings out from some quarters, I just get swept up by well fleshed out Sci-fi universes, so maybe I'll say the 360 for now.

Going with a refined generation guideline, provided by KoolKitty, Newguy and probably some others (so, 8 generations).

1st gen: Probably pong, but I've never owned a dedicated pong system.
2nd gen: Atari 2600. Never owned an Intellivision or anything else from that period.
3rd gen: I'd choose the 5200, but I've never owned one (would love to though).
4th gen: NES, but SMS is a close second. 7800 further back, but I do have fun with it.
5th gen: A tie between the SNES, Genesis, TG16 and NEO-GEO AES. All four of those systems are timeless.
6th gen: N64, with Saturn close behind and PSX a bit further.
7th gen: A tie between Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox. Considering how many multi-platform games are available and all the great exclusives, it's hard to pick just one.
8th gen: PSWii60, for the same reasons as the prior systems. There's really no point trying to pick just one, other than the Wii, they're all the same...

Telstar for every generation.

Odyssey
Intellivision
SMS
PC Engine
Saturn
Dreamcast
360

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thenewguy

I just went over this using separate sources.

And ignoring the breakdown I just gave you from two separate Amiga magazines (which both stated US sales were ~1 million total), Amiga is still supposed to have sold pretty poorly in the US according to all British magazines, they're often talking about Commodore's British and German companies basically carrying the "useless" US division.

Looking at the graphs I honestly don't see where the Amiga fits into the US market, the IBM market seems to be huge (and Macintosh sales are higher than Amiga too) in the serious market, so Amiga wasn't going to break into that area, and the NES is ridiculously huge in the gaming market, so Amiga's only going to be getting tiny marketshare there too.

I mean, I'm sorry, but how the heck did the Amiga sell over 1 million in the US in 1991?! that nearly puts it at Mega Drive levels, and yet American gaming magazines of that time were giving zero coverage to Amiga games, and US companies like EA were already dumping Amiga to support Mega Drive.

---

I'd have thought the European market sold a lot more than that.

As for the US in particular, the Amiga seems to have been the dominant gaming computer in the late 80s (ie the must-have platform for actual computer games -and the specific genres tied to that), though the NES took a chunk of some of that along with the mainstream gaming market. DOS PCs were far more common than the Amiga (or ST), but apparently less popular for games (a huge chunk of machines in use were not capable of any significant gaming, or very poorly, and the smaller number of moderately capable machines were sill quite limited and didn't have a major edge in software -most of the big PC games were also ported to ST and Amiga at that time; best case for PCs prior to ~1988/89 was Tandy 1000 with games catering to its features -otherwise you got CGA or maybe EGA games with PC speaker sound; in '88 a handful of games started using the new sound card that had just arrived on the market in '87 and '88, and more in '89 along with some games significantly supporting VGA/MCGA capabilities -much more so by 1990 with VGA and Adlib the defacto standard for major/non-budget releases -Soundblaster PCM support startedshowing up more in 1991)
The Amiga fell behind quickly in the early 90s for computer gaming (as computer gaming in general started crossing more into "console" genres too), and then you had the big shift of PC gaming into the mainstream around 1995-1997. (the first time computer and console gaming really competed side by side in the mainstream in the US -the 1983-85 period being a different context due to the crash)

Quote:

---

No, I'll give you an example of what they are, they're as if someone took Super Mario Bros, kept all the level designs exactly the same, but increased the number of Goombas, and made them hop along the floor instead of walking, and then made Mario's flower power shoot straight forwards instead of downwards.

---

That's far too similar for a game with the complexity of mario.
Firstly, you'd need to generally re-do most/all of the graphics and perhaps change the artistic style/theme of the game, give it a different story (in the manual), perhaps add more animation/detail than the original, and then make the actual changes to the gameplay:
Add new level designs (though similar general style/mechanics), and change the attacks and power ups, change enemy AI, make enemies take different numbers of hits and have different vulnerabilities, have significant different patterns of movement (part of AI) and different maneuvering abilities (ie they are not restricted to the same types of movement as the original game), and change the boss mechanics. (ie number of bosses, types of boss battles, number of unique bosses/battles, etc) Not to mention different vulnerabilities of the player to attacks/damage. (and different numbers of hits/lives) And different scoring mechanisms.

Those and more are the types of changes you saw to many shooters on the 2600, or many shooters in the arcade of the time (a big chunk of the VCS's library was ports of those games, or clones/derivatives of those arcade games). Demon Attack, for example, is significantly different from Space Invaders in numerous ways, but is far more of a direct clone/derivative of the Arcade game Phoenix (though arguably a better game -or at least a better game than Atari's port of Phoenix to the VCS). Even then, there's many fixed shooters that had no direct parallels like that, other than being in the same sub-genre as space invaders.
In fact, Galaxian has more similarities to Space Invaders than many of the VCS shooters.

Quote:

---

Hacks tend to have more differences than most of those Space Invaders derivitives (in fact, from what I can remember a lot of the arcade games literally were hacks of Space Invaders anyway)

---

I generally disagree with that . . . I could point out a list of differences for a huge number of fixed shooters, especially those I included in my list. (some I omitted are more clone-ish, or just so crappy that they should be compared -Space Chase is pretty weak, simpler than Space Invaders and adding nothing new)

But again, with such simple games/genres being built on, there's going to be far fewer overall differences possible than later, more complex games. (though the differences maybe similar in proportion to that complexity -ie a simple game with 50% changed vs a complex game with %50 of things changed -the latter will have many more differences than the former due to there simply being more features/elements of the game)

Quote:

---

Well the standard is to put them in the same genre, so this is an area where you are at odds with the norm (not right or wrong I guess, its just opinion)

---

Putting rail shooters in the same genre as fixed/scrolling 2D shooters is almost as bad as putting 2D and 3D platformers in the same genre. (I certainly would not consider 2D and 3D platformers sub-genres of "platform" games given the drastic differences in gameplay mechanics -it would be worse than classifying run and gun or action/action-platform games in the same genre as flying shooters)

Though 1st person combat sims are DEFINITELY a separate genre than arcade style shooters of any type. (X-Wing is in the same Genre as Star Raiders, but a different genre than Star Fox, Thunder Force, or Space Invaders)

Quote:

---

Lastly Alex Kidd in Miracle World is written down as a 1986 US release, which you disagreed about in a discussion we had last year :p

---

Interesting. (that makes me wonder even more about Sega's management/marketing in the US -especially given news articles pointing to Sega spending MORE on ads than Nintendo that year -and either spending many times what Atari Corp did, unsurprisingly)