I don't get SEGA fans petty grudge frm 20+ years ago.

[bultje112]

I look at the old SEGA like I do on those old Italian car manufacturers. In the same way, if the designers in Lancia, Lamborghini (and the like) wanted to push insane concepts and desgins, it was granted, even if ultimately it cost the coprs and they either went to the wall or we bought out. It was just great to see them go nuts, and for me it was the same with SEGA..

SEGA gave their staff so much free rein to desgin and make whatever game or hardware they wanted too and really push the boat out. Contrast that to Nintendo who are so Conservative with hardware and software. No risk taking IP, hardly any In House games that feature voice action or music performed by a real orchestra and gone are the days when Nintendo hardware was up there with the best of them, and Nintendo had great 3rd pary support.

If you have Nintendo hardware has your own current console, you get a lame deal with sub standard online and watered down ports.

SEGA were so much better and will always be rhe corp i love and loved the most, when it comes to gaming.

that's a very good comparison!

[BonusKun]

the reason sega is fantastic and unique is because they took those risks. look at nintendo. never take any risks and now their main ip's are on shitty hardware for the past 10 years. I'd much rather have sega go out the way they did than having a sega game being downgraded beyond believe to have it work on the switch.

Virtual Boy.

[Mega Drive Bowlsey]

the reason sega is fantastic and unique is because they took those risks. look at nintendo. never take any risks and now their main ip's are on shitty hardware for the past 10 years. I'd much rather have sega go out the way they did than having a sega game being downgraded beyond believe to have it work on the switch.

I acknowledged that fact in my reply to Gryson. Sega had a great reputation for leading technology and pushing boundaries. In the long run they simply ran out of cash, but it was one hell of a ride while it lasted! Sega's massive contribution to gaming and their legacy will never be forgotten.

[Team Andromeda]

that's a very good comparison!

They were both nuts, If the designers wanted to make them it was granted. Sadly its cost Lancia outright and Lamborghini, like Ferrari, like Alfa Romeo needed to be bought out. Saldy part of the flair died with the buyouts and its the same for SEGA. But my GOD what a ride it was and thanks to that 'Just make it' Attuide we got amazing systems and games like PSO, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Shenmue, Jet Set Radio, Switch, REZ, Samba De Amigo, Skies of Arcadia, NiGHTS, Burning Rangers and a tons more classics.. In stark contrast to the boring predicable Nintendo, milking their old IP, their -In House gameds all have the cartoon, child friendly look and who are still trying to get to grips with Internet gaming or a Hyrbid console; Something which, SEGA pioneered decades ago
I'll will credit Nintendo with 2 things (as much as it pains me) They are the best run corp in the industry with cash reserves, to match (that's been the case since the NES days) and Nintendo Q&A/Bug Tes dept is the best there is too. You'll hardly see a Nintendo game ship with gfx or sound glitches, much less with major bugs.

I've had far better times on SEGA systems than Nintendo on ones and the current Nintendo hardware as been tosh. Lame duck hardware, rubbish gfx and sound, joke online and looking for pointless gimmicks to sell. It works, but to me as old school gamer I find it crap and boring and look to SONY and MS for my gaming needs.

[Gryson]

the reason sega is fantastic and unique is because they took those risks. look at nintendo. never take any risks and now their main ip's are on shitty hardware for the past 10 years. I'd much rather have sega go out the way they did than having a sega game being downgraded beyond believe to have it work on the switch.

This.

A great contrast back in the day was Konami vs. Sega.

Konami was a hyper-efficient profit-oriented business. They took almost no risks. Their strategy was to quickly produce a steady quantity of safe titles. They employed large teams of developers, straight out of college, and didn't pay them much or allow them much freedom.

Sega, on the other hand, focused a lot of its energy on innovating and taking risks, basically on the whims of Hayao Nakayama. This paid off in the 80s with the taikan games. Nakayama was obsessed with innovating and pushing boundaries, which is why Sega filed more patents in the 80s than any other gaming company by a long shot. Nakayama also gave Sega developers a huge amount of freedom. Former developers have mentioned extensively that no other company allowed them to have anywhere near as much freedom in the projects they worked on. But, in the end, you can only take so many risks (that are later judged "poor business decisions") before you run out of luck.

[Moirai]

Konami just made titty-groping games. Nothing risky there

[Black_Tiger]

Nintendo had Hudson Soft as basically a 2nd party developer/publisher to takes those risks during the Famicom era and continued to do so for the SFC even after they put out their own console.

[Leynos]

NES was a risk. The market was done in the US. SEARS (biggest retailer at the time) refused to sell them until Teddy Ruxbin makers said they would pull from shelves unless they gave NES a shot. Atari could not find a system as successful as 2600. Coleco/Intellivision was done as well. To release a console out west in a seemingly dead market and from Japan (the other systems at the time in the US were western) it was pretty bold. After that, they only dipped their toe in things and if it didn't work they would try again and again until it worked. (amiibo..think of Ereader in 2002) Tho yes Virtual Boy failed but they tried 3D again with Gamecube, glasses were never released for the system but Luigi's Mansion is supported. Then finally 3DS. DS could have been a disaster. They kept trying second screen gaming and hopefully after the Wii U flopped they give up on that idea. One could argue Switch is risky for them but overall yeah, they played it mostly safe post-NES. Be nice if onc ein a while they took a bold step. They don't have to go for broke but just something. SEGA took too many risks. I liked that they were bold but wish they were smarter about it. I don't think PS4 is a bold system but a safe system. PS2 and PS3 went all in on the media aspect. PS4 was just an evolution. PSP and Vita were really bold but they got burned so hard on Vita. Doubt we ever see another handheld form them. Shame as I'd buy a Vita 2 in a heartbeat.

[Team Andromeda]

This.

A great contrast back in the day was Konami vs. Sega.

Konami was a hyper-efficient profit-oriented business. They took almost no risks. Their strategy was to quickly produce a steady quantity of safe titles. They employed large teams of developers, straight out of college, and didn't pay them much or allow them much freedom.

Sega, on the other hand, focused a lot of its energy on innovating and taking risks, basically on the whims of Hayao Nakayama. This paid off in the 80s with the taikan games. Nakayama was obsessed with innovating and pushing boundaries, which is why Sega filed more patents in the 80s than any other gaming company by a long shot. Nakayama also gave Sega developers a huge amount of freedom. Former developers have mentioned extensively that no other company allowed them to have anywhere near as much freedom in the projects they worked on. But, in the end, you can only take so many risks (that are later judged "poor business decisions") before you run out of luck.

Very true, Konami never made their own consumer hardware and that was and is a huge undertaking. Tbh Konami was very risk talking and very innovative in the Arcades, with games like Hang Pilot, Silent Scope, Mocap Boxing and Police 24 but in the home, they were anything but, well I guess their PS2 firefighter game, was different

Talking of being creative anyone who knew anyone in SEGA Europe or read some SEGA UK mag's would know that Mark Hartley bled Blueblood and was SEGA to the core.. I think he summed it up better, than most

You can have the best games in the world, you can have the machine on the market, but unless you roll the two together with soild marketing and add a wide range of creative software from a vardied mix of talented developers. You won't succeed

Think that about sums up SEGA issues with the DC and Saturn really

[Gryson]

Tbh Konami was very risk talking and very innovative in the Arcades, with games like Hang Pilot, Silent Scope, Mocap Boxing and Police 24 but in the home, they were anything but, well I guess their PS2 firefighter game, was different

Those did come later, though. Probably desperation in response to the decline of the arcade at the end of the 90s.

For the 80s and early 90s, Konami was pretty much putting out 'safe' titles like their licensed beat em ups, their various console series, and so on.

Masato Maegawa has discussed the complete lack of creative freedom and endless churn of sequels as the main reason he left Konami to found Treasure.

[Team Andromeda]

Those did come later, though. Probably desperation in response to the decline of the arcade at the end of the 90s.

For the 80s and early 90s, Konami was pretty much putting out 'safe' titles like their licensed beat em ups, their various console series, and so on.

Masato Maegawa has discussed the complete lack of creative freedom and endless churn of sequels as the main reason he left Konami to found Treasure.

For the consumer teams sure, but in the Arcades, Konami did try to be a little different. I never liked them but that dance and music Arcade games were innovative at the time. Agree with you on SEGA. I've seen interviews with Ueda-san (Jet Set Radio) and the like all saying their 1st applied to SEGA, because of the creativity that was afforded to SEGA staff in the 90's under Nakayama-san.

You can see the difference between SEGA and Nintendo with Sonic. Nintendo would mandate that a new Mario game would have to be made by the Mario Team (EAD) no question. SEGA on the other had allowed their Sonic Team to create something entirely different and totally new when the Sonic Team made a pitch to make a new game and SEGA green light it and gave it all their backing a huge budget.

Madness for sure, but SEGA Japan had that Italian Supercar craziness to them, under Nakayama-san. If the designers want to make it, just do it.

[Gryson]

For the consumer teams sure, but in the Arcades, Konami did try to be a little different. I never liked them but that dance and music Arcade games were innovative at the time.

Again, those came post 1995.

Did Konami have any innovative arcade games by ~1995? I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two, but quickly browsing the list, it's all beat em ups and shoot em ups and such. Don't get me wrong - many of these games are of exceptional quality and definitely awesome, but Konami was the antithesis of innovation in my opinion. Once arcades started dying, then yeah, they did adapt OK with the rhythm games and such.

[gamevet]

What was wrong with Frogger?

[Gryson]

Nothing?

[Leynos]

What was wrong with Frogger?

My doorbell is the frogger theme.