VF-19 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Worst gaming platform of all time is Operation. I could never get those tweeezers to fit in some of those holes. Uh... I'll assume that you're being sarcastic... It is possible to get the tweezers in the hole without setting off the buzzer... But you need the hands of a brain surgeon to do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I too put my vote for other. The N-Gage. Personally I think it will suck. It's a phone and a gaming system... Geez... More things to break... Not to mention I think you have to sign up for the celular aspect in order to even play the system... Could be wrong though. Ah... I didn't tell you guys... our company had a trade show in Dallas last two weeks ago, and we got an N-Gage... and let me tell you, in sucks in every way possible. First off, you don't have to sign up for a cellular service to play it, just to play it online. And since you look like a retard holding the top of the device to you hear, ridiculous vertical screen facing in the same direction you are, you'd look like a gimp if you decided to use it for your cell phone. Myself and the majority of us probably already have a cell phone we like. Even if you didn't, T-Mobile and AT&T are the carriers so far. If you were thinking about getting Verizon (since they seem to be the popular company today), you're not going to be getting it on N-Gage. Second, the games fit underneath the battery. If you want to change games, you have to remove the back of the N-Gage, pop out the battery, switch games, put the battery back in, and put the cover back on. And remember how the N-Gage is going to be an mp3 player, too? Well, it uses proprietary memory cards, $70 for a 64mb card... and the mem cards go where the game goes. Meaning, if you were playing a game, and want to listen to mp3s, you have to go through the same process as changing games. The N-Gage itself is ridiculously complicated. After you turn it on, it's a bitch to get it to do what you want it to. The graphics are below PSX level, and the control is way off, at least for Tomb Raider. And sadly, Tomb Raider is one of the better N-Gage games out there. Even the Sega games, which Nokia was so proud to have, are BAD ports of GBA titles (Sonic Advance, Super Monkey Ball Jr, and Virtua Tennis). Slap a $300 price tag on the turd, and you're practically telling people to buy a GBA. I can't reccomend this thing to anyone, not even the most hardcore gamers. I do plan to get one, but I'm waiting for it to flop so I can get everything on clearance. A more interesting new handheld might be the Helix from Tapwave. Like the N-Gage, it's too pricey to consider too seriously, and the fact that Tapwave is only selling them online, at least until Spring of '04, makes me a little more leary... but so far, it seems to do everything that the N-Gage does, except act as a cell phone, and it seems to do it better. Two hot swapable SD media slots allow you do to more things at a time, plus you can wait until Best Buy has a good sale on SD memory cards before you get a big one. The games, from what I've seen, look like PSX games, but the library isn't so huge yet. Oh, yeah, and to replace the cell phone feature and justify the price tag, the Helix runs on Palm OS, and doubles as a Palm Pilot, totally compatible with any Palm application or game out there. If they can line up some better games, start selling it in stores, and bring the price down by the time it starts selling in stores, I might bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niomosy Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 If we're talking about Europe, let's not forget the failed Konix Multi-system that was being hyped in one of the video game mags years ago but never made it to production. Konix was made by a Taiwanese company in the early 90's. During the time when the PC Engine and SFC ruled the industry. In Asia, I recall a Korean company putting out a handheld. That would be the GamePark 32. It came out months before Nintendo released the SP. It's only saving grace was that it is an MP3 player, with a crappy interface that's been perfected by N-Gage. There's also the Wonderswan in Japan. Not sure how well that did really. It did have some FF games for it, though. WS Did pretty decently in Japan. Decent to the point that it was outselling the Game Boy Color a couple weeks at a time. Mattel was rumored to be REALLY interested in releasing the WS to the west. Until Nintendo announced the GBA. The Konix Multi System was started in 1988 and died in 1990 with no systems ever being put out, just some prototype stuff. Here's a link to some info on it It was actually a joint projet between Konix and Flare Technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthLurker Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 (edited) Actually, I have an FM-Towns Marty system. It was pretty cool for it's time, however games were very hard to get. Had to go by an import shop which was very costly. I also remember the Konix system and Tiger's Game.com handheld. OMG! Someone has the FM-Towns Marty! I was thinking of that console when posting here, but I just couldn't remember the name. Awesome stuff, man. I always wanted to check out that system. You wouldn't happen to have any pics, would you? Also, did WonderDog ever get ported to that system? Just wondering if it had any improvements over the Sega version. Here ya go sir. All this talk about old skool console gaming on MW lately got me to dig out some systems and give them a whirl. Ah the good ol' days of 2d... I'm not sure about wonderdog on marty, wasn't too amazing by the sega cd(?) version. Edited October 1, 2003 by StealthLurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthLurker Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 (edited) oops here's the pic, hikaru and minmay love 2d. Edited October 1, 2003 by StealthLurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I had to pick the Virtual Boy, simply because I remember it's crappiness. Also it has the added benefit of sounding very, very NAMBLA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 game gear is a good example of a system that tried to perform way too far outside of its specs. i had both it and a gameboy, while the game boy was mostly very simple addictive games with simple graphics, the game gear always looked like it was trying to out do the super nintendo or something, and it just couldn't do it. the gameboy was just fun. Game Gear had tons of lofty games that just didn't work in the limited format. Game Gear never found its niche' and since it came out after, and died before gameboy, i think it is pretty safe to say it was no where near the gameing package that the nintendo handheld was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vostok 7 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 game gear is a good example of a system that tried to perform way too far outside of its specs.i had both it and a gameboy, while the game boy was mostly very simple addictive games with simple graphics, the game gear always looked like it was trying to out do the super nintendo or something, and it just couldn't do it. the gameboy was just fun. Game Gear had tons of lofty games that just didn't work in the limited format. Game Gear never found its niche' and since it came out after, and died before gameboy, i think it is pretty safe to say it was no where near the gameing package that the nintendo handheld was. Why? The graphics were better, the games were better, the console design was better (Nintendo must have been run by masochists in the early years). Sure, some of the games could run slow at times, but it was still a solid system. I have no idea why it died out. Sega should be praised for a handheld that was a better system than the Gameboy way earlier than the Gameboy even thought about evolving. The only thing the Gameboy had for it was a huge library of games, and the price. Even the early version ate batteries like the GG. I think even the GBA is only a marginally better system, like 10 years after the GG came out. Vostok 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abombz!! Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Why? The graphics were better, the games were better, the console design was better (Nintendo must have been run by masochists in the early years).Vostok 7 Errr... the graphics were better? The games were better? The console design was better?!?!?!?!! What are you smoking. Are you saying that an over heating, battery eating, blurry graphics, annoying games, make the Game Gear better then the Game Boy? Sure, some of the games could run slow at times, but it was still a solid system. I have no idea why it died out.  Even the early version ate batteries like the GG. You never really played a GB have you? The GB could run with 4 AA batteries for almost a day.... while the Game Gear could barely run on 8 for 2 hours. And don't give me that "I used an adapter!!" excuse.... a handheld that must be plugged into an outlet is not a handheld at all. Sega should be praised for a handheld that was a better system than the Gameboy way earlier than the Gameboy even thought about evolving. If that is true... why the heck was the GG such a failure? The only thing the Gameboy had for it was a huge library of games, and the price. What you call only.... was enough to kill, what you call, strong competition. I think even the GBA is only a marginally better system, like 10 years after the GG came out. Marginally better? A system that can run for days on 2 simply AA batteries is only marginally better? While the GG was struggling to handle Master System ports (a 8bit system by the way), the GBA can run SNES (a 16 bit console) games without breaking a sweat and still handle 3D graphics that neither the SNES or the GG could (Nintendo must have been run by masochists in the early years). No... they were ran by Japanese. Ppl with small hands.... the same ppl that designed the award winning Game Boy, the best selling console to date, and even after having been outdated by years, was still selling strong. The same can't be said about the GG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vostok 7 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Errr... the graphics were better? The games were better? The console design was better?!?!?!?!! What are you smoking.Are you saying that an over heating, battery eating, blurry graphics, annoying games, make the Game Gear better then the Game Boy? Which would you rather have "blurry" 8-bit color graphics or mind numbing puke green with a dot matrix screen? Sure, the later GBs were better but come on... Dot matrix died in the 70s. The games I played were far from annoying. Less annoying than a dot matrix screen As far as the heating... It's cold here in the winters... You never really played a GB have you? The GB could run with 4 AA batteries for almost a day.... while the Game Gear could barely run on 8 for 2 hours. And don't give me that "I used an adapter!!" excuse.... a handheld that must be plugged into an outlet is not a handheld at all. Yes, but it was still a solid system. I've played a GB quite a bit (as much as the graphics could let me ) and sure, the batteries may last longer than the GG but still. 2 hours? I could go longer than that on 8 batteries. If that is true... why the heck was the GG such a failure? Beats me. Why was the Dreamcast a failure when it was a graphically superior system to most systems of it's vintage? What you call only.... was enough to kill, what you call, strong competition. I still call it 'only' simply because everyone and thier redheaded stepcousin had a GB, because it was cheap. Had the GG been cheaper, I'm sure it would have wiped the GB. Marginally better? A system that can run for days on 2 simply AA batteries is only marginally better? While the GG was struggling to handle Master System ports (a 8bit system by the way), the GBA can run SNES (a 16 bit console) games without breaking a sweat and still handle 3D graphics that neither the SNES or the GG could Yes, marginally better because why couldn't it have come out years ago? Instead we got the GB "color" and that one with a higher dot pitch screen. <_< No... they were ran by Japanese. Ppl with small hands.... the same ppl that designed the award winning Game Boy, the best selling console to date, and even after having been outdated by years, was still selling strong. The same can't be said about the GG. I still say it was designed by masochists. You can't tell me you didn't get cramps playing an NES for hours. <_< Vostok 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abombz!! Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Which would you rather have "blurry" 8-bit color graphics or mind numbing puke green with a dot matrix screen? Sure, the later GBs were better but come on... Dot matrix died in the 70s.The games I played were far from annoying. Less annoying than a dot matrix screen As far as the heating... It's cold here in the winters... Puke green? Are you color blind? I could care less about graphics.... when the games were well executed. Good execution was what was missing in the GG and its MS ports. <_< Yes, but it was still a solid system. I've played a GB quite a bit (as much as the graphics could let me ) and sure, the batteries may last longer than the GG but still. 2 hours? I could go longer than that on 8 batteries. No it couldn't. I was so pissed at how fast it was eating through batteries (they are expensive here, you know) that I actually took the time to see how long it took to eat through 8 batteries. 2 hours, 8 minutes and 55 seconds. Beats me. Why was the Dreamcast a failure when it was a graphically superior system to most systems of it's vintage? You cannont use the DC in this case because the GG graphics weren't much better. As for the DC... it lacked support, pure and simple. I still call it 'only' simply because everyone and thier redheaded stepcousin had a GB, because it was cheap. Had the GG been cheaper, I'm sure it would have wiped the GB. Price has nothing to do with varienty. The GB had it, the GG had not. In the long run... with the GG... you would have to spend much more then you did with a GB, and still end up with less variety games wise. While you could play original games on the GB, you were stuck with downgraded MS ports on the GG. Yes, marginally better because why couldn't it have come out years ago? Instead we got the GB "color" and that one with a higher dot pitch screen. The GB Color was still superior to the GB and the GG. If you doubt... try running the GBC only game son a GB. And why not? Because one thing Nintendo had that Sega did not.... knowledge of how things work. Thats why Sega is out of the console run and Nintendo is not. still say it was designed by masochists. You can't tell me you didn't get cramps playing an NES for hours. I did not. At least I didn't feel like I suddenly got color blind like I did playing the colorless Sega Genesis games. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niomosy Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 One system I always wanted to get was the Super Grafx. It could play the PC Engine games plus had a few games of its' own which were even better! Sigh. I guess I'll just live with the emulator for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macplus Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Looks like no body saw the Sega master sistem... it was the NES counterpart... really crappy by the way! Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts