Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[marurun]

Well, some of those computers persisted for so long, even longer than many consoles. Except maybe the Neo Geo. That was around forever.

[ElkinFencer10]

Except maybe the Neo Geo. That was around forever.

Gods are immortal.

[Segata]

Dreamcast still gets games. It wins every generation.

[Gunstar Green]

The interesting part is when you throw in the Japanese release dates, particularly for the Famicom, there's only a year's difference between the two. So I can totally see the argument for late 2nd or early 3rd for the C64.

Yeah, that's why I decided to specify that I look at generations from a North American perspective - regional release dates make it a convoluted mess.

That's why I think looking at release dates is the wrong way to define the early generations and looking at how long they lasted alongside their libraries makes it a bit clearer.

For instance you weren't going to run Turrican on an Atari 5200 along with other games that clearly fit in with the 3rd generation design ethos.

But yes, it gets hairy when you start looking at all the random home computers.

[o.pwuaioc]

Dreamcast still gets games. It wins every generation.

I mean, so does the 2600...

[Segata]

Dreamcast still gets games. It wins every generation.

I mean, so does the 2600...

How hard is it to make a couple of squares dots on a screen? I think more goes into making those Dreamcast games. Also while I started on Atari. Atari is just terrible anymore. Outside of nostalgia Atari 2600 is just garbage. NES on is still playable. Plus some of these Dreamcast home brews get ported to modern systems. The DC games are playable and have graphics.

[Sarge]

The real challenge on the 2600 is making a game that is compelling given the limitations. That is what's impressive if the designer can pull it off.

I don't think Atari is terrible, there are some games that have some very good gameplay. Missile Command, Defender, Yars' Revenge, Asteroids, Pitfall I/II... the mechanics are fine. It's that they don't have the depth I generally want in a game, and that's a fault that the 2600 shares with early arcade games.

(Translation: I'm not a score-attack guy.)

[o.pwuaioc]

I'm fairly certain I've played my Atari more in the past three years than my Dreamcast. Dreamcast has some great games, but the games I like best aren't on it, so it gets nearly the least love.

So many of the new 2600 and 7800 games just rock, like Lead and Ninja Wall Jump.

[Xeogred]

It would take you guys a masterpiece to convince me to enjoy the first and second generations. This isn't an age thing at all, as you've all seen me defend other mediums and whatnot with age being meaningless. But genre wise most of that stuff all seems to be about one screen and completely point based. I grew up on Super Mario Bros when I was 2, so it cemented my preference for some kind of point A to point B goal, dynamic levels or obstacles, and games with a true beginning, middle, and end that gives me this sense of accomplishment. In playing the Kirby Dream Land games the other day, I was laughing to myself a bit that they still had point systems, like most 8bit era games. But, did they really have meaning for anyone during that gen? It was always a little neat thing to glance at for a second, or a way to get extra lives, but otherwise it was ultimately not really there for anything else.

This isn't to say I dislike some puzzle games, or things like Tetris, Bust a Move, etc.

I love that people, like Bone himself here, are super into all of this though and preserving that era. I love the look of those cartridges and the awesome cover art. But overall it's not an area in this medium I ever see myself personally diving into.

[o.pwuaioc]

It would take you guys a masterpiece to convince me to enjoy the first and second generations. This isn't an age thing at all, as you've all seen me defend other mediums and whatnot with age being meaningless. But genre wise most of that stuff all seems to be about one screen and completely point based. I grew up on Super Mario Bros when I was 2, so it cemented my preference for some kind of point A to point B goal, dynamic levels or obstacles, and games with a true beginning, middle, and end that gives me this sense of accomplishment. In playing the Kirby Dream Land games the other day, I was laughing to myself a bit that they still had point systems, like most 8bit era games. But, did they really have meaning for anyone during that gen? It was always a little neat thing to glance at for a second, or a way to get extra lives, but otherwise it was ultimately not really there for anything else.

This isn't to say I dislike some puzzle games, or things like Tetris, Bust a Move, etc.

I love that people, like Bone himself here, are super into all of this though and preserving that era. I love the look of those cartridges and the awesome cover art. But overall it's not an area in this medium I ever see myself personally diving into.

I don't think that's an unpopular opinion...