Sega's contribution to videogames are incredibly underrated

[sevin0seven]

@ OP.

you should wear this t-shirt often:

[Original_Name]

Even if Nintendo passed out of existence after the N64, we would still see Gunpei Yokoi's work in every conventional gamepad that gets made. When we play 2D or 3D platform games, we would still think of Mario. We would still know where "Metroidvania" games have their roots. Every hand-held console would still elicit comparisons to Game Boy. Nintendo's unfair advantage is that that so many of their contributions (wholly original or otherwise) have made deep and lasting ripples in gaming that still reach from their past into our forseeable future--and these are influences that are plainly visible. Sega's lasting influence has been more subtle, and therefore easier to overlook, even if both companies were defunct.

Very well stated! However, I have to mention that although your statement remains valid, I think you've slightly underestimated the extent to which culture in and of itself has unbalanced the comparison. Everyone would know you meant "PSP" if you said "that Gameboy by Sony". Etymologically, referring to "PSN" as that "SegaNet by Sony" is just as accurate -- it's only the increased presence of Nintendo in the public consciousness that makes the difference, since both are analogously influential to the foundation of their respective developments. Nintendo clearly still has more going in its favor in this regard, but still there are elements of this that often aren't considered on the Sega side.

You're totally right about Nintendo predominantly being the foundation of console games, though -- I have more respect for Gunpei Yokoi than the rest of his former company combined (never been much of a Miyamoto guy, although I do give him ample credit where it's due). I think that Sega was the embodiment of the future of video games, and once they were forced to be so conservative by so many extenuating circumstances, they lost identity amongst themselves (or their remains) and the public alike. Especially since the rest of the industry has finally (just now) caught up with them -- it's like reading Neuromancer today; it has a much different effect on the reader because the context has changed so much. Nintendo has to do literally nothing to remain the foundation of games; Sega could very well have still been the future of games had they gotten the chance, y'know? Their descent into mediocrity has been overstated, because their games have mostly stayed very solid -- their critics know something is wrong, but they often blame their disappointment on the wrong element.

I'm not much one for oligarchy, and I try my best not to completely cloud my vision with nostalgia, but the clearly-established dichotomy between Nintendo and Sega seemed so much more elegant and creatively effective than the clusterfuck we see now.

EDIT: I just did the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QGnppJ-ys

[flamepanther]

Also very well stated. However, although your SegaNet analogy might seem factually accurate, I don't think it's equivalent to the Game Boy analogy in practical application. The Game Boy brand has been gone for a few years now, but it would be familiar now even without Nintendo's presence because people had so much familiar exposure to it when it was relevant. SegaNet though? I think most people were unaware of it even when it was still around. I don't personally even know anyone in real life who ever used it. Sega could potentially still be making consoles, and "that SegaNet by Sony" would still probably baffle most of the general public. People have to know about something in the first place before they can remember it later.

[Original_Name]

Right, I'd thought I'd properly accounted for the fact that the instances weren't identical in practice, but were developmentally analogous. In that sense, Sega had a few innovations which deserve to have been regarded with the same recognition of "all of these products are derivative of this particular company's product X" that the Gameboy enjoys, but unfortunately are not on account of contingencies with the public and reception rather than the product.

That is to say, "yeah, I know, but it very well could have been."

EDIT: Hm, but if they were still making consoles, they would still be using a service called SegaNet or that was a direct successor to SegaNet. And if they were still making consoles, that would be to say that they were successful in the market, and their products would generate more public awareness. If Sega was still using the product successfully, it's not that doubtful that people would at the very least say, "Oh yeah, Xbox Live is basically Microsoft's SegaNet," just as I literally heard "Oh yeah, PlayStation Network is basically Sony's Xbox Live" multiple times when they started the service.

[flamepanther]

My contention here has never been that Sega doesn't deserve more credit than they presently receive-- just that Nintendo's greater share of recognition isn't merely due to their survival as some have seemed to suggest.

[isiolia]

I think the main thing with Seganet is that it amounted to one attempt in a series of tries to put consoles online in one way or another that, ulimately, was still ahead of its time.

There have been tries at downloadable game services since what, '81 with the Intellivision's Playcable?
Sega was actually the first, AFAIK, to do modem-to-modem multiplayer with Meganet, though it never made it out of Japan. For the U.S. I think the first was XBAND?

Plus there's the angle that it would primarily be a console-first achievement, not really one for gaming as a whole. Granted, people credit the N64 controller for analog control when PC gamers at the time had HOTAS setups with pedals, but I digress...