Opinions on Urban Dictionary's Definition for "Sega"

[MrPopo]

I figured "double" was a bit much -- it's closer to 150%, but that would have been difficult to state eloquently.

http://www.ranker.com/list/sega-games-list/reference
http://www.ranker.com/list/nintendo-gam ... /reference

Note that I made a point of calling out "awesome" games, not just games. I'd rather take Blizzard's approach of a few really fun games, rather than getting a ton of games, but many of them being sub-par.

I should hope that none of us here would be so idiotic as to believe that Nintendo does not advance their game mechanics with each new iteration. New worlds open new possibilities that Nintendo forsakes themselves of with their relative obsession with building brand-recognition around a small stable of characters, though. Although Panzer Dragoon was in many ways a spiritual sequel to Space Harrier, the change in universe on top of the progression of gameplay mechanics allowed Sega to express things which they simply couldn't in the world of Space Harrier. Instead of trying to shoe-horn Sonic into the world of dreams, Sonic Team gracefully created a new IP which more intuitively fit the theme. Skies of Arcadia had largely the same development team as Panzer Dragoon Saga -- they're separate franchises because the optimism of Skies of Arcadia is simply ridiculous in Panzer's universe. Many Nintendo fans have hated changes to the Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, Donkey Kong, and Kirby franchises because the concepts they're founded upon don't really lend themselves to the changes which Nintendo pursued with the characters and the worlds they exist in.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. From a business standpoint you gain a certain number of sales on the brand name alone. From a player perspective, when I'm playing the next game in a franchise I'm already invested in the characters and the world, which frees the game up to get right into the heart of things. With a new franchise you have to do a certain amount of world building.

Further extenuating circumstances include Sega being the primary target of the US Congress and media during the early-mid 90's,[/quore]
It'd be interesting to investigate why this occured. Was it because of the image they were trying to maintain?

the actual Sega having one of the most incompetent overseas representatives of any video game company ever,

That's not extenuating :p That's the bad management I was talking about earlier.

the relative bias they suffered (Nintendo could put out the Virtual Boy and obnoxiously release near-identical upgrades of handheld harware at a constant rate without anyone seeming to care; Sega puts out the 32X and suddenly nobody had a good word to say about them until it was far too late),

Apples to oranges. The Virtual Boy flopped, but it wasn't marketed as a replacement for an existing product line, it seemed to be more of a new line. And people have NOT forgotton it, as has been seen when the DS and the 3DS were announced. The upgrades of handheld hardware also very different from the 32x. You have the Game Boy, and then the Game Boy Pocket. The pocket was simply a smaller form factor that ran on two AAAs rather than four AAs. All the new games released would still work on the old brick, which meant that you didn't need to upgrade unless you actually liked the new form factor. This also got a lot of new people to buy who hadn't thought about buying a Game Boy before. The GBC launch used backwards compatible games to help the transition. The GBA was a brand new system, and the SP was a similar kind of upgrade as the Pocket. Same with the DS and DS Lite. The DSi was the first upgrade that meant that you had to upgrade to purchase new software, and we all saw that very few DSi games were made for that very reason. Nintendo didn't get any flak for this because at no point did they make intragenerational upgrades mandatory (aside from the DSi).

The 32x, on the other hand, had a number of flaws. It was an addon, which the Sega CD had already proved didn't work well. The problem with addons is that there is a very high cost of entry for someone who isn't already invested in the original product. If I saw that there was this cool looking game called Knuckles Chaotix I now have to buy both a Genesis and a 32x to play it. This makes it a harder sell for new customers. So your overall install base is most likely going to be a subset of your existing install base, so your market presence isn't really growing. This doesn't give developers an incentive to produce games for it. Plus, there was the whole "coming out a few months before the Saturn" thing. Rereleasing an older console to pick up on bargain hunters is a good strategy; look at the NES2 or how long the PS2 slim kept selling. But releasing what is effectively a new console just as you're launching another new console is really shooting yourself in the foot.

they put out the superior game console to Sony's PlayStation 2 but the Dreamcast was ignored in Japan because it didn't play DVDs (maybe the most telling shift in the gaming industry),

While I won't comment on whether or not the Dreamcast is superior to the PS2 (don't have time to look up stats), the Game Boy, the PS2, and the Wii are definitive proof that technical superiority is not the deciding factor.

Sega of America shared a bunch of information and exclusive rights with Microsoft in the time leading up to their President pulling the plug on Dreamcast before schedule and suddenly jumping ship onto the Xbox brand,

Again, Sega screwing themselves.

the EA nonsense (regarding your analogy -- the Nintendo 64 got absolutely creamed by the PlayStation. They were sustained almost entirely by four or five console games and a media craze over an unspectacular handheld franchise about character-grinding),

Which was my point. Nintendo had some very broad appealing games that Sega was completely missing in the Saturn era. There were a lot of good Saturn games, but they were all fairly niche in their appeal.

and that they were sold to a company with yakuza-ties by their holdings company behind closed doors.

They were sold AFTER they were screwed. Being sold is why they aren't doing so well now.

Without the Pokemon boom and the Wii (which has a pretty lousy reputation amongst most gamers), Nintendo would not be developing home consoles anymore.

I disagree. Even though the N64 and the Gamecube weren't doing well Nintendo's home console business was still turning a profit. And the only people I've seen that the Wii has a lowsy reputation with are the people who only play console FPSs (and they're on the inferior platform anway).

Just as Sega's demise is as much from their own faults as it is extenuating circumstances, Nintendo's success is as much about their own strengths as it is about pure luck. The media and consumers always seemed to throw them a bone where Sega never had such a luxury.

I'd chalk that up to an image problem. Sega was always going "Look how awesome we are! Look how cool we are! ... look how far into the red we are..." whereas Nintendo was always happy to keep making good games and letting those games speak for themselves. Sega was loud and obnoxious and a lot of people were glad to see them get their comuppance. Just like people are enjoying Sony fall flat on their face after the "people will get a second job to buy the PS3" thing.

I personally prefer Sega and think that the company is tragically misunderstood and suffers from unbelievable bias, but they were both equally worthy presences in the industry, unlike the clowns we have running the show these days.

Sega was a worthy opponent back in the day. There was a fundamental difference in how Sega and Nintendo operated, as you've mentioned above. Nintendo has a small core of proven games that they keep refining and iterating on. When you get the next Mario or Zelda game you know it's going to be good. With Sega they seem to operate on a principle of throwing a ton of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. This leads to some real awesome stuff as well as some terrible stuff. And I think that is one of the things that has tarnished their image, in the end, along with the aforementioned criminal mismanagement of their brand in the US.

[Original_Name]

*rubs temples* Jeez, this is getting complicated! I believe that these responses are in the same order as your comments.

Alright, I was using "extenuating circumstances" as "unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the commission of the offense." Sega was essentially Sega of Japan -- they had a branch devoted to extending Sega's presence to the overseas American market. Sega of America was almost an entirely different company -- partially made up of Mattel employees -- which shared its library of games with the main production end at Sega of Japan. When the Genesis took off in America and not Japan, Sega of America went way beyond their intended purpose and began making drastic executive decisions despite Sega of Japan's (that is to say, for all intents and purposes, the actual Sega's) protests. That's where you get Sega 32X, the early Saturn launch, and the dismal localization policies up until Sega of Japan gained enough clout with the success of the Saturn in Japan to retake some measure of command over Sega of America. Such a situation would qualify as "unusual or extreme" in my view.

They may not have forgotten about it, but no one refused to purchase the Nintendo 64 because of the Virtual Boy, until very recently practically no one refused to purchase a current Nintendo handheld in the full knowledge that a better model would be released short distance into the future, no one refused to buy the Wii because of the Gamecube's perceived disappointment. Yet the Saturn was dead from the gate in the west because of the 32x. Nintendo faltered for two straight generations, yet the universe called the Wii the second-coming upon its release -- those same people weren't able to put the past behind them when Sega released the Dreamcast. Yes, these are apples-to-oranges, but it's Nintendo-to-Sega, so falling into such analogies is difficult to avoid. I wasn't trying to say that Sega's mistakes and Nintendo's mistakes/questionable stuff are exactly the same, only that Sega's mistakes were taken in far more bitter regard than wrongs Nintendo committed.

I always found it frustrating how Nintendo would constantly make you end up with an obsolete handheld in your hands, and it's kept me from buying Nintendo handhelds for awhile now -- I just never feel like I'll be satisfied with my purchase for long enough to justify the expense. Apparently that's not as big of an issue for most people.

Okay, and I think we've established that the 32X was a terrible idea. Sega of America and their actual namesake were very different entities -- the 32X was entirely the invention of Sega of America. As I previously stated, the state of affairs allowing SoA to do such a thing was, under my working definition, an extenuating circumstance.

Of course they were, in their own ways -- Game Boy had better battery life, PlayStation 2 had DVD compatibility, and the Wii had motion controls. Anyway, I meant it was the superior console in terms of library and direction. The PlayStation 2 had yet to deliver more than a paltry selection of memorable games, and never offered anything close to Sega's online services or ambition in any regard. They put out a box and said, "Hey guys, make games for this thing so we can make money off of it."

See, this is where I think we just view things differently. Why exactly is it a bad thing that Sega produced niche games? You said that Sega tried to hard to be number one, yet they were the ones who were taking hits in order to appeal to a niche audience. Nintendo tries too hard to make their individual franchises number one, and I think less of them because of it. There are two sides to most of these coins you're flipping. Was it a mistake for Sega to take the high road and be creative? Does that make it okay that counter-creative first-parties like Sony and Microsoft pushed them out of the market? Their mission statement was to bring new experiences to people -- that ambition is more admirable than the pursuit of easy dollars.

Um, the buyout would be continuing to get screwed even more after already getting screwed.

Yeah, I edited that statement to be more specific. Even retro-oriented gamers tend to agree that the console failed to meet their expectations.

Nintendo could be just as obnoxious in their commercials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxRxMfyKcm4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h53YZX39GXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkv_CDV44tI

Unfortunately I can't find it, but I once watched a Gamecube promo that talked at length in wispy terms about the "Nintendo Magic" that you can't find anywhere else, which is way more pretentious to me than "X-treme" marketing.

And, in response to your first and last points, what exactly was so bad about Sega's offerings. Outside of some arcade conversions which were more disappointing on account of home hardware restrictions than being inherently bad or simply had a healthy dose of intentional camp, Sega's library was as solid as Nintendo's. It's not that Sega didn't offer quality, it's that not everyone's tastes are so eclectic or welcoming of the unfamiliar. You're not supposed to like every single Sega game, but when a Sega game reaches out and grabs you, it doesn't feel like a pop-song written for everyone to sing along to the chorus -- it's like a highly-respected cult band wrote a song just for you.

[MrPopo]

*rubs temples* Jeez, this is alot!

Alright, I was using "extenuating circumstances" as "unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the commission of the offense." Sega was essentially Sega of Japan -- they had a branch devoted to extending Sega's presence to the overseas American market. Sega of America was almost an entirely different company -- partially made up of Mattel employees -- which shared its library of games with the main production end at Sega of Japan. When the Genesis took off in America and not Japan, Sega of America went way beyond their intended purpose and began making drastic executive decisions despite Sega of Japan's (that is to say, for all intents and purposes, the actual Sega's) protests. That's where you get Sega 32X, the early Saturn launch, and the dismal localization policies up until Sega of Japan gained enough clout with the success of the Saturn in Japan to retake some measure of command over Sega of America. Such a situation would qualify as "unusual or extreme" in my view.

Fair enough. I see it as Sega of Japan being unable to manage Sega of America.

They may not have forgotten about it, but no one refused to purchase the Nintendo 64 because of the Virtual Boy, until very recently practically no one refused to purchase a current Nintendo handheld in the full knowledge that a better model would be released short distance into the future, no one refused to buy the Wii because of the Gamecube's perceived disappointment. Yet the Saturn was dead from the gate in the west because of the 32x. Nintendo faltered for two straight generations, yet the universe called the Wii the second-coming upon its release -- those same people weren't able to put the past behind them when Sega released the Dreamcast. Yes, these are apples-to-oranges, but it's Nintendo-to-Sega, so falling into such analogies is difficult to avoid. I wasn't trying to say that Sega's mistakes and Nintendo's mistakes/questionable stuff are exactly the same, only that Sega's mistakes were taken in far more bitter regard than wrongs Nintendo committed.

The mistakes made by Sega are much larger. The Virtual Boy was not the successor to the SNES or the Game Boy, but rather a third product line. Thus, even though this product like was terrible the core console line was still good. Similarly, everyone agrees that the first party titles on the Gamecube are extremely solid, and what hurt it was how little support it was getting from third parties. So people knew with the Wii that they would get the same quality first party software. With the Dreamcast what we saw was that previously Sega had released the 32x immediately before the Saturn, thus guarenteeing the 32x would have poor support, and then they killed support for the Saturn very abruptly. To compare to Sony's end, Playstation and Playstation 2 software was still being released for quite some time after the successor console launched, while the Saturn had a hard stop. That was what made people leary about the Dreamcast; if it didn't take off then Sega might just release a new console and kill all support for the Dreamcast (I know that was my argument to my brother when he wanted to get one back in the day).

I always found it frustrating how Nintendo would constantly make you end up with an obsolete handheld in your hands, and it's kept me from buying Nintendo handhelds for awhile now -- I just never feel like I'll be satisfied with my purchase for long enough to justify expense. Apparently that's not as big of an issue for most people.

Ahh, I see your hangup. The thing about the handhelds was that they always had a bunch of really fun games and you got great battery life, which is so key for a handheld. People have in general lower expectations of handhelds which meant that Nintendo could use this older hardware and get people to make a lot of good games for it.

Of course they were, in their own ways -- Game Boy had better battery life, PlayStation 2 had DVD compatibility, and the Wii had motion controls. Anyway, I meant it was the superior console in terms of library and direction. The PlayStation 2 had yet to deliver more than a paltry selection of memorable games, and never offered anything close to Sega's online services or ambition in any regard. They put out a box and said, "Hey guys, make games for this thing so we can make money off of it."

You're right on the online services, though I'm of the opinion that trying to launch online before always-on connections became common was a recipe for failure. People had enough problems justifying a second phone like for their computers, so now they'd have to have a third phone line for the DC or share that second one with the computer, which means you can't browse the internet and play PSO at the same time. I was about to say something about the PS2's paltry selection until I realized you meant at the time the DC died, not over the PS2's lifespan. But still, the Playstation brand was well proven. All the third parties were lining up and ready to make games for it. Everyone was clamoring to get a PS2 on the hope of those games and for the DVD feature (which was pretty big, all things considered). Even though the DC had the stronger library at that point, everyone had an idea of what the final PS2 library would be like, and that's what they wanted.

See, this is where I think we just view things differently. Why exactly is it a bad thing that Sega produced niche games? You said that Sega tried to hard to be number one, yet they were the ones who were taking hits in order to appeal to a niche audience. Nintendo tries too hard to make their individual franchises number one, and I think less of them because of it. There are too sides to most of these coins you're flipping. Was it a mistake for Sega to take the high road and be creative? Does that make it okay that counter-creative first-parties like Sony and Microsoft pushed them out of the market? Their mission statement was to bring new experiences to people -- that ambition is more admirable than the pursuit of easy dollars.

Oh, I don't think it's a bad thing that Sega produced niche games except from a business standpoint. I don't want you to think I don't like Sega's stuff. I just always see die hard Sega fans talking about how terrible it was that Sega died when really you can see a slew of bad business decisions made by Sega that got them to that point. I think Nintendo isn't trying to make their franchises number one; instead they have these franchises that have been around since the industry revival they created and it speaks to long time gamers in the same way that a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese does. Every Mario game is a joy to play; same with Zelda. That seems to be Nintendo's philosophy; make a game that's really fun for everyone to play and then let it speak for itself.

And, in response to your first and last points, what exactly was so bad about Sega's offerings. Outside of some arcade conversions which were more disappointing on account of home hardware restrictions than being inherently bad and a healthy dose of intentional camp, Sega's library was as solid as Nintendo's. It's not that Sega didn't offer quality, it's that not everyone's tastes are so eclectic or welcoming of the unfamiliar. You're not supposed to like every single Sega game, but when a Sega game reaches out and grabs you, it doesn't feel like a pop-song written for everyone to sing along to the chorus -- it's like a highly-respected cult band wrote a song just for you.

And I think we can chalk this up to a difference in tastes. There are some Sega games that I love, such as the Genesis Sonic series and the Camelot-era Shining Force series. I'd say with Nintendo you might be as fanatically into any particular title as you might be with a particular Sega title, but on the flip side they have far more titles that appeal to a person. I'd rather have 10 great games than 2 awesome games.

[Anthony817]

You're right on the online services, though I'm of the opinion that trying to launch online before always-on connections became common was a recipe for failure. People had enough problems justifying a second phone like for their computers, so now they'd have to have a third phone line for the DC or share that second one with the computer, which means you can't browse the internet and play PSO at the same time.

About your comment about the Dreamcast dial up internet connection, you could play PSO with the Broadband adapter, which at the time cost only $50. Just pointing that out.

[MrPopo]

You're right on the online services, though I'm of the opinion that trying to launch online before always-on connections became common was a recipe for failure. People had enough problems justifying a second phone like for their computers, so now they'd have to have a third phone line for the DC or share that second one with the computer, which means you can't browse the internet and play PSO at the same time.

About your comment about the Dreamcast dial up internet connection, you could play PSO with the Broadband adapter, which at the time cost only $50. Just pointing that out.

And I could play Mortal Kombat Armaggeddon online using the PS2's broadband adapter. I'm comparing base specs, and plus, even though the BBA existed at the time the backing infrastructure did not. Broadband was just starting to be rolled out in homes when the Dreamcast gave it up.

[gtmtnbiker]

@MrPopo, good comments/arguments.

For the most part, I think Nintendo has made a lot of good decisions that translated to financial success. Even the so-so decisions such as Nintendo 64 & Gamecube were still financially successful but not to the level of the NES/SNES/Wii/Gameboy/DS.

With the Wii, Nintendo hit a grand slam because it was the only console maker that marketed family friendly games with simple but fun controls. I was introduced to the Wii because of Wii Sports and was hooked. It was fun and anyone, even Grandma, can get into it.

As a parent, I have no problems buying the Wii/DS for my kids since I know there are lots of age-appropriate games at a reasonable price.

With the 3DS, Nintendo has stumbled a little but it quickly adjusted by cutting the price dramatically. In talking to folks at stores, it seems that sales have increased significantly just in time for the holiday season.

I had a Sega Genesis which I enjoyed. I wasn't involved with gaming at the time of the Saturn/32X/CD/Dreamcast. I think the Dreamcast didn't do well because people were impressed with the upcoming PS2 because of the DVD feature and the popularity of the PS1. When you buy your next console, you are likely to buy from the vendor that you bought from before.

With the PS3, I think Sony had a chance to repeat the success of the PS1/PS2 but did not because the PS3 was the most expensive console. $600+ for a video game console? Really?

Personally, I really don't care if a game is from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Apple as long as it's fun. I enjoy playing games on all of the consoles but I must say that I do equate Nintendo's franchises with quality.

[Balasubbie]

I think we should pause and not lament the Dreamcast for what it never became and appreciate it for what it was, the wet dream of a minority of the gaming public, including myself.

[Anthony817]

I think we should pause and not lament the Dreamcast for what it never became and appreciate it for what it was, the wet dream of a minority of the gaming public, including myself.

Yes sir. I have to say it was the last TRUE hardcore gaming machine for gamers, not a media extender hub that also happens to let you play games.

* Official Mouse and keyboard for gaming and browsing the web, I mean, what the hell was wrong with the manufactures of systems after the DC? Hell, it would bring so many PC gamers over to consoles.

* Cross platform multiplayer. All those great PC ports had compatibility with PC gamers online, and DC gamers could use their mouse and kb's for equal precision against their PC foes.

* "HD" resolution before we knew what HD was. the VGA box displays in 480P. Look at 480I and 480P side by side and you really see the high fidelity of the colors that the progressive scan image displays.

I could go on and on. It was the first system with DLC, broadband internet browsing out of the box(Saturn don't count).

Yeah, it pretty much got most things right, only the gaming masses were too blind to see it was as every bit of a hardcore system as PC's are the most hardcore systems for gamers.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360 and PSP, but its all about the 3rd party for them. Sure, they got exclusives, but other studios make them.

At least with Sega and Nintendo, they made some of the best first party software for their systems.

[gtmtnbiker]

* "HD" resolution before we knew what HD was. the VGA box displays in 480P. Look at 480I and 480P side by side and you really see the high fidelity of the colors that the progressive scan image displays.

I could go on and on. It was the first system with DLC, broadband internet browsing out of the box(Saturn don't count).

I don't think the VGA capability of the Dreamcast was very practical since there are very few TVs that supported VGA.

I've given up on the idea of a video game console doing adequate internet browsing. It's far better to do it on a Mac/Windows box.

[Anthony817]

Back in the day it was VGA on CRT pc moniters. Nowadays, many HDTV have VGA, not all, but lots do.

Our 40 inch Sony Bravia has VGS, and our 32 inch Vizio does too.

When I was having PC problems and my PC was fried, well PSU was burnt up but the PS3 came to the rescue. I whipped out my Logitech G15 usb Keyboard and plugged it into the PS3 and went browsing youtube to show me exactly what I needed to do to get my PC back together.

It wasn't too awkward, cause I had a keyboard at least.

I have never browsed the net on any other system but my PSP, and let me tell you what, it was pretty bad.