I'm about 12 years too late for this arguemnt but...

Originally posted by sith_darth_jay
game gear!!!! (nostalgia)

I love playing with that thing. my father hated when i played during nite, he said it'd hurt my eyes, but i still played anywayz, and always ended up with tearful eyes, but happy 😄

only had three games: bruce lee enter the dragon, a boxing game (i think it was Fight Night) and VR Troopers 😄 (never played Power Rangers though)

but I still have my Tetris Cartridge and yes, Tetris Rules, so much fun and so simple. I think that's what made nintendo win: simplicity. they forgot that during N64, but it looks they're getting back on track now

LOL. VR troopers. I forgot about that one. I did get it but VR Troopers still isn't nearly as good as Power Rangers.

Game Gear killed batteries like it was its job. That was my main gripe with it compared to the GB.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Game Gear killed batteries like it was its job. That was my main gripe with it compared to the GB.

Battery pack solves that problem very nicely. To tell you the honest truth, I never once even used batteries in my Game Gear.

Originally posted by Sai1
Battery pack solves that problem very nicely. To tell you the honest truth, I never once even used batteries in my Game Gear.

Guess I was just dumb then. 😮

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Guess I was just dumb then. 😮

And don't forget. If you buy a battery pack... you don't have to buy batteries! So really it pays for itself and thensome depending on how much you play.

Games

Originally posted by BackFire
Games

As I mentioned before Game Gear was by no maens lacking in games. More often than not, games released on multi-platforms would come out in four versions: Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, and Game Boy.

And you surely can't be remarking on the quality of the games because Game Gear games put Game Boy games to shame. The mere fact that GG games were in perfect color alone (much better than Game Boy Advance) is enough. But it's also 8 bit vs 4 bit. GB was out of it's leauge. I don't get why more people didn't see this...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Lynx anyone?

Damn fine that was! Very ahead of its time except for being insane with the batteries.

Unfortunately, the control pad buggered up on mine and there was no apparent way to fix it. Arse.

Originally posted by Sai1
Wasn't the Game Gear maybe 20 bucks more? People didn't get Battery packs for Game Boy? And it's not like kids relying on parents were the only ones that had these thing. Or were they?

Game Gear was by no means lacking in games. And even if Game Boy had more, any given Game Gear game was better in most every aspect.

Ah, Tetris can't be so great that it's the defining factor in which system you get. Besides, I think Game Gear had a tetris too although it didn't come out till later.

Back in the day, it was kids who had Gameboys and it was parents who bought them. It was cheaper and it didnt need a battery pack to atleast play for one hour.

That's bullshit to think that every Game Gear was better? Is it because it had better graphics? That doesnt matter dude. It's gameplay. Graphics dont mean shit on handhelds as its been proven since the dawn of handhelds.

Tetris was great because it can be played by everyone. When they saw the Gameboy, they saw Tetris because it was huge. Tetris brought in both markets, adults and kids to the Gameboy. Also, everybody had Tetris, it came free with every purchase of the Game Boy.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Back in the day, it was kids who had Gameboys and it was parents who bought them. It was cheaper and it didnt need a battery pack to atleast play for one hour.

It was cheaper but not by that much. And my battery pack lasted from 3 to 4 hours. Not a single dime was ever spent on batteries for my GG.

Originally posted by Smasandian

That's bullshit to think that every Game Gear was better? Is it because it had better graphics? That doesnt matter dude. It's gameplay. Graphics dont mean shit on handhelds as its been proven since the dawn of handhelds.

I really don't think it is. 8 bit vs 4 bit. In most ports, the game gear always had more options. For example, in fighting games there would be more playable characters. Sure not all GG's games were great but I'd say the majority of them had good gameplay. I think the fluidity and animation in a game ehances gameplay as well. I mentioned some really great games already. More games would be Streets of Rage 2, Shinobi, Shinobi 2, Sonic side scrollers, Sonic drift, Tails adventure, Samurai Showdown, Ninja Gaiden, GP Riders. Game Boy didn't have any game in the same genre that is better than these. The only exception would be RPGs but the good ones didn't come out till long after GG had died. Defender of Oasis and Shining Force 2 were still kick ass RPGs though.

And when the graphic's quality difference gap is that large, it's significant. 🙂

Originally posted by Smasandian

Tetris was great because it can be played by everyone. When they saw the Gameboy, they saw Tetris because it was huge. Tetris brought in both markets, adults and kids to the Gameboy. Also, everybody had Tetris, it came free with every purchase of the Game Boy.

But when people got more games I wonder how much attention their Tetris cartridges continued to get. You can't play Tetris very long before it starts to get boring. At least not when you have alot of other options.

Originally posted by Sai1
As I mentioned before Game Gear was by no maens lacking in games. More often than not, games released on multi-platforms would come out in four versions: Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, and Game Boy.

And you surely can't be remarking on the quality of the games because Game Gear games put Game Boy games to shame. The mere fact that GG games were in perfect color alone (much better than Game Boy Advance) is enough. But it's also 8 bit vs 4 bit. GB was out of it's leauge. I don't get why more people didn't see this...

No one buys handhelds for multi platform games. Gameboy had better exclusive games, mario, zelda, final fantasy, pokemon. Gamegear had SOME good games, but no where near the amount of classics. Also more people trusted the Nintendo name at that time. Color doesn't make a game better man. Which is proven by Game Boy's domination of the gamegear.

Plus gamegear was as big as a ****ing house, an aesthetic nightmare, bulky, not very comfortable, shitty battery life, ect.

Don't let all this fool you though. I had a game gear, never had a gameboy original. Got the color, advance, and now I am the proud owner of the DS Lite. Gamegear was a fine system, really. Just not enough to take on Nintendo's classic handheld.

Originally posted by Sai1
It was cheaper but not by that much. And my battery pack lasted from 3 to 4 hours. Not a single dime was ever spent on batteries for my GG.

I really don't think it is. 8 bit vs 4 bit. In most ports, the game gear always had more options. For example, in fighting games there would be more playable characters. Sure not all GG's games were great but I'd say the majority of them had good gameplay. I think the fluidity and animation in a game ehances gameplay as well. I mentioned some really great games already. More games would be Streets of Rage 2, Shinobi, Shinobi 2, Sonic side scrollers, Sonic drift, Tails adventure, Samurai Showdown, Ninja Gaiden, GP Riders. Game Boy didn't have any game in the same genre that is better than these. The only exception would be RPGs but the good ones didn't come out till long after GG had died. Defender of Oasis and Shining Force 2 were still kick ass RPGs though.

And when the graphic's quality difference gap is that large, it's significant. 🙂

But when people got more games I wonder how much attention their Tetris cartridges continued to get. You can't play Tetris very long before it starts to get boring. At least not when you have alot of other options.

Dude. Your not getting it. It's wrong for an company to expect people to buy they're product amd then expect people to buy a battery pack for the company's wrongdoing. The battery life sucked ass. GameBoy was good. People chose the Gameboy because they didnt want to have bad battery life. It didnt matter if they're was a battery pack. How would you like it if you bought an system, and when you tried to hook it up to the TV, you cant because the company makes you pay for the wiring and connections?

Oh so fighting games were good on the Game Gear and ports. Who cares. All those games you mentioned were already on NES. Why would somebody want to buy an system to play a game they already played?

I guess the Game Gear's significant graphics made such an huge difference in terms of people buying it.

How old are you? Are you under 20? Of course your going to find Tetris boring. But in the 80's, when the GameBoy came out and everybody wanted Tetris, the game was highly addictive and fun to play. It was one of the first games to bring in non gamers to the fold. It was huge.

Originally posted by BackFire
No one buys handhelds for multi platform games. Gameboy had better exclusive games, mario, zelda, final fantasy, pokemon. Gamegear had SOME good games, but no where near the amount of classics. Also more people trusted the Nintendo name at that time. Color doesn't make a game better man. Which is proven by Game Boy's domination of the gamegear.

This is very reminicent of the Sony vs Nintendo arguement. And we all know who came out the winner there. Not the one with more classics. Zelda I'll give you. FF and Pokemon don't really matter because GG was pretty much out of the picture by the time they came along (I'm not 100% sure about that for FF but it's definately true of Pokemon). And as for Mario, the GG versions of Sonic are better than the counterpart GB versions of Mario. It's mario and soncic. You go from the left end of the stage to the right end, jumping on bad guys along the way. Sonic had larger levels and better graphic (not only because it was in color but more detail and background stuff). Ever since the first sonic you had the ability to back track as long as the terrain allowed and it levels were more vaired as well. Not always simply from left to right. Half the time diagnally or straight up or down.
Ironicly, your arguement is also the reason why I prefer Nintendo to Sony but the difference with this is Sony's games, on a whole, are not overwhelmingly better than Nintendo's. GG's games IMO are much better than GB's on the whole.

Originally posted by BackFire

Plus gamegear was as big as a ****ing house, an aesthetic nightmare, bulky, not very comfortable, shitty battery life, ect.

To each his own I guess. I never felt uncomfortable with the size. I actually felt it was too smal without the battery pack after I got used to having it attached. At that point a Game Boy just felt really awkward to me 🙂

Originally posted by Smasandian
Dude. Your not getting it. It's wrong for an company to expect people to buy they're product amd then expect people to buy a battery pack for the company's wrongdoing. The battery life sucked ass. GameBoy was good. People chose the Gameboy because they didnt want to have bad battery life. It didnt matter if they're was a battery pack. How would you like it if you bought an system, and when you tried to hook it up to the TV, you cant because the company makes you pay for the wiring and connections?

I don't know what to tell you. It was worth it to get a battery pack if I could play the GGs games. Both in term of money and just plain being able to play GG. If it's a really good system I got no qualms with getting the wires myself. I don't know which of the next gen system you prefer but would you change your mind and get a different one instead because you had to go buy the AV cables seperately?

Originally posted by Smasandian
Oh so fighting games
were good on the Game Gear and ports. Who cares. All those games you mentioned were already on NES. Why would somebody want to buy an system to play a game they already played?
[/B]

Fighting games were just one example. In any given game you could fit more of anything on the GG complared to GB. The only game I mentioned that was on NES is Ninja Gaiden. And even if a game is on another system, it's not the exact same game on the hand held. Same concept only. In truth there were some GG games that were better than some NES games of the same genre.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I guess the Game Gear's significant graphics made such an huge difference in terms of people buying it.
[/B]

Originally posted by Smasandian
How old are you? Are you under 20? Of course your going to find Tetris boring. But in the 80's, when the GameBoy came out and everybody wanted Tetris, the game was highly addictive and fun to play. It was one of the first games to bring in non gamers to the fold. It was huge. [/B]

Im 25. And I never said Tetris was boring. I just said you get bored of it quickly when you have so many other games you can play. I'm sure everyone loved their Tetris at first, but after having GB for a year and collecting a lot of different games, Tetris won't be that big of a deal anymore. I figure anyone would be aware of this even before they got a GB. Unless your a real diehard Tetris/puzzle game fan. And like I said before GG had Tetris too.

Or maybe that was it. Everyone who really wanted Tetris on a handheld already got GB and didn't want to bother with getting another one.

Originally posted by Sai1
I don't know what to tell you. It was worth it to get a battery pack if I could play the GGs games. Both in term of money and just plain being able to play GG. If it's a really good system I got no qualms with getting the wires myself. I don't know which of the next gen system you prefer but would you change your mind and get a different one instead because you had to go buy the AV cables seperately?

Fighting games were just one example. In any given game you could fit more of anything on the GG complared to GB. The only game I mentioned that was on NES is Ninja Gaiden. And even if a game is on another system, it's not the exact same game on the hand held. Same concept only. In truth there were some GG games that were better than some NES games of the same genre.

Yeah, that's what confounds me... You can bet that if XBOX 360 or PS3's graphics were no better than their predecessors, Wii would have a one way ticket to success. And the difference in graphics bewteen PS3 and PS2 or XBOX and XBOX360 is a much smaller gap than the difference between graphics on GB and GG.

Im 25. And I never said Tetris was boring. I just said you get bored of it quickly when you have so many other games you can play. I'm sure everyone loved their Tetris at first, but after having GB for a year and collecting a lot of different games, Tetris won't be that big of a deal anymore. I figure anyone would be aware of this even before they got a GB. Unless your a real diehard Tetris/puzzle game fan. And like I said before GG had Tetris too.

Or maybe that was it. Everyone who really wanted Tetris on a handheld already got GB and didn't want to bother with getting another one.

Yes, the battery pack was useful. But parents wanted good battery life out of the box. So, they bought the Game Boy instead. Also, I had a bad analogy about the console wires. My mistake.

But the ports still. Those games are ports. Console games do not make good handhelds games at all. Who wants to buy a system for ports when they already have the games.

What's your point then? Is it a rule in the industry that graphics = sales?

So you didnt say Tetris was a boring game, but you say its get boring quickly? What's the difference?
Gamebody became a hit because of Tetris, so that means people loved thier Tetris. Tetris was a big deal back then, they're were over a dozen false licensing rights to the game, which ended up in the end that Nintendo had the licensing rights to the game. They're was a pretty famous lawsuit battle about it also against Tengen. Which comes to the point of saying that Tetris was never released on the Game Gear. Ever.

What's your point on how the Game Boy beat out the Game Gear? Considering your discussing everybody else points, whats yours?

Originally posted by Sai1
This is very reminicent of the Sony vs Nintendo arguement. And we all know who came out the winner there. Not the one with more classics. Zelda I'll give you. FF and Pokemon don't really matter because GG was pretty much out of the picture by the time they came along (I'm not 100% sure about that for FF but it's definately true of Pokemon). And as for Mario, the GG versions of Sonic are better than the counterpart GB versions of Mario. It's mario and soncic. You go from the left end of the stage to the right end, jumping on bad guys along the way. Sonic had larger levels and better graphic (not only because it was in color but more detail and background stuff). Ever since the first sonic you had the ability to back track as long as the terrain allowed and it levels were more vaired as well. Not always simply from left to right. Half the time diagnally or straight up or down.
Ironicly, your arguement is also the reason why I prefer Nintendo to Sony but the difference with this is Sony's games, on a whole, are not overwhelmingly better than Nintendo's. GG's games IMO are much better than GB's on the whole.

To each his own I guess. I never felt uncomfortable with the size. I actually felt it was too smal without the battery pack after I got used to having it attached. At that point a Game Boy just felt really awkward to me 🙂

Reminiscent, but with one large difference, Nintendo won this particular battle. Gameboy was simply more accessible to the general public. It was out way before Game Gear, had more games people cared about (maybe not you, but most others) was smaller which made it directly more desireable to those who were buying it for use on the go. Game Gear had better graphics, that's about it. Everything else about the game gear was lesser than the game boy.

The game gear being to small is just mind boggling. It was too large to be carried around casually in your pocket or backpack, how was it too small? Did you want to hold something the size of an NES or something? Come on. Combine it's unreasonably large size, with it's piss poor out of the box battery life, and a smaller, less impressive library of games and higher cost, you have your reasons as to why Game Boy beat Game Gear.

Originally posted by Smasandian

But the ports still. Those games are ports. Console games do not make good handhelds games at all. Who wants to buy a system for ports when they already have the games.

Originally posted by Smasandian

What's your point then? Is it a rule in the industry that graphics = sales?

Isn't that generally how it works? I personally don't think it should work that way but it seems to.

Originally posted by Smasandian

So you didnt say Tetris was a boring game, but you say its get boring quickly? What's the difference?

I'm saying that unlike a lot of other games, you can't sit and play Tetris for over an hour. At least I can't.

Originally posted by Smasandian

What's your point on how the Game Boy beat out the Game Gear? Considering your discussing everybody else points, whats yours?

I don't have one. As I stated in my first post it has always been an enigma to me. People chose systems primarily for the games it has and GG just had better games... Library might not be as large as GB but large enough.

Originally posted by BackFire
Reminiscent, but with one large difference, Nintendo won this particular battle. Gameboy was simply more accessible to the general public. It was out way before Game Gear, had more games people cared about (maybe not you, but most others) was smaller which made it directly more desireable to those who were buying it for use on the go. Game Gear had better graphics, that's about it. Everything else about the game gear was lesser than the game boy.

Originally posted by BackFire

The game gear being to small is just mind boggling. It was too large to be carried around casually in your pocket or backpack, how was it too small? Did you want to hold something the size of an NES or something? Come on. Combine it's unreasonably large size, with it's piss poor out of the box battery life, and a smaller, less impressive library of games and higher cost, you have your reasons as to why Game Boy beat Game Gear.

When I said too small I was only talking about how it fit in my hands. Although I never had any problems transporting it anywhere. That must have been some small back pack you were using. Fit just fine in mine. Took it with me to school every day for a time.

I've have already addressed how easily you get over the battery delema and no one seems to be able to be about to counter with anything except "don't wanna buy one" or "didn't come with one". I have no idea why anyone wouldn't wanna buy one when it pays for itself and you gotta be pretty lazy if you can't just grab an extra item that doesn't come with the box that the system is in.

Smaller, yes. But still a lot to choose from and I disagree with less impressive. If you really want I can list the 30+ game gear games I still have which provided me with tons of entertainment on a level of quality that Game Boy didn't even come close to in most cases.

I don't remember price differences. Were game gear games really that much more expensive if not the same?

And I don't see how you can knock ports anyway since if it's a game that I really like, I wanna play it on the go as well as when I'm at home.

Originally posted by Sai1
The console I owned was Nintendo, not Sega. So even if they were ports, they were brand new to me. Game Gear introuced me to a lot of Sega games I've never played before like Sonic, Streets of Rage, Shinobi, Ecco the Dolphin. I'd think anyone who owned a Nintendo but not Sega would see that as a plus. And not all ports are just like their console counterparts. The Power Ranger games were completely different types of games than the ones on Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis. And Game Boy definately had it's share of ports too. But even if I did have the game, (like I had Ninja Gaiden for nintendo) the game gear version was different so it was something like getting Ninja Gaiden 2 even though I already have Ninja Gaiden 1.

Isn't that generally how it works? I personally don't think it should work that way but it seems to.

I'm saying that unlike a lot of other games, you can't sit and play Tetris for over an hour. At least I can't.

I don't have one. As I stated in my first post it has always been an enigma to me. People chose systems primarily for the games it has and GG just had better games... Library might not be as large as GB but large enough.

Well, the majority of people didnt like ports. It's the whole one console thing back in the day. I guess your a different case but that doesnt matter because you dont equal to the majority of gamers.

No it doesnt. What's the most popular console during last gen? It was the PS2, oh wait, its the least graphical powerful console in the race. But it one. Same with GB to Game Gear, DS to PSP, NES to any system. Graphics dont equal the best. So you agree about gameplay over graphics?

You cant sit down and play Tetris for over an hour....wow, who cares, your again, not the majority of gamers.

So why are you saying we're wrong, if you dont know the answer and have no idea why the Game Boy beat out Game Gear?
Shouldnt you find out first yourself before you question our answers?

Also, you seriously need to stop using your personal history as evidence on our points.

ON your post to Backfire.
1. Handhelds are completly different ballgame than consoles. If the company suceeds in handhelds doesnt necessarly mean that the sucess will continue with consoles. Ex. Sony PSP losing to the DS.

2. Please remember that parents generally are the main consumers of videogames back in the early 90's. They cared about the battery life. Also, your forgetting that the Game Boy was around, so instead of buying the incredible useful battery pack, the parents just chose the cheaper Game Boy.