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

Yes I know they won. I just don't really know why. If Nintendo won then, why didn't they continue to win when PS came out? I'd say the degree of quality of GG games over GB games was much more than the degree of quality of PS games over N64 games(if they in fact were but that's a different debate).

PS rivaled the N64 much better than the GG rivaled the GB. PS had some ridiculously high caliber games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, GG had a port of Sonic and Streets of Rage. You decide which games were better in comparison to the competition. The answer is glaringly clear.

What do you mean by more accessible to the general public?

I mean it was easier to hold, smaller, better out of the box battery life, simple, fun games that anyone and everyone could enjoy like Mario and Tetris and Zelda, cheaper price, the name of Nintendo, which at the time was the premier video game company.

I can see how it's coming out much earlier gave it an edge since people would already have a handheld and not want to get another one. But isn't that what upgrading is all about?

And there in lies the problem. The game gear didn't warrant an upgrade to many people who were already totally satisfied with the game boy. People didn't give a shit about hand held games with color, they just wanted to play fun games with the freedom to be on the go with them. Gameboy offered all of this already, so why the hell should they upgrade? It would be a downgrade in mosts opinion, seeing as the gameboy is held in a higher regaurd because of it's games according to many.

Yeah Game Boy was smaller. But not considerably so. As far as bringint it with you on the go, Game Gear was just fine as long as you absolutely had to fit it in your pocket. Did people really chose to stick with GB casue GG wouldn't fit in their pocket?

No, that wasn't a primary reason, but one of many reasons that may have contributed to the gameboy beating the gamegear, which is what you questioned and is what is being discussed. If people are going to take a system on the go with them, they want the option of being able to comfortably fit it into their pocket, the gameboy offered this, the game gear did not.

Games were better in more than just graphics...

Yeah, if you think shitty Genesis ports are better than the many great gameboy games.

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.

And it's a perfectly sound counter to your "Buy extra shit that you shouldn't NEED to buy" logic. The fact that the gamegear needed a damn battery pack to be played on the go for a decent amount of time, and that it didn't come with one is inherently stupid and a great negative for the game gear. I don't want to buy a portable on-the-go gaming system to find out that in order to play it on the go for a reasonable amount of time I need to go buy something else.

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.

So? I'm sure there are thousands of people who could name 50 gameboy games they loved which provided them with tons of entertainment. If people were to list their favorite handheld games of all time, or if gaming publications were to make their own "best of" handheld games list, I'd bet dollars to donuts that gameboy would have way more games on that list than the gamegear would.

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

I dunno, I wouldn't doubt it, though. I was reffering to the price of the system itself.

Originally posted by Smasandian
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.

Originally posted by Smasandian

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?

Originally posted by Smasandian

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

Originally posted by Smasandian

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?

I don't know the answer so I decided to hear some possibilities from others. But just becuse I, myself do not know the answer, does that mean I should accept anything I hear as true? I can still have doubts about possibilities that are offered.

Originally posted by Smasandian

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

What, specifically are you referring to?

Originally posted by Smasandian

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.

I don't think I said anything that makes it seem like I think otherwise. And the example seems to prove the opposite: that the sucess of the console doesn't mean sucess with the handheld.

Originally posted by Smasandian

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.

So in other words, parents just didn't do too much research before chosing and weren't very informed consumers. They just went with the flow. I can buy that.

Originally posted by BackFire
PS rivaled the N64 much better than the GG rivaled the GB. PS had some ridiculously high caliber games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, GG had a port of Sonic and Streets of Rage. You decide which games were better in comparison to the competition. The answer is glaringly clear.

When you compare Sonic and Streets of Rage to GB's Super Mario Land and Double Dragon, yeah I'd say it pretty clear... I think saying those are better is like saying Atari's _____ game is better than Nintendo's _____ game. All four of those games are ports and if you didn't own a Sega, they were brand new games.

Originally posted by BackFire

I mean it was easier to hold, smaller, better out of the box battery life, simple, fun games that anyone and everyone could enjoy like Mario and Tetris and Zelda, cheaper price, the name of Nintendo, which at the time was the premier video game company.

When I brought my GG to school with me, everyone was VERY eager to "hold" it. I never heard any complaints about it being uncomfortable. It was like 20 bucks more. Not a lot when investing in a system. The games I'm pretty sure were same price but if they weren't, it couldn't have been more than five dollars. Yeah the Nintendo name probably held some influence.

Originally posted by BackFire

And there in lies the problem. The game gear didn't warrant an upgrade to many people who were already totally satisfied with the game boy. People didn't give a shit about hand held games with color, they just wanted to play fun games with the freedom to be on the go with them. Gameboy offered all of this already, so why the hell should they upgrade? It would be a downgrade in mosts opinion, seeing as the gameboy is held in a higher regaurd because of it's games according to many.

I can believe this except the part about it being a downgrade. Still, it contradicts the whole reason for development of the Game Boy Color. People sure went for that upgrade didn't they? 😉

Originally posted by BackFire

No, that wasn't a primary reason, but one of many reasons that may have contributed to the gameboy beating the gamegear, which is what you questioned and is what is being discussed. If people are going to take a system on the go with them, they want the option of being able to comfortably fit it into their pocket, the gameboy offered this, the game gear did not.

I can't even see that as secondary reason though. Maybe it's because when I brought my handheld with me I always had it in front of me, playing it. I didn't stop long enough to warrant putting it in my pocket.

Originally posted by BackFire

Yeah, if you think shitty Genesis ports are better than the many great gameboy games.

Originally posted by BackFire

And it's a perfectly sound counter to your "Buy extra shit that you shouldn't NEED to buy" logic. The fact that the gamegear needed a damn battery pack to be played on the go for a decent amount of time, and that it didn't come with one is inherently stupid and a great negative for the game gear. I don't want to buy a portable on-the-go gaming system to find out that in order to play it on the go for a reasonable amount of time I need to go buy something else.

Originally posted by BackFire

So? I'm sure there are thousands of people who could name 50 gameboy games they loved which provided them with tons of entertainment. If people were to list their favorite handheld games of all time, or if gaming publications were to make their own "best of" handheld games list, I'd bet dollars to donuts that gameboy would have way more games on that list than the gamegear would.

Porbably. But that becuase of popularity. Just because a game is more popular doesn't inherently make it better. One of my favorite examples of this is Final Fantasy vs Dragon Quest. Dragon Quest is just an over all better RPG. From the battles, to how you spend money, to pretty much everything. FF became more about story and cut scenes. It a lot more linear and just isn't as fun.

Originally posted by Sai1
Are your sure? If ports are looked upon so unfavoraly why are there so mnay of them. People won't make things if there's no profit to be had. You didn't really address any of the things I just mentioned about ports. If people really dont like ports, why not? I see I'm gonna have to create a poll.

Sure. And IMO GG games had better of both worlds.

Okay I'm reaaaally gonna have to make a poll for this one. 😆

I don't know the answer so I decided to hear some possibilities from others. But just becuse I, myself do not know the answer, does that mean I should accept anything I hear as true? I can still have doubts about possibilities that are offered.

What, specifically are you referring to?

I don't think I said anything that makes it seem like I think otherwise. And the example seems to prove the opposite: that the sucess of the console doesn't mean sucess with the handheld.

So in other words, parents just didn't do too much research before chosing and weren't very informed consumers. They just went with the flow. I can buy that.

I'll rephrase. Handheld ports are crap. People do not like handheld ports.

If agree than, why are you saying that graphics are the reason that games are good?

Right now, yes, I agree, Tetris is old. But in 1990, it wasnt. It was the game for people to play.

But you must have a reason. You cant say we're all wrong without you knowning the correct answer.

I referring to you saying that the Game Gear had better games because of the games you liked. Or Tetris is boring because you thought it was boring.

It works both ways.

Well yeah, they're parents. They did a little research, but overall, Sega cant expect people to buy periperhals that are needed to get an game experience. Sega should of produce a better battery life. I

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'll rephrase. Handheld ports are crap. People do not like handheld ports.

Whay are hendhelp ports crap? Something doesn't have to be completely original to be a good game. And most handhelds ports are a completely different experience from the console version becuase it wouldn't be able to compete. Jurasic Park was ported to every system there was. But unlike the consoles, GG's version was for the most part, a side-scrolling shooter. A very good one at that. Hardly a crap game and one that could only be played if you had the GG.

Originally posted by Smasandian

If agree than, why are you saying that graphics are the reason that games are good?

I'm saying graphics AND better gameplay is why their games are better. The reasons are the same reason why Nintedos's games are better than Atari's. One's hardware allows the designers to do more on one that the other.

Originally posted by Smasandian

Right now, yes, I agree, Tetris is old. But in 1990, it wasnt. It was the game for people to play.

Originally posted by Smasandian

But you must have a reason. You cant say we're all wrong without you knowning the correct answer.

Originally posted by Smasandian

I referring to you saying that the Game Gear had better games because of the games you liked. Or Tetris is boring because you thought it was boring.

Originally posted by Smasandian

Well yeah, they're parents. They did a little research, but overall, Sega cant expect people to buy periperhals that are needed to get an game experience. Sega should of produce a better battery life. I

This may be true. But if you're really into games and are a true gamer, I think you would take that extra step to play better games.
Maybe we can say that Sega was ahead of it's time since as you said, parents were the ones paying for these things at the time and the people actually playing them were still kids.

Still...
My parents bought mine too. 🙂 But when they asked me which one I wanted for a graduation present, I said Game Gear.

When you compare Sonic and Streets of Rage to GB's Super Mario Land and Double Dragon, yeah I'd say it pretty clear... I think saying those are better is like saying Atari's _____ game is better than Nintendo's _____ game. All four of those games are ports and if you didn't own a Sega, they were brand new games.

Woopty do, if you didn't own a Nintendo then every gameboy game was also brand new, what is your point here? It has literally nothing to do with my point here. The point is the PS had better games to rival the N64 than the GG did to rival the gameboy.

When I brought my GG to school with me, everyone was VERY eager to "hold" it. I never heard any complaints about it being uncomfortable. It was like 20 bucks more. Not a lot when investing in a system. The games I'm pretty sure were same price but if they weren't, it couldn't have been more than five dollars. Yeah the Nintendo name probably held some influence.

A lot though, when you take into consideration that it was parents who were making the purchasing decisions, parents who don't know anything about gaming, and just want to save some money. What do you think they'll buy? The Gameboy, which by the time the game gear came out, everyone had heard of and was quite a famous little system, or the gamegear which was bigger and more expensive? Common sense stuff here dude.

I can believe this except the part about it being a downgrade. Still, it contradicts the whole reason for development of the Game Boy Color. People sure went for that upgrade didn't they? 😉

Different bundle of eggs, friend. Gameboy Color came later, when people actually did start to want color for their handheld. Plus it came in as a legitimate upgrade for the gameboy. Smaller, sleeker, lighter, and with color. Plus people were able to play the gameboy games they love.

I can't even see that as secondary reason though. Maybe it's because when I brought my handheld with me I always had it in front of me, playing it. I didn't stop long enough to warrant putting it in my pocket.

It doesn't matter whether or not you can see it, it's still true. Being able to easily transport a handheld is a big deal to many people, and is an essential part of the success of a handheld system.

They weren't shitty ports they were very good ports. But I've already address the whole "port bashing" thing. And it's not like there were nothing but ports. How much do you really know about GG's games and what they were like I wonder. I subscribed to Nintendo Power and still do so I kept up with what GB was doing.

Remember, I owned a gamegear. I liked the gamegear. This discussion isn't about convincing you that the gameboy is a better system, it's about informing you as to why the gameboy sold more than the gamegear. I've given you the reasons which you don't seem to want to accept, despite them being obviously true. Besides, I never said gamegear had nothing but ports, the biggest games for the system though, were ports.

Why not? People by extra stuff for their systems all the time. If the games are really good, shouldn't you want to? But I guess that's one of the main things we disagree about.

People buy extra stuff that they want, they don't want to HAVE to buy extra shit in order to use the system properly, the way they should be able to use it straight out of the box. That would be like Sony only allowing an hour of use on a TV for the PS3 before the system turned off, and in order to play for more than an hour, you had to go buy a special cable. People want to be able to use a handheld system on the go without being forced to buy more shit because a system was designed poorly out of the box.

Porbably. But that becuase of popularity. Just because a game is more popular doesn't inherently make it better. One of my favorite examples of this is Final Fantasy vs Dragon Quest. Dragon Quest is just an over all better RPG. From the battles, to how you spend money, to pretty much everything. FF became more about story and cut scenes. It a lot more linear and just isn't as fun.

This whole discussion is about popularity, man. It's about why the gameboy was more popular than the gamegear. We've all been giving you reasons as to why it was more popular. Have you forgotten your own topic?

FF has been about story for a long time now, ever since the medium has allowed for high quality story telling, that's been FF's main attribute, as it should be. It's what makes FF games so magical and special to so many people. They tell beautiful, epic, engaging stories that rival anything that a novel or film could produce. All while having good characters, a good combat system that always is changing and evolving. There are a lot of games that are technically "better RPG's". That doesn't make them better games though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Woopty do, if you didn't own a Nintendo then every gameboy game was also brand new, what is your point here? It has literally nothing to do with my point here. The point is the PS had better games to rival the N64 than the GG did to rival the gameboy.

Originally posted by BackFire

A lot though, when you take into consideration that it was parents who were making the purchasing decisions, parents who don't know anything about gaming, and just want to save some money. What do you think they'll buy? The Gameboy, which by the time the game gear came out, everyone had heard of and was quite a famous little system, or the gamegear which was bigger and more expensive? Common sense stuff here dude.

Different bundle of eggs, friend. Gameboy Color came later, when people actually did start to want color for their handheld. Plus it came in as a legitimate upgrade for the gameboy. Smaller, sleeker, lighter, and with color. Plus people were able to play the gameboy games they love.

Fine. I will come to the conclusion that these are the main reason GB won. However, why people started wanting color only at that point in time is beyond me. If Nintendo came out with an equivlent to GG in order to compete with it at the same time GG came out, I'd bet people would have gotten it.

Originally posted by BackFire

FF has been about story for a long time now, ever since the medium has allowed for high quality story telling, that's been FF's main attribute, as it should be. It's what makes FF games so magical and special to so many people. They tell beautiful, epic, engaging stories that rival anything that a novel or film could produce. All while having good characters, a good combat system that always is changing and evolving. There are a lot of games that are technically "better RPG's". That doesn't make them better games though.

Now we could probably create a whole new thread about this. I hardly think story telling should be FF's main attribute. If I want story telling I'll watch a movie or read a book. When I'm playing a video game I want the game to be interesting. I think they're gotten way to cught up with all the eye candy. FF8 was the worst peice of crap I had the displeasure to trudge through. The only way to win battles efficiently was to use summons and you were forced to summon the time anyway to increase their efficiency. I had to sit through those long summoning things WAY too much. Money had absolutely no purpose in the game and once you got to the end you were struck there! Couldn't even go back. FF9 was okay because they started going back to their roots. After being fairly unimpressed by FF, I'm only now just starting FFX and having gone through about 30 hours I am just plain bored. The battle system is no fun at all. As long as you just attack with the right person, most things die in one hit. I'm sorry but the story just isn't very compeling either and the story is the one thing I figured I could look forward to. And there are cut scenes every freaking 10 minutes! Im sitting there rolling my eye's half paying attention. I've never done that before. Everyone only uses two pieces of equipment.... Looks like Gil is gonna be pointless again. I've been giving half of it to that traveling merchant guy. My god this game is so linear. There is one path and you cant diverge from it. Literally and figuratively! You can't even change camera angles. It seems like they are so desperate to invent some new way to level up every time. This SP board or whatever is the most annoying yet...

In DQ there are tons of side quests that I actually feel like doing and I still have fun even after I beat the game just leveling up and trying to learn all the techniques.

Ok rant over...

Well, it just sounds like FF games simply aren't for you. Many, myself included, love the story driven gameplay. If you invest into the story and the characters it's a very rewarding experience. Don't make the mistake of thinking FF games don't have a near infinite number of sidequests, that's another one of their trademarks.

I agree with you though, FFVIII was the weakest FF game to date.

You ever play the earlier FF games? If not, pick up FFVI, best game in the series.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, it just sounds like FF games simply aren't for you. Many, myself included, love the story driven gameplay. If you invest into the story and the characters it's a very rewarding experience. Don't make the mistake of thinking FF games don't have a near infinite number of sidequests, that's another one of their trademarks.

I agree with you though, FFVIII was the weakest FF game to date.

You ever play the earlier FF games? If not, pick up FFVI, best game in the series.

The earlier ones were the good ones.

a reason why the gameboy won was because games were made FOR it, not ported from the nes as it wasnt able to manage. the game gears catalogue were mostly master system ports, which, were good but ultimately easier to play on a big screen. the batteries were a huge issue, 6 batteries compared to six is pretty big, especially when you consider that back then batteries came in packs of four. kinda made sense that the gameboy would win.

tetris, was a huge boost for this. simple and utterly addictive. sega came up with columns, but while it was good, it was'nt exactly tetris. i do love my game gears(i have two) and i remember enjoying it back then, but my gameboy got more attention. tetris, mario world, and balloon kid being games i played most.

Originally posted by Sai1
Whay are hendhelp ports crap? Something doesn't have to be completely original to be a good game. And most handhelds ports are a completely different experience from the console version becuase it wouldn't be able to compete. Jurasic Park was ported to every system there was. But unlike the consoles, GG's version was for the most part, a side-scrolling shooter. A very good one at that. Hardly a crap game and one that could only be played if you had the GG.

I'm saying graphics AND better gameplay is why their games are better. The reasons are the same reason why Nintedos's games are better than Atari's. One's hardware allows the designers to do more on one that the other.

Initially, probably. But the novelty of Tetris wears out after two years tops. Sooner is more likely. It gets to the point where you play maybe 3 or 4 rounds then move on to the next game. After playing/seeing tetris for a year, I can't see how that was the reason people continued to get a GB after all that time. At that point they would feel about tetris then what we feel about it now.

The only thing I think you're actually wrong about is that GG's games are horrible ports and that it's so wrong to have to get a battery pack. I gave the reasons for that. The rest of the stuff, I'm just not convinced of. There's no real for reason for being skeptical. I just cant believe stuff like not being able to put the GG in your pocket was a deciding facter in not getting a GG.

I was just using those as examples of good games. I'm not saying the games are better because I liked them. I'm saying they're better because they have better gameplay AND much better graphics. There's a difference between saying a game is boring and it gets boring quickly. You just admitted that you yourself can't play Tetris for over an hour.

This may be true. But if you're really into games and are a true gamer, I think you would take that extra step to play better games.
Maybe we can say that Sega was ahead of it's time since as you said, parents were the ones paying for these things at the time and the people actually playing them were still kids.

Still...
My parents bought mine too. 🙂 But when they asked me which one I wanted for a graduation present, I said Game Gear.

They're crap because the consoel version is always better. Why, because the technology on the console is better than the handheld. That's why handheld ports are crap.

Yes. That's generally how it works.

History shows that Tetris isnt just a novelity. Maybe to you, but not millions of players. If it was novelity, why are they still making them? And again, if you find it boring afterwhile, does this mean everybody else does?

When did I admit that I thought Tetris was boring?

SEGA wasnt ahead of its time. They werent the first to produce a battery eating coloured handheld. Are they ahead of the time making a system with shitty battery life and to fix that, they didnt take it off the shelves to fix the problem, they just made people buy an battery pack that costs 20-50 bucks.

Originally posted by Smasandian
They're crap because the consoel version is always better. Why, because the technology on the console is better than the handheld. That's why handheld ports are crap.

Well, obviously. That's why there's no point in even trying to compare a handheld game to a console version. You have to enjoy the handheld one for what it is. Practically any handheld game is crap when compared to a console game. Port or not.

Originally posted by Smasandian

History shows that Tetris isnt just a novelity. Maybe to you, but not millions of players. If it was novelity, why are they still making them? And again, if you find it boring afterwhile, does this mean everybody else does?

When did I admit that I thought Tetris was boring?

They might still makes Tetris but it's not just original Tetris unless it's for your phone or something. Any Tetris they make now has some to gimmick added to it to make it a different experience. You can bet no one will be buying an "original Tetris for their XBOX 360/Wii/PS3.

I very clearly stated that you said you admited that you could not play Tetris for over an hour. Not that you said it was boring.

Originally posted by Smasandian

SEGA wasnt ahead of its time. They werent the first to produce a battery eating coloured handheld. Are they ahead of the time making a system with shitty battery life and to fix that, they didnt take it off the shelves to fix the problem, they just made people buy an battery pack that costs 20-50 bucks.

I meant ahead of time as far as trying to compete in a time when parents were the one's doing the buying and kids doing the playing.

Originally posted by Sai1
Well, obviously. That's why there's no point in even trying to compare a handheld game to a console version. You have to enjoy the handheld one for what it is. Practically any handheld game is crap when compared to a console game. Port or not.

They might still makes Tetris but it's not just original Tetris unless it's for your phone or something. Any Tetris they make now has some to gimmick added to it to make it a different experience. You can bet no one will be buying an "original Tetris for their XBOX 360/Wii/PS3.

I very clearly stated that you said you admited that you could not play Tetris for over an hour. Not that you said it was boring.

I meant ahead of time as far as trying to compete in a time when parents were the one's doing the buying and kids doing the playing.

So agree that handheld ports are crap? And that's a good reason to not buy an handheld that revolves around handheld ports?

I never said that in this post.

So it's positive thing for something SEGA made a mistake on?

Originally posted by Smasandian
So agree that handheld ports are crap? And that's a good reason to not buy an handheld that revolves around handheld ports?

Only when compared to a console. But you play handhelds when you don't have acess to consoles. You can't expect to play console quality games on a handheld (in most cases). And when something is ported to a handheld, most times the game is vastly different from the console version and you can't compare the two because they become different genres.

Originally posted by Smasandian

I never said that in this post.

"Right now, yes, I agree, Tetris is old. But in 1990, it wasnt. It was the game for people to play."

I assumed that's what you meant by this.

There's also: "I could too. I probably wont now, but thats because of FPS MP."

Originally posted by Smasandian

So it's positive thing for something SEGA made a mistake on?

Not quite sure what you mean here but it's not positive or negative. It's just what happened.

Originally posted by Sai1
Only when compared to a console. But you play handhelds when you don't have acess to consoles. You can't expect to play console quality games on a handheld (in most cases). And when something is ported to a handheld, most times the game is vastly different from the console version and you can't compare the two because they become different genres.

"Right now, yes, I agree, Tetris is old. But in 1990, it wasnt. It was the game for people to play."

I assumed that's what you meant by this.

There's also: "I could too. I probably wont now, but thats because of FPS MP."

Not quite sure what you mean here but it's not positive or negative. It's just what happened.

But who owns an handheld without owning a console also nowadays?
Your right, they're not like a console, but its still the same game. That's why their shit.

But I didnt say I cant play it for more than an hour. Your assumption is dead wrong. All I said is that FPS MP takes my time.

But you said it was SEGA was ahead of its time, which means positive. But it wasnt.

Originally posted by Sai1
One thing I never understood was how in the world did Gameboy manage to beat Sega's Game Gear? The Game Gear was so blatently better in every way except battery life (which could easily be resolved with a battery pack). Something tells me battery life isn't exactly the main factor in these things anyway.

I'm pretty sure I was something like this on a video game history think where they were comparing Nintendo with Sony. Funny thing was gamegear was better than gameboy in every way, but everyone still for some reason bought the gameboy. 😆

Originally posted by Smasandian
But who owns an handheld without owning a console also nowadays?
Your right, they're not like a console, but its still the same game. That's why their shit.

But I didnt say I cant play it for more than an hour. Your assumption is dead wrong. All I said is that FPS MP takes my time.

But you said it was SEGA was ahead of its time, which means positive. But it wasnt.

It's not the same game... It's a completely differnt game in most cases. The only thing that's really this same is the title. It doesn't matter if you own both a handheld and a console. You play handheld when playing console isn't an option and you take what you can get on that handheld. According to what you're saying Game Boy games are shit too then.

Well sure you can play for over and hour. So can I or anyone else for that matter. But would you? No. And that's my point.

Originally posted by thegmeister53
I'm pretty sure I was something like this on a video game history think where they were comparing Nintendo with Sony. Funny thing was gamegear was better than gameboy in every way, but everyone still for some reason bought the gameboy. 😆

Odd isn't it. A few plausable reason came out of this thread.

Originally posted by Sai1
It's not the same game... It's a completely differnt game in most cases. The only thing that's really this same is the title. It doesn't matter if you own both a handheld and a console. You play handheld when playing console isn't an option and you take what you can get on that handheld. According to what you're saying Game Boy games are shit too then.

Well sure you can play for over and hour. So can I or anyone else for that matter. But would you? No. And that's my point.

But the difference is that Game Boy had original games, while most of the Game Gear games were ports.

No, wrong again. If I sit down and play Tetris, I'll play for over an hour.
But I dont play Tetris anymore because I play other games. That's a different question you have been asking. I think that original question was do people play Tetris for over an hour, not do play Tetris anymore.

Originally posted by Smasandian
But the difference is that Game Boy had original games, while most of the Game Gear games were ports.

Game Gear had plenty of original games. There was also the Game Gear Converter thay let you play Segs's console games. If unoriginality did sell, there wouldn't be so many sequals anyway. And just because a game that came out for GG wasn't the first and only game with a certain title, that doesn't make it unorignial. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a lot of handheld "ports" (with the exception of turnament style fighting games) tend to be original for the most part because they are handhelds. This goes for GG and GB. There was no other system with a Power Ranger game, Jurasic Park, Axe Battler, or The Phantom game like GG's. If any system is going to have another game that is just like GG's, it's gonna be GB and the GG version is better.

Originally posted by Smasandian

But I dont play Tetris anymore because I play other games.

And that's the exact same reason why people wouldn't have played for hours before either. There's always other new games coming out that will take up your time instead of Tetris. Right now for you its because of FPS MP. In the past it was for some other new game that was all the rage. Honestly when is the last time you just sat and played Tetris for over an hour?