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

Originally posted by Smasandian

I didnt think Game Gear had better games. I think that's all based on what you like. I hate Sonic, I think the game is garbage. But that's my personal taste.

Honestly, lets complare Sonic to Super Mario Land. I love mario games myself but GB versions just don't compete with Sonic.

The Mario games are pretty much linear going from left to right with a few changed in the terrain. Sonic games had you going up down left and right all the same time. The screen actually had to shift up or down. They add stuff likes loops, springs, etc.

Sonic has a lot more bosses.

Sonic has more moves. Mario can walk, run, jump, duck. Sonic can do all of those excpet from instead of instantly being able to run he picks up speed the longer you move. You can also curl into a ball for offensive means while running. He also has other abilities like charging his running speed that will let him run over water or make him invicible for a short time when you let loose if you charged long enough. Also has his spin dash move.

Rings vs Coins

Coins: Collect 100 and get a 1up. Whoopty doo.

Rings: Acyually needed to stay alive and needed to get back as many as possible when hit. In some of the games enough rings let you go to a bonus area for a chance to collect a Chaos Emerald.

Speaking of which, collecting Chaos Emeralds. Challening and also gives you a different ending.

Later sonic games also had extra characters you could play as.

Don't know why you think the game is garbage.

Oh yeah better graphics and animation too.

Because I do.

Handheld version of Mario for GB was shit. Sonic was much better. But overall, Mario destroys Sonic in terms of gameplay.

So Sonic is better because the screen shifted? The original Mario was the only game that didnt have shifting screens. All the other's had levels where the screen went up and down. Even if it didnt, it still doesnt make any difference in which game is better.

Who cares about bosses. Game dont need bosses.

Compared to the first 2 Mario games, then yes, Sonic had more moves. But after Super Mario 3, Mario could fly, jump, super jump, run, throw fireballs, butt stomp, throw enemies. I cant remember other ones, but Mario isnt just about jumping anymore.

I'm not even going to bother on comparing both rings vs coins. They both do exactly the same thing.

Wow, a different ending. How many secret areas, secret worlds, secrets are in Mario 3 to New Super Mario? Secret charactes are a jeep. I want to play as Sonic or Mario not Knuckles, Tails and some other half thought up mascot that sucks.

I think the game is garbage because I do. I never liked it. It was way to fast for me. I couldnt take in all the artwork. As a franchise, Sonic is crap now.

What games are we comparing?
GB vs GG, then yes, the graphics are better for Sonic.
But considering Sonic was released on 16bit system while Mario wasnt. It's pretty ridicoulous to compare games. Super Mario World and Sonic are roughly the same. I like the artwork for Mario better, but the animation for both games are pretty good.

Well, I am sorry, but you have to deal with the fact that Nintendo beat Sega here and no you cannot just put that down to Nintendo's name, because this was the START of the handheld market. Both companies were going in virgins, and in general terms, Sega was the bigger name.

Yes, the games are an important factor- and the fact is that despite technological inferiority, Nintendo won on the games. People here and tending to look at this from the point of view of hardcore gamers. Sod that- a fraction of the market. A successful console has to capture the casual, not just the hardcore, and Nintendo did it better. Not all with Tetris, but that sure as hell didn't hurt.

And yes- battery life was crucial. Nearly all industry observers from the period agree- in fact, I have never seen an informed dissenting opinion.

Let's clear this up on the battery packs:

1. Yes, if the Game Gear had a better battery life it woulkd have done better

2. Forget the peripherals. A huge section of the market were playing these things on the bus, on the train, during breaks at work and even on foreign holidays. They resented having to shell out any more money, and no amount of car charger doodads could do anything about the fact that short battery lifespans were bastards that spoiled the fun.

3. The point about the Sega having a shorther battery life beccause it was more powerful... well, duh! But that was precisely the mistake. Design is all trade off. There is no point using that as an exuse. I mean, if it was five times bigger and the rest was all battery pack then it would have had a longer battery life, but then it would be crappy as a handhold, wouldn't it? Nintendo didn;t lack the technology to make the GB colour and what-not, you know. But what they did was look at design limitations at the time, and decided that cutting down things as much as possible to save on battery use was a smart idea. And it WAS a smart idea, and that's why they won.

Well alot of that is its own point... most weren't hardcore gamers (or even researched ones), so it wasn't like, "let me objectively compare both of these in terms of etc. etc. etc., it was more like, (just as it pretty much always is), a person has their mind set on one system from the start.

And like I said earlier both were fine, and I had a gameboy first. But I find that something that is so easily remedied is the prime complaint. If that was the case, cheap handhelds and calculators would be the new gaming craze, but they're not. Also I think that sai, and I know i was talking about superiority in the case of it being the exact same game, and not exclusive games. So alot of that mentioned about Sonic sucking is mainly subjective opinion, very much so.

Finally, bosses are important, coins vs rings don't do the same thing, and people like playing different characters and not two that do the exact same thing. (Mario and Luigi are exceptions), because if this weren't true, then why did Donkey Kong become a success?

Originally posted by Smasandian

Handheld version of Mario for GB was shit. Sonic was much better. But overall, Mario destroys Sonic in terms of gameplay.

Umm. Of course, I'm just talking about GB and GG so most of the things you said in this post are invalid. As for the one's that aren't:

Originally posted by Smasandian

Who cares about bosses. Game dont need bosses.

Uhhhh... I don't even want to comment on this one. Of course bosses make a game better. I don't even need to make another poll for this one.

Originally posted by Smasandian

I'm not even going to bother on comparing both rings vs coins. They both do exactly the same thing.

Say what? The same thing? I just mentined the big differences between them. In mario you can pretty much just ignore coins. It doesn't really add to game play. Rings play a much bigger role in Sonic. Just hunting for enough of them without getting hit can be a challenge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Yes, the games are an important factor- and the fact is that despite technological inferiority, Nintendo won on the games. People here and tending to look at this from the point of view of hardcore gamers. Sod that- a fraction of the market. A successful console has to capture the casual, not just the hardcore, and Nintendo did it better. Not all with Tetris, but that sure as hell didn't hurt.

Hmm. This seems like a valid point. But apparently kids were mainly the ones getting these things. Are there really hardcore and casual gamers among kids? Don't they just want whatever looks better? (Or maybe it's that they wanted what their friends had) I imagine that the parents who bought the system would ask for their child's preference.

Would a casual gamer even want a handheld? Seems like it would be a wasted investment for them to me.

Hmmm, the games make the system in any case, the battery issue IMO was a minor issue to the fact that Game Boy didn't just play console handhelds, it played game boy games. When handhelds spawned it wasn't immediately something that was taken out and about, most people used it setting home, and as it was mentioned earler, games from gameboy, particularly tetris moved it to its winning standing.

Originally posted by Smasandian

But considering Sonic was released on 16bit system while Mario wasnt. It's pretty ridicoulous to compare games.

Even though I was only referring to handhelds, funny, this is exactly what I think when comparing 4 bit (or was it 6) GB games to 8 bit GG games.

Originally posted by Sai1
Hmm. This seems like a valid point. But apparently kids were mainly the ones getting these things. Are there really hardcore and casual gamers among kids? Don't they just want whatever looks better? (Or maybe it's that they wanted what their friends had) I imagine that the parents who bought the system would ask for their child's preference.

Would a casual gamer even want a handheld? Seems like it would be a wasted investment for them to me.

I dont know back then they're was something called hardcore gamers. I think the majority of them we're kids.
My take is that parents generally bought them they're toys. Internet wasnt around for info, SEGA commercials were geared towards teenagers and adults, and price. This could all be a factor.

I just know kids like thier videogames and being on the road or whatever your traveling to, it was easier for parents and kids to have videogames to play.

About the graphics, it just goes to show you that graphics dont mean much to overall sales.

I agree on the last statement...

Something funny happened tonight.

I was watching Virtousity, and during a commercial, I went over to G4 and caught a bit of a show called Game Makers (or Icons). And they were doing an history on the Game Boy.
I didnt catch the history of the battle between Game Boy and the coloured handhelds, but I did catch on that by 92, GB sold over 25 million copies. That's a pretty big number considering videogames were definitly not as mainstream as today.
Also caught that Nintendo had been prototyping coloured Game Boys since in the early 90's and had the technology already to go, but didnt implement it because they wanted to keep the battery life the same as the original Game Boy. That's why it took awhile for the Game Boy to have colour.

That it was pretty interesting.

I'm really not surprised it sold that many, does anyone remember game boy pocket? I myself still have my old one.

By Gameboy pocket, they sold 50 million copies of the old Game Boy.

actually, pokemon yellow is the greatest selling game of all time, which was on the GAME BOY *cough*

Originally posted by Kayne Archeron
actually, pokemon yellow is the greatest selling game of all time, which was on the GAME BOY *cough*

GG was out of the picture by the time pokemon came along.

i know, i just wanted to support the opinion that if GG would have lived, that would've killed it right there

i still loved the GG though <3