Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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.

POKEMON

Originally posted by Ritoshi
POKEMON

Pokemon was no where in sight at the time. In fact I'm pretty sure pokemon came out after Game Gear died didn't it?

TETRIS

Originally posted by Bardock42
TETRIS

Originally posted by Sai1
Pokemon was no where in sight at the time. In fact I'm pretty sure pokemon came out after Game Gear died didn't it? Game Gear was still somewhat alive, Pokemon just basically made sure it was dead forever. Only games I played on the gear gear(which I loved) was this baseball game, Bust a move, and Sonic.

Sonic 2, Sonic Triple Trouble, Power Rangers: The Movie, and MLB 1991 were my top favs.

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.

Battery life is an huge factor in handhelds. Sure, you can fix it with a battery pack, but will parents buy someting thats more expansive and have to buy an expansive battery pack?

Game Boy was cheaper and wasted less batteries
The games were huge with amazing 3rd party support.

and it had Tetris. I think the highest selling game of all time.

These reasons are what's going to make Nintendo the king of handhelds for years. Nonbody has beat them at yet, and I dont think they will. Handhelds are meant for gameplay because uber graphics are just too expansive and battery consuming for handhelds. Sony just forgot that people play handhelds on the road or away from electric outlets. Same with Sega and Atari.

Originally posted by Ritoshi
Game Gear was still somewhat alive, Pokemon just basically made sure it was dead forever. Only games I played on the gear gear(which I loved) was this baseball game, Bust a move, and Sonic.

But even if Pokem had never existed, wouldn't you say Game Gear would have had the exact same fate. If it hadn't swayed people by the time Pokem came around, it wasn't gonna happen.

Originally posted by JKozzy
Sonic 2, Sonic Triple Trouble, Power Rangers: The Movie, and MLB 1991 were my top favs.

Yeah Power Ragers was awsome!
I actually found someone esle who had it and played VS with them before.

Lynx anyone?

Originally posted by Smasandian
Battery life is an huge factor in handhelds. Sure, you can fix it with a battery pack, but will parents buy someting thats more expansive and have to buy an expansive battery pack?

Game Boy was cheaper and wasted less batteries
The games were huge with amazing 3rd party support.


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.

Originally posted by Smasandian
and it had Tetris. I think the highest selling game of all time.


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.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Lynx anyone?

Don't know much about Lynx. Don't think it had nearly as many games as Game Gear though. Not to mention accessories. You can turn the Game Gear into a freakin TV!!! I never was able to find one of those TV Tuners by the time I got mine.
It even had a converter which allowed you to play Sega Genesis games on it! Couldn't find that either

Tetris kind of pawns all....and certainly made Nintendo much stronger...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tetris kind of pawns all....and certainly made Nintendo much stronger...

Most of the people I knew with a Game Boy didn't even have Tetris.

Don't forget to give Colums it's props. It wasn't bad.

Originally posted by Sai1
Most of the people I knew with a Game Boy didn't even have Tetris.

Don't forget to give Colums it's props. It wasn't bad.

I know I did..Tetris and Mario 2 ....also Tetris is the best game ever....

And the Game Gear was kind of huge....the Game Boy was jsut generally easier....and cooler....hehe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know I did..Tetris and Mario 2 ....also Tetris is the best game ever....

Honestly, whens the last time you played tetris
(Actually I still play it occationally. Best version of it ever - The New Tetris for N64. Course, probably the only reason I still play is to finish that last damn wonder!! )

Originally posted by Bardock42

And the Game Gear was kind of huge....the Game Boy was jsut generally easier....and cooler....hehe.

Personally, I thought it was fine and after playing with my battey pack attached, it felt too small without it. But in anycase I cannot say Game Boy was cooler. Not even Game Boy Advance had anything that could compete with stuff like Shinning Force 2, Power Rangers, Defenders of Oasis, etc... Game Gear's game were just WAY too much better. Comparing a Game Boy to a Game Gear is just like comparing... well... a Game Boy to a Game Gear.

I loved my MK1 on game gear... so much blood...

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I loved my MK1 on game gear... so much blood...


Only if you knew the code though 1,2,1,2 up, down or something. I forget. But it was a helluva lot better than the Game Boy version that's for sure. Still, Power Rangers was the best fighting game on Game Gear Much better than any of the arcade ports like MK or SF.

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

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).
What do you mean by more accessible to the general public?
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?
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?
Games were better in more than just graphics...

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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 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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


Originally posted by Smasandian

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.





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.








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.




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.





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.




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.

But most people did own a Nintendo so it's a valid point. GG's Sonic and Streets of Rage definately rival GB's Super Mario Land and Double Dragon. Big time.


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?

I havnt played Tetris in awhile. But that's not the question you originally asked.

You asked, " can you play Tetris for over an hour", and I said I can and I did, but not, " Have you played Tetris recently".

Even if you did ask that question originally, it doesnt prove anything about this topic. All it proves is that Tetris doesnt get played anymore. But the topic is why the Game Boy outdid Game Gear when it was released 17 years ago. And Tetris was one of the main reasons.

Whats more amazing is why people like these silly little game things.

OK?

You mean Tetris or just handhelds in general?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Whats more amazing is why people like these silly little game things.

Yeah, it's amazing when people like games based on fun and nothing else.

I still have my game gear, Shinobi, Spiderman, Sonic Chaos, Sonic the Hedgehog, Columns, it friggin rocks. It even has a car adaptor, so the fanboys in here talking about battery life should remember that little point. Not saying all of you are fanboys, but still.

I have a gameboy too, which received alot of play due to TMNT, Pokemon, and Tetris (when I was much younger), I give them about a tie (handheld wise), since the gamegear was a bit bulky, but it also had a bigger screen and color.

But the games were better on the game gear, and the games make the system. But honestly alot of it simply came down to the nintendo name.

So I guess if it's all based on the Nintendo name, the N64 and the GameCube would of beating out Sony?
Also, when the Game Gear was released, SEGA was an household name in terms of console's in the States.

What happens if your not in a car? What happens now? What happens if the kid wasnt in the front seat to use the lighter?

Isnt a tad rude to imply people are fanboys? Especially considering the topic has nothing to do with which system is better, but more of the case of how did an inferior system beat out the Game Gear?

Originally posted by Smasandian
So I guess if it's all based on the Nintendo name, the N64 and the GameCube would of beating out Sony? It was at the time, I remember myself gameboy pretty much being "standard" in handhelds... Nintendo kinda still is... people go to Nintendo and know what they are going to get. Works well with handhelds, but not as well with consoles, where innovation is a stronger factor. I'm sure you agree.


Originally posted by Smasandian
Also, when the Game Gear was released, SEGA was an household name in terms of console's in the States. Covered above.

Originally posted by Smasandian
What happens if your not in a car? What happens now? What happens if the kid wasnt in the front seat to use the lighter? Mines worked in the backseat, it had an adaptor AND a battery pack, I found the car adaptor an excellent tool, and something handhelds should utilize more, as it saved the need of batteries on LONG trips.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Isnt a tad rude to imply people are fanboys? Especially considering the topic has nothing to do with which system is better, but more of the case of how did an inferior system beat out the Game Gear? Maybe fanboy is perceived as a negative connotation, would diehard fan be a better term? I did point out positives and negatives on both, so I'm not choosing a side persay, but I simply know that Nintendo is standard in handhelds, especially back then. Sorry if that offended you.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It was at the time, I remember myself gameboy pretty much being "standard" in handhelds... Nintendo kinda still is... people go to Nintendo and know what they are going to get. Works well with handhelds, but not as well with consoles, where innovation is a stronger factor. I'm sure you agree.


Covered above.

Mines worked in the backseat, it had an adaptor AND a battery pack, I found the car adaptor an excellent tool, and something handhelds should utilize more, as it saved the need of batteries on LONG trips.

Maybe fanboy is perceived as a negative connotation, would diehard fan be a better term? I did point out positives and negatives on both, so I'm not choosing a side persay, but I simply know that Nintendo is standard in handhelds, especially back then. Sorry if that offended you.

So that's the only reason why people chose the Game Boy?

You found it good, but I guess other people didnt. Battery life was still the shortcoming of the Game Gear, no battery pack or car adapter saved it. Anyways, as stated before by Backfire and I, it's insane to think people will buy a battery pack for extra cost when they buy an Sega. It's the smart thing to do but it's ridiculous to expect people to automatically buy an extra periperhal to utilize they're Game Gear. Sega should of engineared to have more battery life.

Of course fanboy is perceieved as an negative connotation. Your name includes fanboy killer. I just dont understand why you had to use fanboy in your post. Does it automatically make me an fanboy because I took Nintendo's side? (Even though this thread has nothing to do with which system is better)

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.


The same reason why Nintendo beat sega at the consols,


Better and funner games

GG was 16 bit at the time though wasn't?

Originally posted by OB1-adobe
The same reason why Nintendo beat sega at the consols,


Better and funner games

GG was 16 bit at the time though wasn't?

I'm pretty sure original NES was 16 and GG 8. And the GB was 4 I think. Still GG had some games that were better than NES games.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I still have my game gear, Shinobi, Spiderman, Sonic Chaos, Sonic the Hedgehog, Columns, it friggin rocks. It even has a car adaptor, so the fanboys in here talking about battery life should remember that little point. Not saying all of you are fanboys, but still.



Forgot about the car adapter! I got one of those too.

Originally posted by Smasandian

You found it good, but I guess other people didnt. Battery life was still the shortcoming of the Game Gear, no battery pack or car adapter saved it. Anyways, as stated before by Backfire and I, it's insane to think people will buy a battery pack for extra cost when they buy an Sega. It's the smart thing to do but it's ridiculous to expect people to automatically buy an extra periperhal to utilize they're Game Gear. Sega should of engineared to have more battery life.


Lemme ask this though. If Sega did do a better job and battery life was on par with GB, do you think it would have made a big difference?

Probably.

Every single handheld that's going against Nintendo has had horrible battery life and better graphics, but Nintendo has always be ahead in sales.

Why?

Originally posted by Smasandian
So that's the only reason why people chose the Game Boy?

Never said the only reason, but it was a big reason, and others agree, it was a point that Backfire made earlier and I found it to hit straight home. Most people were and still are too close minded when it comes to new stuff as it is. I simply find it illogical in other aspects that a clearly "superior" machine would fail on any other aspects, even when it came with said perephrials to remedy that problem. Its just like the other times Nintendo could have less games or "worse" controls and it being ok. My point is people WILL buy something just because it has Nintendo on it. Not saying you are that person, but most people who have Nintendo nowadays have had it in past generations. It is almost a niche market.

Originally posted by Smasandian
You found it good, but I guess other people didnt. Battery life was still the shortcoming of the Game Gear, no battery pack or car adapter saved it. Anyways, as stated before by Backfire and I, it's insane to think people will buy a battery pack for extra cost when they buy an Sega.
It was a shortcoming, yes. It's not really insane when people shelled out an extra hundred dollars for a "game boy advance sp" which simply had a lid on it. Nintendo should have done that first then. If you wanted to rememdy the problem it wasn't that hard nor that expensive. Most people who have handhelds have handheld adaptors and even a special case for crying out loud, most people don't simply "have just the batteries".

Originally posted by Smasandian
It's the smart thing to do but it's ridiculous to expect people to automatically buy an extra periperhal to utilize they're Game Gear. Sega should of engineared to have more battery life.
It had way more power and graphics and color, of course it was going to use more batteries at its time, no different than anything else that was bigger, it was going to use more battery power, to not think so is simply absurd. That's not bad programming, thats an excuse used by people today. Suvs use alot of gas and people buy them for the comfort. People buy additives to their machines no different than people buy expansion packs to their games. If people gave it a try I would understand, but it wasn't like a ton of people returned it, they simply didn't play it. Which is fine.

Game Gear still had better games. Thats simply in terms of what you get if you got the same thing on both handhelds.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Of course fanboy is perceieved as an negative connotation. Your name includes fanboy killer. I just dont understand why you had to use fanboy in your post. Does it automatically make me an fanboy because I took Nintendo's side? (Even though this thread has nothing to do with which system is better) It depends on how one uses it, I really don't care. I've been in game threads before and I've seen diehard Nintendo fans critisize other members simply because of the name changing on the new Nintendo console. It was said publicly, and you were offended, or else you wouldn't have brought it up. I assume you know what a fanboy is being here so long so its nothing to delve into.

i have a Gameboy Advance SP and I have Tetris....lol. I also have a Game Gear with a Ren and Stimpy game and Ecco the Dolphin game. there is a lil outlet at a flea market where i live that has older games and systems noone cares about anymore. or has forgotten them. thats where i got my Game Gear. Id love to find the tv adaptor, i think that was one of the kool features on that handheld.

Yea, and the SNES ability was nice.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Never said the only reason, but it was a big reason, and others agree, it was a point that Backfire made earlier and I found it to hit straight home. Most people were and still are too close minded when it comes to new stuff as it is. I simply find it illogical in other aspects that a clearly "superior" machine would fail on any other aspects, even when it came with said perephrials to remedy that problem. Its just like the other times Nintendo could have less games or "worse" controls and it being ok. My point is people WILL buy something just because it has Nintendo on it. Not saying you are that person, but most people who have Nintendo nowadays have had it in past generations. It is almost a niche market.


It was a shortcoming, yes. It's not really insane when people shelled out an extra hundred dollars for a "game boy advance sp" which simply had a lid on it. Nintendo should have done that first then. If you wanted to rememdy the problem it wasn't that hard nor that expensive. Most people who have handhelds have handheld adaptors and even a special case for crying out loud, most people don't simply "have just the batteries".


It had way more power and graphics and color, of course it was going to use more batteries at its time, no different than anything else that was bigger, it was going to use more battery power, to not think so is simply absurd. That's not bad programming, thats an excuse used by people today. Suvs use alot of gas and people buy them for the comfort. People buy additives to their machines no different than people buy expansion packs to their games. If people gave it a try I would understand, but it wasn't like a ton of people returned it, they simply didn't play it. Which is fine.

Game Gear still had better games. Thats simply in terms of what you get if you got the same thing on both handhelds.

It depends on how one uses it, I really don't care. I've been in game threads before and I've seen diehard Nintendo fans critisize other members simply because of the name changing on the new Nintendo console. It was said publicly, and you were offended, or else you wouldn't have brought it up. I assume you know what a fanboy is being here so long so its nothing to delve into.

Maybe your right, but I still think they're were other things that screwed over the Game Gear.

The difference between buying a new updated Game Boy over an battery pack is that people with old Game Boy can still play it. Nintendo doesnt make you buy an new updated Game Boy, they simply give you the chance to, while on the other hand, to use the Game Gear for more than five hours, Sega needed you to buy an battery pack or an car adapter. They'res a difference. At that difference was big enough to severly shortcome the Game Gear.

That's the question. Why didnt play the Game Gear, and battery life was an main reason. Maybe SEGA should of decreased the colour and screen to allow for more battery power.

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.

I've also seen diehard Sony and XBOX games fans to the same thing. I just dont understand why you utter the f-word (haha) in this thread, when nonbody was acting like an fanboy.

Dude! I still have my brick-sized default grey original Game Boy. My parents bought it for me when I was like 4 or 5. Its a wonder how I could see the damn screen. It was very sensitive to light

Originally posted by Smasandian
Probably.

Every single handheld that's going against Nintendo has had horrible battery life and better graphics, but Nintendo has always be ahead in sales.

Why?

Because I believe that even with better battery life the reult would have been the same more or less. Meaning battery life wasn't one of the deciding factors in why GG lost.

Originally posted by Smasandian

The difference between buying a new updated Game Boy over an battery pack is that people with old Game Boy can still play it.


And you can can still play GG without a battery pack. Besides, in most cases where people use their handhelds, do they really use it for more than five hours? The majority of times I've used a handheld for a really extended period of time is when I was playing a new game and hadn't beaten it yet. In which case, I was likey to just be playing it at home where using the AC adapter is no problem.

Originally posted by Smasandian

Nintendo doesnt make you buy an new updated Game Boy, they simply give you the chance to, while on the other hand, to use the Game Gear for more than five hours, Sega needed you to buy an battery pack or an car adapter. They'res a difference. At that difference was big enough to severly shortcome the Game Gear.


I think the car adapter was like 15 bucks or something. At least it had one. Can't fault it for that.

Originally posted by Smasandian

That's the question. Why didnt play the Game Gear, and battery life was an main reason. Maybe SEGA should of decreased the colour and screen to allow for more battery power.


I probably would have been less inclined to get one if they did...


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.


Regardless of a person taste, the GG games WERE still in fact better games. That's undisputable given what they were capable of compared to GB. Someone could more be keen on Golden Eye or Perfect Dark but Halo's still the better game.

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