Why did the Game Boy beat the Game Gear?

[Zadoc]

The fact that the Game Gear was in color and was back-lit should have been enough to cream the Game Boy, even with the additional cost factored in. So, why didn't the Sega handheld prevail?

[BocoDragon]

That's a good question. It's a lot like DS vs. PSP or Wii vs. HD gen, actually.... why would the worse technology prevail?

I'm going to say something obvious: it was the games. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, Nintendo was king. Whatever platform they made would have Mario and Zelda (which dominated back then), as well as the goodwill of any and all third parties. The third parties didn't especialy matter in terms of pure gameplay, but they did lend the image of support. Yes, you could get portable versions of all the NES greats, such as Castlevania, Contra, etc (or at least it appeared like you did.... most of the early handheld conversions were not that great)

On systems like Game Gear or even Lynx, it really seemed like the only people holding the system up was the first party (Sega or Atari). And not only that, but they were first parties with rather irrelevant properites in the public consciousness. With the exception of possibly Sonic, I can't think of any non-Nintendo handheld series that held any kind of fandom.

What's interesting is that Game Boy was a solid success about 8-9 years before Pokemon! Pokemon wasn't part of Game Boys initial success... it simply helped the platform to last about a decade! (I thought for sure it was dead after 95)

[bangtango]

Most of the games I played on the Game Gear just weren't that good. You could probably do a top 10 list (or even a top 20) but there isn't anything that was a must-have.

[blue lander]

For me it was battery life. The Gameboy lasted much longer than the Gamegear. That, coupled with the smaller size made the gameboy a lot easier to tote around in your backpack to school.

[DigitalSpace]

Battery life was a big factor. As a former Game Gear owner, I can confirm that the thing ate batteries. I wound up getting an AC Adapter and playing it in my bedroom, plugged into a wall. Killed the portable factor, but I wasn't allowed to take it to school so it hardly ever left my bedroom anyways.

It didn't help that it wasn't popular in Japan either.

[CartCollector]

Don't forget Tetris. The puzzle game of the generation was not just exclusive to, but was INCLUDED with the Game Boy.

[j_factor]

When Game Gear came out, Game Boy was already a noted success. GG was simply never able to catch up.

Game Boy was strong out the gate with Tetris, a game that people already knew and was already popular on computers and spurred Game Boy sales quite well. When Game Gear came out accompanied by Columns a year and a half later, it had the perception of following on Game Boy's coattails (despite Columns being popular in its own right, and some fans considering it superior).

I don't agree with the third-party interpretation. Game Gear had about as many third parties registering their "image of support" -- EA, Midway, Capcom, US Gold, Sony Imagesoft, Core Design, Psygnosis, Rare, Hudson, Taito, Acclaim, SNK, Virgin, etc. etc. The only major snubber was Konami (and maybe Square, but I'm not sure they count). I also don't think that anyone bought a Game Boy for Castlevania or Contra.

I think that the key to Game Boy's success was having a shortlist of key titles that were heavily hyped, heavily promoted, heavily successful, and spaced out just right. Game Gear games seemed to come out in clusters, and Sega's strategy was to promote multiple games at the same time. Game Boy always had that one big game of the moment, whereas there was never a "THE" Game Gear game.

As an example I will point to the year 1993. Link's Awakening was the big Game Boy game of the year, with heavy promotion and high sales. What was the big Game Gear game of the time? Was it Sonic Chaos? Ecco the Dolphin? Sonic Spinball? Mean Bean Machine? Lemmings? Surf Ninjas? All were moderate hits in their own right, but Sega never promoted one game over the others, making the Game Gear library like a sea of undistinguished games.

No Game Gear game ever received the amount of publicity and marketing that, say, Donkey Kong '94 did. Not only that, but Game Gear overall didn't receive the level of marketing support that Game Boy had. And finally, almost all Game Gear advertising was negative anti-Nintendo pieces, which made it seem stuck in second place (although some of those ads were brilliant).

Game Boy had other inherent strengths, such as battery life and being (or seeming) more durable. The Game Gear's color display and easier-to-see screen weren't much of a plus with kids, and the higher price also made it less accessible to kids. Older gamers did seem to prefer Game Gear (I remember my parent's friends having Game Gears, and my best friend's mom had one), but they weren't numerous enough or not interested enough in portable gaming.

[exit]

Most of the gamegear games I play sucked horribly. Actually, I can't think of one GG game I played that I actually enjoyed.

[7th lutz]

I didn't own a gamegear back in the day, I played one at a store. I do have one now thanks to my brothers suprise christmas gift to me.

At the time, I played in the store, I had problems with see the game I was playing at times.

Game Gear's problem was gameboy was released in 1989 and was tetris also. Another problem gamegear had was some of their games were released for the master system before game gear was released. It was a negative to due to the fact, game gear had a converter that played Master system game called the Master gear. Sega did do commercials for the system in the early 90's, but from a game side stand point sega didn't do a great job of promoting a game. Sega also made it made it difficult for gamers to buy the games because some the names of the games for game gear are the same for the genesis, but the game itself was different. Sega brought a couple of their big game Franchises over from the genesis to the game gear at the time like Sonic, Streets of rage, shining force,and Ecco.

Game gear some good 3rd party support and was better then the lynx's was. Gameboy's third party support was not as strong as there 3rd party game console support was. Square did little for the game boy and Capcom outside of megaman didn't do alot ouside of street fighter 2.

[BocoDragon]

I don't agree with the third-party interpretation. Game Gear had about as many third parties registering their "image of support" -- EA, Midway, Capcom, US Gold, Sony Imagesoft, Core Design, Psygnosis, Rare, Hudson, Taito, Acclaim, SNK, Virgin, etc. etc. The only major snubber was Konami (and maybe Square, but I'm not sure they count). I also don't think that anyone bought a Game Boy for Castlevania or Contra.

I guess I had Konami on the brain when I wrote that post. You might be right, though I guess I don't think most of those Game Gear third parties were very important (then again, did it really matter back then who made the game?)

[cyberfluxor]

I love my Game Gear and I wanted it more than a Game Boy. Today, I'm all about the NDS and like the GBC, but the GG still has a strong place in my portable gaming. Although people complain about how the screen is blurry and most of the games are let downs they can be had for $1-10 each and are well worth it, though expect to pick up recharables for it.

Keeping the topic at mind, what about the Nomad? I never really knew about it until years after it was out of the market. I believe they had a VERY limited shipment in my area but it's a very awesome handheld, only problem is that some games need a larger screen to really be worth it visually.

Back to topic though, it really was all about size, battery life, cost, limited selection (compaired to the GB) and the screen. People just expected a bit more for their money.

[Mayhem]

I played both Game Gear and Gameboy back in the day (and my brother owned the former, and I borrowed the later a lot). The three factors I consider most important though have already been mentioned:

1) Battery life
2) Nintendo's games
3) Tetris specifically

[skaar]

One factor going FOR the Game Gear that I wanted one for (but never got to use it for) was the Master System game library. The fact that you could make the SMS freaking portable was HUGE - or so I thought. I could never buy one of the adapters in stores, and never got to realize my dream of playing Wonder Boy in Monster Land on the bus.

My thought on why the Nintendo won out is distribution and branding - Nintendo had a HUGE advantage over Sega with its distribution and retailer network. A better product or better marketing does not success make. You could buy Nintendo products at a larger number of retailers than Sega, period.

[Trebuken]

MasterGear....great toy.

I think Nintendo just won through advertising, good games, and affordability. That's it.

The Nomad was awesome, but poorly marketed, and a battery hog.

There was also the Turbo Express, which, like the Turbo Duo, was priced too high though it was leading edge tech, kinda' like the PS3.

Today we have the PSP and DS, and they can both survive because the market has grown. When the Game Gear came out gaming was not as big a business as it is today.

[RegSNES]

Game Gear had supperior tech but supperior tech doesn't mean you'll win the day. Game Boy had much longer battery life. 10 hours, I believe. I think Game Gear's was less than half of that. Can't really remember.

Everyone else already stated all the other factors.

My friend gave me his Game Gear. I was grateful but outside of Sonic The Hedgehog, I don't know what else I could buy or would enjoy on the system. Though there was this really great SHMUP that I played on my dad's Game Gear more than 10 years ago. I wouldn't mind having that if I could find it or think of the name.

[Push Upstairs]

I'm going to say that the GB had better games.

I can find a lot of games to play on the GB but I have a hard time finding games to play on my GG outside of perhaps Sonic games.

GG is the system I have played the *LEAST* since I bought it.

And these are words spoken by a SEGA fan.

[DigitalSpace]

Keeping the topic at mind, what about the Nomad?

I remembered seeing it in a Toys R' Us ad back in its heyday (I believe it was exclusively sold there). On one hand, it was great having a portable that claimed to play the entire Genesis library. However, screen blur made many games unplayable and battery life was just poor.

It sure sounded like one hell of an amazing device at the time, but Sega was already biting off more than they could chew trying to top Nintendo and it affected the Nomad as well.

[klausien]

Price, brand loyalty, Tetris, size & battery life; in that order. The Game Gear actually put up a good fight, but the price accessibility and Tetris pack-in of the GB, not to mention the Nintendo franchises, kept the GB ahead of the competition. It isn't very collectable now, but the GG was a contender; moreso than any of its peers.

I actually didn"t get a GameBoy until college, but had a GG in its heyday. Much like the GB Tetris, the GG Columns is my favorite version to this day. I will never forget the joy of getting that GG. I need to get the pictures from my birthday when I got it and post them. Talk about happy! I loved the GG. Played it to death. Castle of Illusion and Psychic World were the shizzle. Now I only really play the 2 GG Aleste games and Gunstar Heroes, but it was formidable back in the day.

[swlovinist]

game gear was a portable master system. The master system was not popular in the US. I am a huge Sega Fan and admit that the Game Boy clobbered the Game Gear and anyone else that got in its path with solid and diverse software support. Every friggin type of game could be found on the Game Boy. Yes it was blurry, black and white, and lacked great graphics. What it had was fun, great gameplay, affordability, and most of all a crapload of advertisement and good word of mouth. The Game boy was to portable video games what the Ipod is to portable music. The DS looks to be again clobbering the competition with the same types of things.

[Kevincal]

Mario and Tetris! :D

[Greg2600]

To this day, the ridiculously long life and success of the Gameboy baffles me. I was not a big fan of the Gameboy. Had one and only a handful of games. However, there were so many systems with better hardware, the Lynx, Game Gear, Neo Geo, even that Genesis portable thing. When did the Game Boy Advance come out, the late 90's? All those years and it was still the Gameboy. Baffling. I think Nintendo just beat the competition because it was cheaper and they marketed better.

[wallydawg]

Though there was this really great SHMUP that I played on my dad's Game Gear more than 10 years ago. I wouldn't mind having that if I could find it or think of the name.

They only one I remember is Halley Wars.


I remembered seeing it in a Toys R' Us ad back in its heyday (I believe it was exclusively sold there).

I remember seeing them at Best Buy. That and 3DO, which I could never afford with my 11 year old allowance. I'd prolly still be saving up to this day.

[Zadoc]

When Game Gear came out, Game Boy was already a noted success. GG was simply never able to catch up.

Game Boy was strong out the gate with Tetris, a game that people already knew and was already popular on computers and spurred Game Boy sales quite well. When Game Gear came out accompanied by Columns a year and a half later, it had the perception of following on Game Boy's coattails (despite Columns being popular in its own right, and some fans considering it superior).

I don't agree with the third-party interpretation. Game Gear had about as many third parties registering their "image of support" -- EA, Midway, Capcom, US Gold, Sony Imagesoft, Core Design, Psygnosis, Rare, Hudson, Taito, Acclaim, SNK, Virgin, etc. etc. The only major snubber was Konami (and maybe Square, but I'm not sure they count). I also don't think that anyone bought a Game Boy for Castlevania or Contra.

I think that the key to Game Boy's success was having a shortlist of key titles that were heavily hyped, heavily promoted, heavily successful, and spaced out just right. Game Gear games seemed to come out in clusters, and Sega's strategy was to promote multiple games at the same time. Game Boy always had that one big game of the moment, whereas there was never a "THE" Game Gear game.

As an example I will point to the year 1993. Link's Awakening was the big Game Boy game of the year, with heavy promotion and high sales. What was the big Game Gear game of the time? Was it Sonic Chaos? Ecco the Dolphin? Sonic Spinball? Mean Bean Machine? Lemmings? Surf Ninjas? All were moderate hits in their own right, but Sega never promoted one game over the others, making the Game Gear library like a sea of undistinguished games.

No Game Gear game ever received the amount of publicity and marketing that, say, Donkey Kong '94 did. Not only that, but Game Gear overall didn't receive the level of marketing support that Game Boy had. And finally, almost all Game Gear advertising was negative anti-Nintendo pieces, which made it seem stuck in second place (although some of those ads were brilliant).

Game Boy had other inherent strengths, such as battery life and being (or seeming) more durable. The Game Gear's color display and easier-to-see screen weren't much of a plus with kids, and the higher price also made it less accessible to kids. Older gamers did seem to prefer Game Gear (I remember my parent's friends having Game Gears, and my best friend's mom had one), but they weren't numerous enough or not interested enough in portable gaming.

I just wanted to note that this is an excellent post, and you're completely right.

[sniperCCJVQ]

1- Design (however you gotta give to the GG his color screen)
2- Battery Life
3- Game Library (Tetris !)
4- Nintendo Marketing Machine

[thetoxicone]

My thought on why the Nintendo won out is distribution and branding - Nintendo had a HUGE advantage over Sega with its distribution and retailer network. A better product or better marketing does not success make. You could buy Nintendo products at a larger number of retailers than Sega, period.

I lived in a town of about 25000 people growing up and I can't rememberone rental or retail store carrying sega items until after the genesis came out and even then it was a lot smaller area than the nintendo games. I only knew one guy until after I was 18 that ever owned a master system. The nintendo stuff was also always placed in a premium position over the sega items at stores where I lived as well.

[Nicola]

Price, brand loyalty, Tetris, size & battery life; in that order.

Nintendo hyped so much the Game Boy to let it become a mark of style. Like Sony did with PlayStation, the Game Boy WAS the game, and you had to own one to be a cool kid.

No matter if the competitors tried to attack the monopoly. Nintendo's brand image in portables was too strong.

Game Boy and Tetris. The best xmas present.

[Pantechnicon]

I have another thought which is an extension of the "GB had better games" argument. It seems to me that Nintendo really went out of their way to make the Gameboy gameplay experience feel like a portable NES: The similarities in controllers, musical scores, graphics in the menu layouts etc are all pretty apparent. This is especially true with the early titles.

So while Nintendo was going out of their way to make playing a Gameboy feel as much as possible like a portable NES, Sega had no equivalent system against which to pattern Game Gear. Yes, I know that Game Gear is in fact just smaller SMS hardware, but that was a fact probably not well-known at the time since that system was no longer being heavily marketed in favor of the Genesis. GG games did not quite feel the same as their Genny counterparts, so despite certain technical superiorities such as a color screen, Game Gear wasn't able to catch on with people who wanted similar gameplay experiences.

[Nicola]

Another part is the design: portable games were more oriented to a younger target. Games, colors and design were less aggressive than the Game Gear's ones.

[Nicola]

In the last days I've asked myself if it was just a random event the monopoly in the handheld against the competitive market of home gaming.

Today I've reached an interesting theory:

Listen carefully.

There is one very big difference between home gaming and portables.

Multiplayer.

You have a Genesis and your friend has a Super NES. Do you want to play with your friend? You go at his home, take a pad and play.
But what if the only way to play with your friend it owning the same console?
This means that the more are the owners, the easier is to find someone to play with.

Understood?

If we consider the multiplayer opportunity, the handheld is a natural monopoly.

That's why Sega and Atari had to make their handhelds more aggressive, black. Like rebels. To find a niche of rebels that would have followed the brand loyality.

Ok. This leads to a whole different theory.
I don't know if someone has already written this, but...I've reached this result alone.

If the home consoles are going 100% for the online gaming.
And all the home consoles remain not compatible...

This may lead to a monopoly over the home consoles market.

The home consoles market is going to be much more similar to the portable market.

Just my theory.

Nicola

[j_factor]

I don't know about that. Multiplayer Game Boy back in the day seemed quite a rarity. It wasn't until Pokemon that the link cables got much use.

[Nicola]

I don't know about that. Multiplayer Game Boy back in the day seemed quite a rarity. It wasn't until Pokemon that the link cables got much use.

No, multiplayer was already growing. Remember, the GB had the link cable bundled. Nintendo is not stupid.

With pokemon we had the boom. That's why we have a gap before finding other competitors in the handheld market.

[BocoDragon]

I remember the link cable being a big deal when the Game Boy launched, and even the 4player adapter being promoted alongside F1 Race (something like that... not often I forget the name of a Nintendo title). This was long before Pokemon.

[Kitsune Sniper]

I remember the link cable being a big deal when the Game Boy launched, and even the 4player adapter being promoted alongside F1 Race (something like that... not often I forget the name of a Nintendo title). This was long before Pokemon.

F1 Race came in an oversized box with the 4 player adapter. :)

[RickHarrisMaine]

If I'm not mistaken, the Atari Lynx was the most technically advanced portable of the time, and would be so until the GB Advance, about 10 years later. I still have the Gameboy I got in 1991 for Christmas from my girlfriend (now my wife). Its still the best present she ever gave me! I had a Game Gear for awhile, and just didn't enjoy it much, other then Ren and Stimpy, which was kind of fun. My Lynx II gets the most use right now, and the batteries last pretty well on them. I think the GG failed because it wasn't that fun.....too many Disney platforms for real gaming....

[diskoboy]

Well, I'm glad someone mentioned the Lynx.

Even being a huge Sega fanboy, I always perferred the Lynx over the GG and GameBoy.

[jajaja]

Without reading any of the other posts i would say its because of these factors:

- Selection of games
- Bad screen
- Used 6 AA batteries that was used fast
- Price (?)
- Tetris

With bad screen i mean blurry. I own a GG myself and some games are near impossible to play due to blurryness. Its not my screen since some games are clearer and i've heard the blurryness is a common problem. It doesnt help with backlight and colors if you can hardly see whats going on in the game hehe :(

I just saw someone mentioned Tetris and i agree to that :) Tetris is one of the factors that gave Gameboy a flying start. I wonder how the Gameboy's faith would be without Tetris at launch.

[bangtango]

Without reading any of the other posts i would say its because of these factors:

- Selection of games
- Bad screen
- Used 6 AA batteries that was used fast
- Price (?)
- Tetris

With bad screen i mean blurry. I own a GG myself and some games are near impossible to play due to blurryness. Its not my screen since some games are clearer and i've heard the blurryness is a common problem. It doesnt help with backlight and colors if you can hardly see whats going on in the game hehe :(

I just saw someone mentioned Tetris and i agree to that :) Tetris is one of the factors that gave Gameboy a flying start. I wonder how the Gameboy's faith would be without Tetris at launch.

Super Mario Land was still pretty good. People seemed to like earlier stuff, based on franchises seen on the NES, like Nemesis, Castlevania, Fall of the Foot Clan and Operation C.

I agree that Game Gear games are often impossible to play. Is it just me or do the majority of platformers or action games on the Game Boy have larger characters on the screen than similar games for the Game Gear? Maybe I'll get a technical reply explaining screen size and other mumbo jumbo but the onscreen characters in most Game Gear games are damn small. Black and white screen aside, I have an easier time seeing most games on an original Game Boy than I do the Game Gear.

[boatofcar]

For me, there are three answers.

1. Adults bought Game Boys for Tetris in crazy numbers. I remember seeing adults playing Tetris on Game Boys when I was in Middle School and being totally weirded out by it. If the Workboy program and keyboard ever would have actually came out, the Game Boy might have been what the Newton was a few years later.

2. Battery life. Battery life was, and still is, the deal breaker for many in the handheld wars.

3. Price. $90 vs....$199? Actually, I can't remember what the GG retailed for eventually, but I recall it being about twice as much as the Game Boy.

[Iron Draggon]

I dunno how anyone can say that Game Boy games were better than Game Gear games... they were all in black & white, now how could that possibly be better than full color? even Game Boy Color games weren't as good as Game Gear games... it wasn't until the Game Boy Advance came out that Nintendo finally had a portable that was on par with the Game Gear... before that, all they had in their favor was Tetris... if it wasn't for that one exclusive game, the Game Boy would've died a horrible death at the hands of the Game Gear

[Push Upstairs]

How can a game like "Space Invaders" be a good game, it was in black and white! How can a B&W game be better than a game in full color?

"Total Recall" was in color, it must be better!

[bangtango]

How can a game like "Space Invaders" be a good game, it was in black and white! How can a B&W game be better than a game in full color?

"Total Recall" was in color, it must be better!

LOL

I can't believe this debate is still raging. Game Boy beat the Game Gear because the games were better. Pure and simple. Even if the Game Gear had twice the battery life or had been $30-40 cheaper, it'd be the same story.

Sega's just lucky they weren't squaring off with a color portable in the Game Boy, otherwise it'd have been even more lopsided. The Game Gear was Biff Tannen and the Game Boy was Marty McFly.

[theshizzle3000]

I will also agree that battery life was its big fallout point.

[Jorpho]

No, multiplayer was already growing. Remember, the GB had the link cable bundled. Nintendo is not stupid.

The link cable was notoriously difficult to do any kind of programming for and was thus underutilized, despite the cable was bundled. And then there's the fact that playing a multiplayer Game Boy game involved the statistically insignificant probability of encountering someone who had not only a Game Boy but also an identical cartridge and having a link cable handy all at the same time. (And why would you want to carry around a mostly useless link cable with a "portable" system?)

Multiplayer had squat to do with portable gaming, at least until Pokemon and the GBA.


That's why Sega and Atari had to make their handhelds more aggressive, black. Like rebels. To find a niche of rebels that would have followed the brand loyality.

Ok. This leads to a whole different theory.
I don't know if someone has already written this, but...I've reached this result alone.

If the home consoles are going 100% for the online gaming.
And all the home consoles remain not compatible...

This may lead to a monopoly over the home consoles market.

You're making even less sense here.

[blue lander]

Even though there were only a handful of multiplayer games in the early days, I think it gave a big advantage to the GB at least on the playground. The kid with the GG might have better looking games, but when the rest of us hooked up our gameboys and played F1 Race, he couldn't participate.

You can't over-emphasize the battery life, though. For a kid with no income, it was hard enough to convince your parents to spend money on a GB or GG and the occasional game for it, but having to ask for money for another 6 batteries every week or two would be a deal breaker. I think the few people I knew with Game Gears almost always used it plugged into the wall.

[jajaja]

Super Mario Land was still pretty good. People seemed to like earlier stuff, based on franchices seen on the NES, like Nemesis, Castlevania, Fall of the Foot Clan and Operation C.

I agree that Game Gear games are often impossible to play. Is it just me or do the majority of platformers or action games on the Game Boy have larger characters on the screen than similar games for the Game Gear? Maybe I'll get a technical reply explaining screen size and other mumbo jumbo but the onscreen characters in most Game Gear games are damn small. Black and white screen aside, I have an easier time seeing most games on an original Game Boy than I do the Game Gear.

Ye, thats true, SML owned! Didnt have a GB myself when i was a kid, but i remember playing it at a friend's place :)

[rbudrick]

Nintendo's Nazi licensing policies owned, that's why they won.

-Rob

[Nicola]

You're making even less sense here.

It's just an idea, under the hypothesis that the multiplayer is more important than other things.

And yes, the multiplayer for the Game Boy was important. I've played Tetris many times in multi.
And everyone had Tetris with a link cable.

[skaar]

I still argue that it had little to do with superiority of one console over the other and everything to do with marketing and distribution. When you're in five times as many stores and you've marketed the portable video game console to the level of Jello or Kleenex for brandname recognizability (if that's a word) then you're pretty well set.

Tetris didn't hurt either, I'll give you that. ;)

[Jorpho]

And yes, the multiplayer for the Game Boy was important. I've played Tetris many times in multi.
And everyone had Tetris with a link cable.

Yeah, I've played mutliplayer Tetris a few times as well. That was the ONLY game that everyone had. I sincerely doubt there were people shelling out $100 for a Game Boy for the express purpose of playing multiplayer Tetris.

(As far as multiplayer Tetris variants go, the Game Boy version really wasn't all that great anyway, though like the rest of the game it was very well presented.)

[j_factor]

I don't think screen quality or game quality has much to do with it. If those were deciding factors, Neo Geo Pocket Color would've outsold GBC. Hell, NGPC even had a better battery life.

Also, the original Game Boy's screen was even worse than Game Gear's. You guys must be thinking of the GB Pocket or something, because the original GB had a god-awful screen. My first portable was the Lynx, and my second was Game Gear; I got a Game Boy after that, and had a really hard time adjusting to the screen. And also, I'm not seeing these "better" games. Game Boy for the longest time had a ton of shovelware and few games worth anyone's time. I mean, I enjoyed Metroid II and Zelda and Kirby and FF Legend 2 as much as anyone, but there simply weren't that many games of that quality. And GG definitely had its share of fun games, like Defenders of Oasis, Sonic Triple Trouble, Halley Wars, Columns, etc. And lastly, games that were on both systems were usually way way worse on Game Boy.

[Push Upstairs]

All Gameboys had a shit screen until the introduction of the SP...which annoys me that it took Nintendo, like, 85 years to put a light in a portable.

I just realized that all the games I like for the GB are all Nintendo made.

Still, Super Mario Land 2 Space Zone 2 = One of the best level tunes ever created.

[jajaja]

All Gameboys had a shit screen until the introduction of the SP...which annoys me that it took Nintendo, like, 85 years to put a light in a portable.

Dont forget GB Light ;)

[BocoDragon]

All Gameboys had a shit screen until the introduction of the SP...which annoys me that it took Nintendo, like, 85 years to put a light in a portable.

You know, light and color was being talked about from the very beginning, and I remember even Nintendo would often hint that there would be an advanced followup to the Game Boy.... but I think that Game Boy started out profitable, and just continued to profit. At that point, why mess with something that was making you money?

Long story short, if Game Gear had whomped Game Boy, we probably would have seen a color game boy, one with a light screen perhaps, in the early to mid 90s. Obviously the sucess of GB just confirmed that costly technology wasn't the way to win anyway.

[Push Upstairs]

Dont forget GB Light ;)

Because it was available is such numerous quantities? :p

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

The Game Gear screen is hardly color. More like shades of white. Whenever there's any movement on screen, everything seems to disappear. The orginal Gameboy had quite a lot of blur, too, but nowhere near as bad as the Game Gear. I think that's really what killed any hope of the Game Gear being a success.

I'm usually the first person to jump on the "it's all about the marketing" bandwagon. I think that marketing and hype is just how people make decisions these days, unfortunately. And that was certainly a bug huge part of the Gameboy's success. Without Nintendo's marketing machine, the system wouldn't have been a success. If the hype roles were reversed--if Sega had made all the right marketing decisions and Nintendo had blown it--the Game Gear still would have had a hard time. If they'd done a better job of hyping their system, Sega could have had all the great licenses that the Gameboy had (minus Nintendo's of course), but I just don't think they would have been as fun on the Game Gear's screen.

Hell, the Game Gear does have a lot of great games. All you guys saying that it doesn't, are wrong. Shining Force, Shinobi GG, the Star Trek games, the later Sonic games and quite a lot of very solid ports of Genesis games like Ristar and Gunstar Heroes. It has a nice library. But only when you play them on an emulator. On the original hardware, they're just about unplayable because of the screen.

Add in the poor battery life, the size of the system, the shitty dpad and of course the fact that Nintendo *DID* out-market Sega and you have a system that really shouldn't have done as well as it did (it only did as well as it did because Sega's marketing did in fact win a few battles).


...word is bondage...

[Jorpho]

No mention of the TV Tuner yet, I see. Was that thing too expensive, or did it not work very well, or both?

I also think that I'd have never heard of the MasterGear adapter had I not seen one for myself exactly once.

[sirhansirhan]

No mention of the TV Tuner yet, I see. Was that thing too expensive, or did it not work very well, or both?

I also think that I'd have never heard of the MasterGear adapter had I not seen one for myself exactly once.

I had the Game Gear and TV Tuner back when they were first out, and the TV Tuner didn't work for shit. I wound up returning it because it was such a useless turd.

The Game Gear, on the other hand, I did like quite a bit (especially the Ren & Stimpy game), although I liked the Gameboy better.

[Push Upstairs]

Hell, the Game Gear does have a lot of great games. All you guys saying that it doesn't, are wrong. Shining Force, Shinobi GG, the Star Trek games, the later Sonic games and quite a lot of very solid ports of Genesis games like Ristar and Gunstar Heroes. It has a nice library. But only when you play them on an emulator. On the original hardware, they're just about unplayable because of the screen.


You had me...until the part in bold.

[MarioMania]

What if the Game Gear became popular more then the Game Boy, What would Nintendo do to keep up with the GG

[Iron Draggon]

How can a game like "Space Invaders" be a good game, it was in black and white! How can a B&W game be better than a game in full color?

"Total Recall" was in color, it must be better!

if Space Invaders was so much better in black & white than it was in color, then why did they ever have those color overlay versions in the arcades?

[Push Upstairs]

O_O

You missed the entire point of what I was saying. I don't know how, but you did.


I think you're trying to say "Total Recall" is a good game.

[jajaja]

Because it was available is such numerous quantities? :p

Well.. true, but its still backlight hehe ;)



You had me...until the part in bold.

I havnt tested a GG emulator myself that i can remember, but i remember trying a GBA emulator before buying the real deal. When i played it on the emulator the colors were crips clear and it had great lighting. When i bought a real GBA (the first model) i was dissapointed at first because i thought the picture quality was just like in the emulator. Ok, the colors were fine, but due to no backlight it didnt look as good as with the emulator.

[Push Upstairs]

The screen on the GB all the way up to to the GBA (excluding the GB Light :p) sucked ass, but finding a good light source (NOT YOU, WORM LIGHT!) is just something that you had to deal with and learn to use if you wanted your portable gaming fix.

I remember being at a game store and someone returned a GB color because it was "broken" (they couldn't see the screen). I knew the manager and I tried the thing out, angled it to get the best light and I had zero problem playing anything on it. You just have to know how to use one to get the most out of it.

[skaar]

Still, Super Mario Land 2 Space Zone 2 = One of the best level tunes ever created.

I always liked Round 5 from Streets of Rage.

[Push Upstairs]

I am an SOR music fan, but Space Zone 2 music is special. It's one of the few Nintendo tunes I love as much as the SOR music.