If you could change the fate of one video game system.......

[Anthony1]

Okay, this is actually a two part question.


1. If you could take one video game system from the past, that was not a successfull system, and you could ater History and make that system a huge hit, which would it be? Why? And if it was successful, how would the current video game landscape be altered?


2. If you could take one video game system from the past, or even the present, that is a very successful system, and you could alter History or the Present and make it a complete failure, which one would it be? Why? And if you did make the system tank, how would it alter the current video game landscape?




Here is my answer to the two above questions

1. I would take the 3DO system and I would change History and have had the 3DO system be a huge success. The reason why, is that I think that the 3DO system was way ahead of it's time technologically, and if it was super successfull and if it had all the 3rd party support behind it, then I think we would have seen some really incredible games come out during those years. If it had been the most successful system of the 32/64 bit Era, then the video game world would look very different today. Sony would be just another player in the game, rather than this arrogant super power that it has become. Nintendo might be in a better position, because it wouldn't have been so completely dominated by another Japanese rival. And we might all be playing the 3DO 3 right now. How weird would that be? The big downside with me doing this though, is that Electronic Arts would become an even bigger super power than they already are, because they had such an under the table investment in 3DO.


2. If I could totally ruin the success of any particular system, it would be without a doubt the PS2. I was a fan of Sony during the PS1 reign, but ever since the PS2, I have turned into almost a Sony Hater type of gamer. They promised the world with the PS2, talking about how it would deliver all these never before seen experiences, and the emotion engine and how it would be so revolutionary. Bah Humbug! The PS2 is a technological Dud if you ask me. Plus their complete and total arrogance is a definite turn off. They are so full of themselves and they think that they can do no wrong and that they are just going to totally dominate video gaming for the forseeable future. Now, if the PS2 was wildly Unsuccessful, then both Microsoft and Nintendo, and even Sega would be in a much much better situation right now. Sega might still have their Dreamcast, which by the way would have been my second choice, right behind the 3DO in terms of changing it's fortunes for the better. Nintendo's GameCube would be in a much better spot, and companies like Electronic Arts and other major companies would be forced to actually take some real advantage of the XBOX's power rather than just port over Crappy PS2 games to that system.

[Hamsnibit]

I wouldn't change a thing except I wish the Gamecube was doing a bit better, but hopefully they will get the support they need with the next system. Other than that shitty systems failed for a reason, insane prices, crappy games, etc.. Even though I own all of the systems I still say good riddance to 3DO, Jaguar, Neo Geo, etc..

[AB Positive]

I have an obvious answer, and one that might shock people.

1) I'd have made the Turbo-Grafix system the winner out of the 16-bit wars (I know, 8bit + 8bit != 16bit). The duo system had so many great series that would have lived on. Y's would be more of a serious RPG contneder, making a trilogy of series at the top (FF, PS, Y's). And all the great one offs that could have sprung into series, the chance for more Fantasy Zones, more Splatterhouse, 3-D Devil Crush anyone? Blazing Lasers branching off.... I'll stop before my frothing overloads....


2) If I were to make a system a complete failure... I'd do the NES *ducks rotten veggies being thrown*. I've always, from day one, prefered the SMS over the NES. And if the SMS was as big as the NES was, the Genesis would be even more huge, and perhaps we wouldn't be lamenting the fact that the Dreamcast was Sega's last system.


that's my two cents.

-AG

[congobongo]

1.) Would have to be the Sega Master System. With good 3rd party support, this system would have kicked ass. We would have seen the BEST in 8-bit gaming. Only thing is with such a successful 8-bit machine, Sega may not have released the Genesis as soon as they did (SNES) and that would be a shame.

[Aswald]

To Failure- Take ANY successful home console, and put the Tramiels (grrr!) in charge of the company.

To Success- Saturn. Simply make Sega serious about supporting the system.

[kainemaxwell]

1) Dreamcast (I know others are gonna say the same). Dreamcast would come in and blow away the N64, making Nintendo work harder on their next machine, keep Sega in the hardware business and give the PS2 a bigger run for it's money (and maybe cause Sony not to use cheap parts on the Ps2 as well).

[ClubNinja]

1) Without a doubt, I'd let the Saturn take over the world. Or at least I'd see that it was as popular in other markets as it was in Japan. The gigantic library and loads more support in the US would've certainly helped the cuddly Saturn win the hearts of us all. This would of course lead to the major success of the Dreamcast, as well as Sega's next machine (since they'd still be in hardware.) Also, the Saturn's success would obviously harm Sony, making it less likely that the PS2 would become such a contender. Today, we'd all be lined up for the new release of Sonic Adventure 4 - Chaotix Revenge for the Dreamcast. Good days.

2) I'd love to put a slug in the Gameboy. With machines like the Game Gear and Neo Geo Pocket Color thriving, the general consumer would hold higher standards for portables, since Nintendo clearly doesn't these days. We'd ideally see higher quality and fresher ideas turning up in the handheld market, both driven by actual competition. No more settling for what Nintendo wishes to toss us. Again, good days.

[Anthony1]

I have an obvious answer, and one that might shock people.

1) I'd have made the Turbo-Grafix system the winner out of the 16-bit wars (I know, 8bit + 8bit != 16bit). The duo system had so many great series that would have lived on. Y's would be more of a serious RPG contneder, making a trilogy of series at the top (FF, PS, Y's). And all the great one offs that could have sprung into series, the chance for more Fantasy Zones, more Splatterhouse, 3-D Devil Crush anyone? Blazing Lasers branching off.... I'll stop before my frothing overloads....

-AG

You know the Turbo was my obvious first choice too, but the ramifications of it dominating the 16 bit era were to harsh for me. Had the Turbo been so wildly successful, then what would that have meant for the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis and Sega CD. The Super Nintendo is my favorite Retro Console (or pseudo retro), and I'm not so sure I would have gotten all the great SNES games that I've gotten, had the Turbo been the dominating system. Plus, who knows if Sega would have ever even been a factor in the Market if the Turbo was a dominator. Nintendo was going to be there regardless, on their name value alone, but Sega became who they are because of the weak competition from the U.S. Turbo lineup, and the late entry by Nintendo with the SNES. If the Turbo was the king of the hill back then, then we might have never seen a Sega CD, or Saturn or Dreamcast. Plus the Genesis would have likely been the 3rd place system and we would have probably never seen alot of the great Genesis games that we ended up getting. So although I love the Turbo, and I would have liked to see it be more successful, I think that if it was more succesful, those ramifications would have been more damaging to the overall video game history.

[YoshiM]

That's an interesting question. Hmmm.

I gave the first part a lot of thought as to what system I would want to have done better. The only thing I could come up with was that the popularity of systems should stay the same. Everything came out in a sort of order which added to the evolution of the industry. I could think of no objective reason a particular system should have one out over its competitor. It would have been cool if the Saturn got more love, but Sega didn't fully realize the future with the Saturn (ie 3D games) and Sony did (as much as I dislike Sony). The arcades were doing 3D, PCs were doing 3D and it was time for the home systems to continue to play catch up, as they always have.

Same goes with the second part. I tried, but there is no logical reason why a particular system should have tanked. Personally I think the Playstation should have tanked, but I lack the hindsight of its launch to really point out the whys in an objective manner. I think its an overhyped system whose early games (that I can remember) were fairly average, its 3D very ugly and its controls (which practically every company had to utilize every frickin' button for no apparent reason other than "they are there") were horrid. But it's Sony and people wanted to jump onto the bandwagon to play it like one jumps onto a fashion trend. The only thing they really contributed to the industry (other than a few good titles) was the reliance of separately purchased memory cards for game saves and the future forced purchase of the Dual Shock pads to get proper control for 3D games. I WILL give them a nod for making the Dual Shocks able to get power from the system rather than batteries, but that's all I'll give 'em.

[zmeston]

1) Dreamcast (I know others are gonna say the same). Dreamcast would come in and blow away the N64, making Nintendo work harder on their next machine, keep Sega in the hardware business and give the PS2 a bigger run for it's money (and maybe cause Sony not to use cheap parts on the Ps2 as well).

RE "cheap parts": STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. Ahem. As touched upon in other threads, there are many reasons for the perceived (and illusory) "higher" failure rate of PS2s: people treat them like crap, there are many more PS2s than Xboxes or GameCubes out there, and the people in thiis forum put many more hours of wear and tear on their PS2s (thus increasing the chance of hardware failure) than do casual/mainstream gamers.

Listen to Achika, who works retail and knows the reality better than any of us; she said the "defective" PS2s that come into her store are usually beat to hell.

Also, please give specifics as to which parts of the PS2 are "cheap," especially in comparison to the Xbox and GameCube.

For what it's worth, which is nothing: I've had a consumer PS2 since the 2000 launch, and a debug PS2 since early 2001, and I've logged untold hours on both of them without any problems. (The only console I've ever had die on me was the TurboGrafx-CD -- I had to order a replacement drive from TZD.)

A system I wish had succeeded: Any of the three involving the great R.J. Mical (Amiga, Lynx, 3DO).

A system I wish had failed: None. I'm a freelance weasel -- the more systems are out there, the more work I can scrounge up.

-- Z.

[ApolloBoy]

I wish the 7800 could've been more successful, but too bad Jack-Off Tramiel ruined it... > I dunno about the TG-16, the 3DO, and the Saturn because I don't like them.

[EnemyZero]

Id say I'd pick Sega Saturn to be successfull (without a doubt the best gaming console ever) ahem...yeah... sega has always been an innovative company, and games would be still based on fun compared to "wow graphics are amazing." I'd pick the playstation one to fail because then sega would still be around and dominating like nintendo like the old days.....when gaming was fun....

[ManekiNeko]

This won't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me, but here goes:

1. Dreamcast. This system deserved a chance and didn't get one, due in large part to Sega's tarnished reputation.
2. Playstation 2. This system was practically given the video game market on a silver platter without lifting a finger to get it. If it had to survive on the merit of its software (rather than the constant hype surrounding it), the Playstation 2 would have tanked big time.

JR

[Arqueologia_Digital]

1.) Would have to be the Sega Master System. With good 3rd party support, this system would have kicked ass. We would have seen the BEST in 8-bit gaming. Only thing is with such a successful 8-bit machine, Sega may not have released the Genesis as soon as they did (SNES) and that would be a shame.

Yeah!!!!

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

Success...well, maybe not success, but more of a question of mere existence beyond the proto stage: I would've liked to see the Odyssey 3 come out, perhaps with a little more technical innovation, to challenge the 5200 and Colecovision. Just to see what would've happened. Maybe NAP still would've folded its game division, who knows? But I'd have a few more Odyssey games to collect.

Failure...really can't say. I've never met a system I didn't like. If it plays games, and the games themselves aren't inherently sucky, buddy, I'm there.


Now here's a what-if...what if Atari had beaten Nintendo to the punch in terms of being licensing gatekeepers for what was released for their consoles? Would this have avoided the crash? I think it would've been interesting to throw the NES/Famicom pebble into a pond of a non-crash US video game market, just to see the ripples it would've caused. Who knows what would've happened?

You know, HERE'S an idea. Let's create a game based on the history of the video game industry. Really. I'm serious. A Simcity-style thing where you could be Nolan, or Ray Kassar, or Jack Tramiel, or Trip Hawkins, or Minoru Arakawa. A board of advisors and consultants gives you suggestions you can take or leave. You can drop the hammer and do Nintendo-style gatekeeping of game licensing, or open the floodgates like Atari and risk a flood of substandard titles. Set hardware prices ridiculously low and see if the software sales will save your ass. What do you think? Anyone wanna bite?

[LinkNZ]

You know depending on where you live the Master System was a pretty darn successful system. Some of you guys woulda liked living here during it's reign (heh yeah ok maybe not).

For me personally it's silly I know but I wish the Virtual Boy had done really well or at least not bombed, then maybe Gumpie Yokoi would still be with us today.

[nellwyn5]

This is my first real post in these forums. I was going to lurk for a while, but the question is too damn interesting. Anyways...

1) I wish the TG16 would have done better. With its poor marketing it never really had a chance in the US. I don't mean that I want to have it dominate, but maybe give it its equal part of the market share. Had it been successful, some very good series (Bonk, Legendary Axe, Millitary Madness) could have become much more respected in the gaming community. CD technology may also have caught on faster. Yeah, the Turbo had its share of bad FMV games, but maybe titles like Ys would have helped kickstart the CD market a little faster. Sega CD would certainly have been much better with competition. Imagine if N64 had had no choice but to go CD with market trends?

2) Easy question: GameBoy. I feel like hendheld technology never went anywhere (until the GBA) because the system from back in the past was pulling the strings. I never understood that. GameGear and the Lynx and even Wonderswan or NG Pocket were technologically much better, but couldn't keep up with the jauggernaught that was the GameBoy.

[ventrra]

1. If you could take one video game system from the past, that was not a successfull system, and you could ater History and make that system a huge hit, which would it be? Why? And if it was successful, how would the current video game landscape be altered?

Probably the Vectrex. Even today those vector graphics look pretty good and the games are fun to play. I'm not sure how much it would be altered from today, probably there would have been another (and better) incarnation of the Vectrex.

2. If you could take one video game system from the past, or even the present, that is a very successful system, and you could alter History or the Present and make it a complete failure, which one would it be? Why? And if you did make the system tank, how would it alter the current video game landscape?

I'm not sure I'd make any of them a failure as such, but I'd certainly opt for a more even playing field for the systems that wen't against the NES and SNES. I certainly wouldn't have objected if the SMS, T-16, and 7800 had all done better than they did in sales and games.

[petewhitley]

I'm gonna agree with those who've mentioned the Vectrex or even the Virtual Boy. These systems really attempted to present games in a manner unlike what was available at the time. Some of the games (particularly for the Virtual Boy) didn't quite cut it, but the system ideas were original and that kind of thinking needs to be fostered in the industry.

[Gamemaster_ca_2003]

You know, HERE'S an idea. Let's create a game based on the history of the video game industry. Really. I'm serious. A Simcity-style thing where you could be Nolan, or Ray Kassar, or Jack Tramiel, or Trip Hawkins, or Minoru Arakawa. A board of advisors and consultants gives you suggestions you can take or leave. You can drop the hammer and do Nintendo-style gatekeeping of game licensing, or open the floodgates like Atari and risk a flood of substandard titles. Set hardware prices ridiculously low and see if the software sales will save your ass. What do you think? Anyone wanna bite?

Sure i would go for that can anyone do it.

About the question

If i could make a system do better it would be both the SMS and 7800. not beating out nintendo but being just behind them so it would be a closer contest.

The other question i have no comment on.