16-Bit: Yae or Nay?

[Aswald]

Back in the very early 1990s, just before the emergence of the CD-ROM systems (remember the infomercials?), there were some asking whether or not the 16-Bit consoles were even worth it.

The basis for this argument, besides selling more magazines, seemed to be the apparent fact that the 16-Bit revolution didn't really do anything that the 8-Bit systems (NES and SMS) didn't already do, nearly as well.

Such a debate might've looked like this:

Nay- ...really, now! What exactly do the 16-Bits do that the 8-Bits haven't already done, and nearly as well? Is the Sword of Vermillion (Genesis) really that much better than Dungeon Magic (NES)? And what did we get from the 16-Bits? Platformers. Driving games. Fighting Games. Side and overhead scrollers. Ever hear of R-Type? Lifeforce? Super Mario Bros. 3 or Star Wars? Been there, done that. It wasn't until Mario-64 and Spyro the Dragon that something new and that the earlier systems couldn't've handled came out, and that included the 16-Bitters as much as the 8-Bitters.

Yae- Are you kidding? One could just as easily say what did the CV or 5200 do that the 2600 hadn't already done. Same thing.

Nay- Not quite. The very-early 1980s saw a tremendous jump in arcade game quality and variety; in a few years we went from crude Pong-Style games to Zaxxon, Tempest, Donkey Kong, Gorf, and others. The 1970s-era systems couldn't do effective translations of these new games. Only the third-generation systems could. Not to mention RPGs. But you have to remember that when the 2600 came out, we were still in a sort of Pong-era; the early 1980s gave us something entirely new. Again, what did the 16-Bit era give us that was actually new?

Yae- You seem to be thinking that the technological jump occurred only around 1980. There was a second one; one in the latter half of the 1980s. The vast amounts of memory and the sound and graphics of those arcade games were such that even the SMS couldn't handle it- remember SMS Thunderblade?
Even if we concede that the 16-Bit era consisted only of souped-up versions of earlier game styles, you have to remember that the ARCADE scene was largely like that, too, and people wanted systems that could handle all of those extra "bells and whistles."
The 2600 had a good version of Ms. Pac Man, that pretty much played like the arcade original, but people wanted the superior-looking and sounding 5200 version. And how many people who owned CVs weren't drawn to it by the version of Ladybug that only the CV could've handled?

Nay- But the 5200 and Cv were light-years ahead of the early systems; the first "true" powerful systems. The games the 2600 at its best could do could in no way compare to Spy Hunter, Fortune Builder, Lord of the Dungeon, Countermeasures, or even Qix.
In other words, the difference between the CV and 5200 and the earlier systems were tremendous; the same cannot be said between the NES, SMS, and the 16-Bitters. There were games that the CV and 5200 could do that the 2600 couldn't possibly do; again, the sort of games the 16-Bitters did were the same, only souped-up some, that the 8-Bits did.

Yae- Oh, come on, you're starting to sound like that nutty old fossil Aswald, who says that the MSX games (e.g. Nemesis 3) prove that by adding memory to ColecoVision games, we would never have REALLY needed the NES and SMS you keep boasting about, if not for the Crash of 1984. Graphics, memory, and sound are as important to players as the actual mechanics, and only the 16-Bitters at the time could handle them.

You get the idea. What do you think- 16-Bit; yae or nay? I myself am pretty much neutral on this one.

[Captain Wrong]

lol! I think you covered the entire arguement in your post!

Personally I love the 16bit era. But I can see both sides of the arguement.

[TheTallMan]

Sir, what is "yae"?

[Tritoch]

YAE!

Sure it was largely the same types of genres, but the advances were remarkable. Nothing even close to Final Fantasy III could've been done on an 8-bit console and delivered a story with such passion and artistry (like the Opera scene). Beyond that, the extra controller buttons opened up many advances in almost every genre that couldn't have even been dreamed of before.

[Raccoon Lad]

16-bit gave us LOTS more on screen colors!

Plus, the games that suffered from slow-down and flicker on the 8-bit consoles ceased to have those problems.

Sure, it wasn't a huge leap ahead in gameplay, but with 16-bit, we got games that looked better, sounded better, and sometimes even played better.

[kainemaxwell]

16-bit also continued great game francises such as Super mario and Finfal Fantasy and started new game franchieses such as Sonic and the Chrono series.

[omnedon]

The IntelliVision was 16 bit.

That is all.

[IGotTheDot]

Seems like the more bits you have to work with, the more you can try to let graphics carry the game. I am not saying that there are not fun games these days, but when you could not wow them with graphics, you had to concentrate on gameplay.

My2cents

[Aswald]

Yae was right about one thing- had games such as Nemesis 3 come out on the CV, along with other such memory-enhanced games, I never would've even looked at the 7800, NES, or SMS. Why? Because the gameplay would've been just as good, and the graphics fairly close; certainly good by themselves. No doubt, others felt the same way, most likely with an NES. Lifeforce!

But this doesn't matter. What set Japanese videogaming companies apart from their American equivalents was the fact that they did not rely on the opinions of know-nothing "experts" and marketers- they observed consumer and market trends, and responded appropriately.

The first half of the 1980s was marked by originality. Side and overhead scrollers (Xevious, Scramble, Cosmic Avenger, Jump Bug, etc.), fighting games, Qix, Dig Dug/Mr. Do!, Boulder Dash, Joust, Tempest, Major Havoc, Q*Bert, etc.....that point in time saw virtually every genre of game known today.
The latter half of the 1980s, for the most part, merely repeated what had come before, but with greatly enhanced graphics and sound. That was the nature of arcades at this point. A good thing? Maybe not, but, it was the reality of the time, and something was needed that could handle that reality. Hence, the 16-Bit consoles. As Raccoon Lad pointed out, they and they alone could handle the problems of size, colors, slow-down, memory, etc.. Any system, from the CV onward, could have done the SORT of games produced at that time, but not the "bells and whistles," and since that was what marked that point in videogaming, that's what consoles had to be able to handle. Note that the few original games, such as Tetris and Ramparts, could've been done on any system from the third generation up (e.g. Kevtris on the CV), probably even on the Intellivision, and NES Klax always struck me as what a CV version, if programmed by a skilled programmer with some added memory to work with, would've nearly looked like.

So, ultimately, Yae or Nay seems to depend on whether or not you wanted those expanded abilities, and this might have been the question many NES owners asked themselves around 1990. If they did, they bought a 16-Bitter; if not, well, that might help explain why the NES continued to do well for a few more years into the 16-Bit Era.

[Tempest]

Is the Sword of Vermillion (Genesis) really that much better than Dungeon Magic (NES)?

Dear God Yes!

Tempest

[YoshiM]

I would say Yae. The arcades were still drawing significant crowds and still maintained some sort of "variety" (of course, they were fighting games, side scrollers, beat-em ups, and such but still was more variety than the gun toting, race driving, redemption laden arcades of today). Those games were looking better, sounding better. The 8 bit systems could not keep up even with added memory, special chips, and what not. Like in Aswald's first post, the console industry followed the times. Console gaming evolved into stereo sound, more buttons, and more power for the developers to work with. And I'm glad they did.

[nesman85]

i would go with: YAY!

[geelw]

it's "YEA"...by the way. and yes, 16-"bit" was/is a necessary evolutionary step in the game creation process. while it brought gamers some excellent titles, a great deal of it was hype- 2 and a half companies slugging it out for your dollar with ad agencies and too-loud commercials for too many years. sega fell hard into the technology trap, and kept producing add-ons with no real lasting value, while nintendo was creating vaporware and bad feelings which begat sony's current rise to power. modern consoles now don't rely on "bits" or any real number when it really comes down to what matters- the games...=^P

[YoshiM]

modern consoles now don't rely on "bits" or any real number when it really comes down to what matters- the games...=^P

While I agree that it's the games that truely count, the marketing engine of the consoles now rely on power, polygon pushing ability, bump mapping statistics, and how pretty the games look. It works: look at past posts on IGN messageboards, or even Gamespy and you'll see people rooting for their new favorite console whose specs were dreamed up and written on a cocktail napkin. It's still the same as the "bit" wars were, but now it's just gotten as technical as car specs.

[geelw]

modern consoles now don't rely on "bits" or any real number when it really comes down to what matters- the games...=^P

While I agree that it's the games that truely count, the marketing engine of the consoles now rely on power, polygon pushing ability, bump mapping statistics, and how pretty the games look. It works: look at past posts on IGN messageboards, or even Gamespy and you'll see people rooting for their new favorite console whose specs were dreamed up and written on a cocktail napkin. It's still the same as the "bit" wars were, but now it's just gotten as technical as car specs.

true that, BUT (and this is a BIG but, lol)- most newer gamers out there (the ones usually targeted by all those ads) don't know what all that crap means. i read some of those posts and laugh. what will absolutely KILL any system is too many really good-looking shitty games. period. the official xbox mag goes on about "this game has bump-mapping AND pixel shaders- nyah hah, ps2 owners!" or "lookit kids: specular highlights! dolby 9.0!, FUR SHADING!" my point is- who cares if the games are crap! crash bandicoot was crap on the ps2, better looking crap on the xbox, and blurry crap on the game cube. sneakers (godawful game) has great-looking mice (fur shaded!), but the game BLOWS. shrek had bump maps up the ass, lovely visuals and sound and ZERO fun. et cetera, and so forth and so on. there are what, 400 ps2 games, and about 85-100 crap games. 120 or so xbox games and about 40 or so are horrible. game cube, lessee now...i dunno how many games are out, but the good ones you can count on your fingers and toes (and add a friend for a few more, making the total about 25-30 worth buying)... actually, i think nintendo has done the least bragging about specs and such, probably because not all the games take advantage of all the systems features (all those simplistic-looking kiddie games and enhanced n64 ports- j/k)

i used to work in a game shop, and maybe 2% of the customers had an inkling of what specs meant. i even wrote up and printed a spec sheet for customers and they were still confused. it all boiled down to (actual quotes): "well, the xbox is more powerful, so it's supposed to be better", but "the ps2 has more good games because it's sony", and the game cube "sucks because the discs are too small (they don't have enough game on them)", and nintendo "only makes kiddie games anyway." argh...