And for this part of the discussion, I am going from
news articles I read and kept in memory. Correct me
if I'm wrong, everyone else does. ;-)
> I don't know much about the 32X. I do know it was
> designed hastily as a stopgap measure to the "real"
> next generation. A bad business move on Sega's
part:
> the planned obsolescence of it.
>From what I read, you scored a bullseye. Consumers
wondered why they should spend the money on a 32X when
the Saturn was less than a year away (I think it was 9
monhts). I am a dyed-in-the-wool Sega-phile. I have
almost all the 2600 games except Up'N Down, and every
system except the Game Gear. From my perspective,
Sega wasn't coming out with anything that set the
world on fire; it was more like they were killing
time. (Not to turn this into a plug, but) I have a
web site that features a list of 32X games that I have
and reviews and, aside from "Shadow Squadron" and
"Metal Head," there really wasn't that couldn't be
done on the regular Genny, making the whole project
seem kind of "What's the point?"
> Nintendo got a lot of criticism but ultimately did
> the right thing in extending the SNES while the N64
> was late arriving on the scene.
I'm not sure if Nintendo just didn't want to give up,
or if the designers were actually committed to
continuing to make new games for the SNES, but you are
right. When everyone gave up on the Genny after some
interesting (The Ooze), innovative (Comix Zone), or
just plain solid games (Vectorman), the SNES still had
people trying to make new games for it. The effort
was there, and people lucked out with it.
> I guess you could see the 32X as related to the
> Starpath Supercharger, but
> I don't think the Supercharger came close to the
> pricepoint of the 32X.
I don't think it's fair to compare those two,
actually. I remember seeing the ads and reviews of
the Supercharger when it first came out, and I can
think of two major differences.
1) The Supercharger was not advertised as something
it was not. Videogames (edited by the immortal Chris
Gore) interviewed (I think) Bernie Stoffal at Sega
after the fall of the 32X, and he flat out stated that
with the 32X, "We overpromised and underdelivered."
The 32X was supposed to be the next great step up, but
it was more smoke and mirrors than anything. The
Supercharger was, as I recall, marketed as a snazzy
device to snap gamers out of their funks. Which ties
into difference #2.
2) The Supercharger had people actually trying to
make games for it. You know, the kinds of games
people like to play, share with friends, and spread
the word about. The 32X was planned to be obsolete
(and if I remember correctly, Sega of America wanted
the 32X, Sega of Japan didn't but went along because
the Genny was actually successful in America.
Supposedly, SoA had designers take time off of Saturn
games to work on launch titles for the 32X, and that
is why the first wave of Saturn titles, like VF and
Daytona USA weren't exactly the showpieces people were
hoping for), with titles made more to get people to
buy stuff than to actually provide a gaming
experience. Which is a lesson I feel is lost on many
game designers today. As simplistic as they were,
many Atari games provide more wow, more bang for your
buck, more of an experience than a lot of today's
titles. As flashy as Galaxian 3 is with it's
double-wide screen and sound system, I still prefer
pumping quarters in a classic Galaga. (May all us
aspiring game makers heed this thought.)
> it was more like buying a whole new system vs. a
> cartridge. The 32X was what, $99 or something?
Very close. I think it launched at either $159
(possible, told to me by others) or $129 (what I saw,
and more probable). What's more, the first units had
no pack-in. So you could still play your old Genny
stuff, but if you wanted to show off what it could do,
you had to cough up another $60 for Doom or Star Wars
(which I believe were the only two games available at
launch).
By the way, my 32X cost me $20 from the toy
store's close-out section, with the games $10-20. And
as much as I love Shadow Squadron, the thought of
(conservative guess) $190 plus tax for the game made
me sigh with relief. Most of the games I have I got
on the cheap, and I have well over half of them. But
not a single one at full price.
> I like hardware enhancements to consoles, when they
> are done right. The memory expansion on the N64
> comes to mind as a modern example.
I'm leery of expanding games. In my experience, most
people buy game consoles to plug in and play. The
computer keeps me busy with system requirements. My
N64, for example, now has the memory expander because
one game won't play without it and others need it for
the multi-player modes. I love add-ons, too (the 32X
could have been a great concept had they handled it
better), but I'm just not sure about them from a
consumer standpoint. Some hardware enhancements, like
light guns, the video robot, or that "pad" for the NES
seem a bit...I don't know. "Hard sell" is the only
phrase that comes to mind.
> I think consoles need to become more expandable, but
> in a very careful
> manner.
Sorry. I just typed all that above, and just noticed
this. I agree whole-heartedly. Backwards
compatability helps. It made the Genny an easier sell
as a Christmas gift with my Master System.
Dobre utka,
Pete Holland Jr.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
