Random Gaming Thoughts

[marurun]

The Super Nintendo had SOME of that kiddy image, but it was mostly because of Sega's marketing. Sega was so forcefully pushing themselves as the cool option and Nintendo as the lame, kiddy option. Some of that sorta stuck around in the background and occasionally reared its head.

[CRTGAMER]

Going back to the roots of the Nintendo Sega rivalry, definitely different marketing strategy. Nintendo had the Mario "kiddy" game stigma vs the loud "SEGA" callout pushing a console aimed at teens. Both of course have a great mix of games aimed at different age groups. Even today, I think most still correlate Nintendo with Mario, Yoshi and Kirby "Kawaii Cutesy" which is not a bad thing since the primary mascots also connect as great games. Compare this to XBox and Playstation both today which have lesser known mascots. The biggest "mascot" recognition that hits me for Microsoft and Sony consoles are the console logos!

Looking today, all three companies have grown; appear to aim the market primarily to a grownup crowd?

[Segata]

The funny thing had SNES had the PLAY IT LOUD edgy marketing. Even a commercial ripping off Monty Python Meaning of Life where the guy eats too much and explodes. N64 era also had the now infamous Smash Bros commercial. They had Nintendo power ads with toenails in a jar. Gamecube they had more adult ads like with emo people in cubes floating or the basketball bouncing in the glass cube. esp with the now famous Metroid Prime ad. DS had the touching is good ads. Wii is where Nintendo took a family-friendly approach and later DS ads. That continued with Wii U and 3DS. Now with Switch it's back to marketing to young adults. So aside from the Wii era, Nintendo's advertising was rarely kiddy. So it's kind of weird how yes their games like Mario were labeled as kiddy but I still see people saying their ads are kiddy but Nintendo's ads have been mostly for older audiences.

[nullPointer]

I was in college during the heyday of PS1 and N64. Here's my observation of how things went in the dorms. For those that were into single player experiences, PS1 ruled the roost. If someone was just hanging out in their dorm room playing games to wind down, burn off steam, or whatever, the overwhelming probability is that they were playing PS1. If someone were gaming as part of a social gathering, it was N64 almost every single time. Most weekends someone would set up an N64 in the student lounge or common area on our dorm floor, and in the overwhelming number of cases it was running either Goldeneye or Mario Kart 64. I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but at least in my college experience this dichotomy was almost iron clad. PS1 was the 'dorm room console', N64 was the 'social gathering console'.

So at least for me this did contribute to a notion that the PS1 was the real 'gamer's console'. This was the system for people who were 'serious about games'. N64 was totally fun in social settings, but it was (seemingly) targeted at mass market (dare I say casual!? ) appeal rather than at 'hardcore gamers'. And of course Nintendo had some great exclusives, but also realize that at this time PS1 had an incredible marketing momentum as the new kid on the block. In many ways I think PS1 felt like 'where gaming was headed' whereas N64 felt a bit like 'where gaming had been'. This is all anecdotal observation of course, and I'm sure everyone's slant will be a little different depending on their age at the time, location, etc. Heck, susceptibility to marketing probably plays a role as well, because whether or not PS1 really was the 'more mature' system, it was definitely marketed that way.

... Then you had oddballs like me ferreted away in their dorm rooms still plinking away at NES games, deeply suspicious of this new '3D gaming craze' ("But where's the actual gameplay!?" )

Even to this day I can count the number of Sega Saturns I've experienced in the wild on one(?) hand. So at least for me it's not that Saturn was viewed as an underpowered or outcast console; it was virtually non-existent.

[BoneSnapDeez]

As someone who started to get Nintendo Power issues in '89, I feel like the "kiddy" image was always there. In the marketing campaigns and magazine, rather than in the game contents, that is.

[RCBH928]

However, and I think this is a big point that people miss in the PS1's success - the PS1 was also the most popular console with kids. That's partly due to games like Crash Bandicoot and the likes, but, and this is a massively overlooked point - it was also the cheapest.

I know games were cheaper than the cartridge based 64s, but I am surprised they were cheaper than Saturn given both are CD based. I also expected the PSX to be more expensive than the 64. I just thought in 1995 CD technology was more expensive than cartridge, also I believe the tech used in PSX is more advanced than the 64 but I could be wrong.

It definitely had a retroactive effect that hit the Nintendo 64, but during its life, it was absolutely loved and it was because of those wrestling games, goldeneye and and the Mario's and banjo kazooies. It won in people's eyes because of its four player abilities... which is all the more confusing as to why the GameCube got a bad rap.

I have to comment that in the 64 era, 3D platforms although cartoony was not "kid" targeted. A 3D platerformer in 1997 was amazing even for adults coming from the 16-bit world. I believe Crash bandicoot was equally played by adults on PSX and it was popular too. By PS2 era perspective have probably changed and games were expected to be more serious.

I feel the "kiddy" image of Nintendo is a bit overstated. From what I've gathered it's a mindset that was common in the United States but not as common elsewhere.

I think that was mostly because it was tied to the look and feel of the NGC hardware which was more like a toy compared to the XBOX and PS2 which had the "serious" look. Looking at the NGC library its not kiddy given MGS, RE4, Killer 7, Eternal Darkness, Metroid.

The Super Nintendo had SOME of that kiddy image, but it was mostly because of Sega's marketing. Sega was so forcefully pushing themselves as the cool option and Nintendo as the lame, kiddy option. Some of that sorta stuck around in the background and occasionally reared its head.

Looking back at it I can see why with Sega's more "edgy" releases, but back then I really could't see why Sega was the more "adult" console. I believe the SNES had the bigger library, usually most games released on both consoles, I can be wrong but usually the SNES release would be the better version. I think SNES was more capable graphically, am I right?

Now with Switch it's back to marketing to young adults. .

With the Nintendo LABO, I am not too sure about this. Although I think the idea is totally genius given how it converts videogames from sitting and and staring at a screen to a physical interaction which many parents would like for their children. Its more like Lego now.

[ElkinFencer10]

Switch markets to everyone.

[RCBH928]

Even to this day I can count the number of Sega Saturns I've experienced in the wild on one(?) hand. So at least for me it's not that Saturn was viewed as an underpowered or outcast console; it was virtually non-existent.

This is an unfair comparison, but by the end of the Saturn's lifetime there were just as many of them as there are Switches today. Not sure if rare, but maybe they were all in Japan. The many big releases for Saturn surely made it sound like developers were selling enough copiesto continue development. Guardian Heroes, Tomb Raider, RE, Symphony of the NIght, Rayman, and Street Fighter are just some of them

[marurun]

However, and I think this is a big point that people miss in the PS1's success - the PS1 was also the most popular console with kids. That's partly due to games like Crash Bandicoot and the likes, but, and this is a massively overlooked point - it was also the cheapest.

I know games were cheaper than the cartridge based 64s, but I am surprised they were cheaper than Saturn given both are CD based. I also expected the PSX to be more expensive than the 64. I just thought in 1995 CD technology was more expensive than cartridge, also I believe the tech used in PSX is more advanced than the 64 but I could be wrong.

You are wrong. CD drives had been in production for years and were getting cheaper all the time. CD production itself was also fairly affordable. The high cost of CDs in US music stores was due in part to market collusion (the big music publishers were successfully sued and settled over the issue). ROM chips large enough to store modern 3D games were pricey. The various CPUs and chips in the consoles were more expensive to produce (being largely custom) than the CD drives (which were often standard parts).

As to the 3D hardware. the PSX uses simpler, lower-accuracy computations to process polygons and has fewer 3D capabilities when it comes to post-processing. The N64 has much greater mathematical accuracy, more modern 3D processing, etc... The N64's disadvantages against the Playstation have more to do with fundamental compromises in the design of the 3D hardware, such as tiny textures, difficult to program CPU and GPU architectures, and the limitations of cartridge hardware vis-a-vis ROM sizes and compression at the time. Sony's 3D output from the Playstaion tends to look grainy, textures wobble, and polygons snap in and out of place, making most PS1 3D games look a little unstable around the edges. N64 games typically don't have this. PS1 games do tend to use a lot more texturing, despite that they often look grainy and warped, and the PS1, by virtue of using lower-accuracy math, can manage hitting 60 fps and displaying more polygons a bit more easily than the N64. The N64, meanwhile, often has blurry and filtered textures, due to how compressed they are, but 3D objects tend to be very seamless and stable. Remember, numbers of polygons isn't an indication of being complex or advanced. Sony sacrificed a lot to get those numbers, whereas Nintendo sacrificed numbers and textures a bit to get a more modern 3D core. Compare the earliest PS1 3D games to the earliest N64 3D games and I think you'll see a notable difference in quality, polygon counts, and overall 3D stability.

The Super Nintendo had SOME of that kiddy image, but it was mostly because of Sega's marketing. Sega was so forcefully pushing themselves as the cool option and Nintendo as the lame, kiddy option. Some of that sorta stuck around in the background and occasionally reared its head.

Looking back at it I can see why with Sega's more "edgy" releases, but back then I really could't see why Sega was the more "adult" console. I believe the SNES had the bigger library, usually most games released on both consoles, I can be wrong but usually the SNES release would be the better version. I think SNES was more capable graphically, am I right?

Not necessarily. Remember, Nintendo had a history of censoring going back all the way to the NES (with a couple bizarre exceptions, like the end of Bionic Commando). Sega did a little censoring, too, but wasn't nearly as aggressive and obvious about it. When Mortal Kombat was first released on SNES and Genesis, the Genesis version had red blood and the SNES version had "sweat" blobs instead, because Nintendo thought it was too violent. The Genesis version outsold the SNES version and was considered superior. Sega also had a burgeoning arcade business, and arcade games were more aggressive, generally, and seen as more for older kids, where as Nintendo's console-only offerings were often seen as being for younger kids, even if this view was oft mistaken. Nintendo always explicitly considered their consoles family-friendly, whereas Sega didn't, necessarily.

As for whether the SNES or Genesis did better versions of games, that's entirely up to the company doing the developing. It's often something of a toss-up as to whether the SNES or Genesis version of a game is better. And while the SNES had some graphical advantages over the Genesis, especially where special effects and color counts were concerned, the Genesis had more easily-tapped horsepower under the hood and more flexibility with sprites and backgrounds, not to mention that many Genesis games were higher resolution than most SNES games (320x240 vs 256x256). The SNES was ultimately capable of more attractive and colorful images, but in terms of fast-moving games in-motion, the Genesis was, IMO, able to rival the SNES in terms of overall presentation.

[Segata]

Even to this day I can count the number of Sega Saturns I've experienced in the wild on one(?) hand. So at least for me it's not that Saturn was viewed as an underpowered or outcast console; it was virtually non-existent.

This is an unfair comparison, but by the end of the Saturn's lifetime there were just as many of them as there are Switches today. Not sure if rare, but maybe they were all in Japan. The many big releases for Saturn surely made it sound like developers were selling enough copiesto continue development. Guardian Heroes, Tomb Raider, RE, Symphony of the NIght, Rayman, and Street Fighter are just some of them

Nope. More Switches out there than Saturns. 14.86 million NS sold. Saturn was just over 9 million. Wii U sold more than Saturn and Dreamcast. Vita has even sold more. SS and DC were outsold by SMS and even TG16. The only thing that saved Saturn as we know is Japan where it sold over 5 million of it's 9 million units.