Quantcast
What was the Greatest Launch Title of all Time?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What was the Greatest Launch Title of all Time?

What was the greatest launch title of all time?

Combat 0 0.00%
 
Super Mario Bros. 19 12.03%
 
Super Mario World 19 12.03%
 
Virtua Fighter (Saturn) 2 1.27%
 
Twisted Metal 2 1.27%
 
Super Mario 64 30 18.99%
 
Halo Combat Evolved 16 10.13%
 
Twilight Princess 3 1.90%
 
Breath of the Wild 62 39.24%
 
Other 5 3.16%
 
Total:158
curl-6 said:
Azuren said:

That doesn't make it groundbreaking, at very least not in the same realm as SM64 perfecting the 3D platformer genre.

Honestly, BotW hasn't done anything that other open world games haven't done at some point. Literally every element in BotW is present elsewhere. It's not revolutionary, it's just a masterpiece. Sometimes things don't have to be unique or "first" to be the best. Sometimes they just have to be well crafted.

Mario 64 wasn't the first 3D platformer. Halo wasn't the first console FPS. Mario Bros wasn't the first platformer. They just all took a new approach that made them work better than previous attempts. BOTW does the same. There had been open world games with some physics before, but none had ever incorporated such an organic unified system of physics and chemistry that allowed for exponential gameplay possibilities.

Mario 64 showed everyone a proper 3D platformer when Crash was still under the impression that a linear route was the only option.

Halo introduced the idea of regenerating health in FPS, something that literally every FPS does nowadays. Halo 2 also kicked online console shooters into the mainstream during a generation where not every platform even came with a modem.

Mario Bros just happened to do it correctly and in a format that everyone began to copy.

The difference here is BotW isn't being copied. It was the one that copied. No ground was broken, only perfected.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Mario 64 wasn't the first 3D platformer. Halo wasn't the first console FPS. Mario Bros wasn't the first platformer. They just all took a new approach that made them work better than previous attempts. BOTW does the same. There had been open world games with some physics before, but none had ever incorporated such an organic unified system of physics and chemistry that allowed for exponential gameplay possibilities.

Mario 64 showed everyone a proper 3D platformer when Crash was still under the impression that a linear route was the only option.

Halo introduced the idea of regenerating health in FPS, something that literally every FPS does nowadays. Halo 2 also kicked online console shooters into the mainstream during a generation where not every platform even came with a modem.

Mario Bros just happened to do it correctly and in a format that everyone began to copy.

The difference here is BotW isn't being copied. It was the one that copied. No ground was broken, only perfected.

Actually multiple games have borrowed from BOTW, but that's beside the point. Even if nobody tried to copy it, that wouldn't change the fact that it did new things.



curl-6 said:
Azuren said:

Mario 64 showed everyone a proper 3D platformer when Crash was still under the impression that a linear route was the only option.

Halo introduced the idea of regenerating health in FPS, something that literally every FPS does nowadays. Halo 2 also kicked online console shooters into the mainstream during a generation where not every platform even came with a modem.

Mario Bros just happened to do it correctly and in a format that everyone began to copy.

The difference here is BotW isn't being copied. It was the one that copied. No ground was broken, only perfected.

Actually multiple games have borrowed from BOTW, but that's beside the point. Even if nobody tried to copy it, that wouldn't change the fact that it did new things.

What did it do that was new? 



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Actually multiple games have borrowed from BOTW, but that's beside the point. Even if nobody tried to copy it, that wouldn't change the fact that it did new things.

What did it do that was new? 

I've already answered that; an organic and unified system of physics and chemistry allowing for exponential gameplay possibilities.



curl-6 said:

I feel like there's something people are overlooking with BOTW; it was the first time that a complex, HD/AAA open world game was playable on a handheld. That in itself is a pretty significant breakthrough for gaming.

Was it really that different from bringing e.g. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation and Borderlands 2 to Vita?



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
HoloDust said:

Not really - ZX and C64 were kings of gaming in Europe in 80s, NES did start to seriously chip away that market, but I'd say that SEGA Mega Drive and SNES were what brought computer gaming to its knees in late 80s/early 90s...at least until PCs regained some of that lost ground later on.

NES didn't release in Europe until mid to late 80s with the earliest releases being in late 1986 with some countries having to wait until 1988 it's the platform that triggered computer gaming to struggle the late release in Europe was why computer gaming had a good stint as the were no active consoles around before NES after the crash it's only really in the UK where computer gaming continued to put up a fight.

It still didn't kill the gaming computer at all. After all, around the same time came the Amiga and Atari ST, and PC got more and more turned to gaming by getting EGA and then VGA graphics cards. Even Apple tried to woo gamers at the time. Germany and France for instance continued gaming on those machines and others (Amstrad/Schneider CPC, anyone?), and the tradition of computer gaming has survived to this day, especially in mainland Europe where PC gaming is still considered very big.

What it did, was bring in a new type of competition. But the NES (or consoles in general) had no chance at all to kill the PC gaming market of the time since they couldn't compete with the prices that were usual on PC outside of big boxes, especially cassette games were dirt cheap (10$ would have been considered expensive for those back then). Also, the PC had genres the consoles didn't have, or not in that form or size, like managerial games and adventures, both which got bigger and bigger in the late 80's and early 90's.

On topic: Where's Tetris???

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 09 July 2019

Azuren said:
curl-6 said:

Actually multiple games have borrowed from BOTW, but that's beside the point. Even if nobody tried to copy it, that wouldn't change the fact that it did new things.

What did it do that was new? 

The physics engine is pretty unique.  Link is pretty much only held back by the player's imagination.  Google some videos, it is crazy the amount of things the physics engine allows the player to do.  

I would also argue the Switch in general allowed BotW to be groundbreaking.  It was the first time that seamless gameplay could occur between the home and on the road.  While maintaining graphics, cutting edge for the mobile scene.  



Bofferbrauer2 said:

It still didn't kill the gaming computer at all. After all, around the same time came the Amiga and Atari ST, and PC got more and more turned to gaming by getting EGA and then VGA graphics cards. Even Apple tried to woo gamers at the time. Germany and France for instance continued gaming on those machines and others (Amstrad/Schneider CPC, anyone?), and the tradition of computer gaming has survived to this day, especially in mainland Europe where PC gaming is still considered very big.

What it did, was bring in a new type of competition. But the NES (or consoles in general) had no chance at all to kill the PC gaming market of the time since they couldn't compete with the prices that were usual on PC outside of big boxes, especially cassette games were dirt cheap (10$ would have been considered expensive for those back then). Also, the PC had genres the consoles didn't have, or not in that form or size, like managerial games and adventures, both which got bigger and bigger in the late 80's and early 90's.

On topic: Where's Tetris???

The performances of the gaming market say otherwise as both NES and SMS chipped away at the computer market to the point that the SNES and Genesis outright ended that era until PCs took over, cassette games were dirt cheap but non of those games were anything like SMB, Sonic etc... which consoles were being driven by it was a complete shift in the market that ended with the likes of the old guard going under as they couldn't compete with the new consoles. To give you an example the Amstrad CPC sold 3m compared to the 6m of SMS and 8m of the NES highlighting my point as consoles at the time of the release of these devices were dead yet the home computers were beaten out in the end.



Replicant said:
curl-6 said:

I feel like there's something people are overlooking with BOTW; it was the first time that a complex, HD/AAA open world game was playable on a handheld. That in itself is a pretty significant breakthrough for gaming.

Was it really that different from bringing e.g. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation and Borderlands 2 to Vita?

Those were valiant efforts for their time and hardware, but ultimately I'd say they were unsuccessful experiments that tried but failed to translate the AAA open world experience to a handheld. Liberation was quite restricted and cut back compared to its big brothers on PS3/360 yet still ran poorly, and Borderlands 2 on Vita was basically an unplayable slideshow. Compared to BOTW I'd say its a lot like how Mario 64 compares to previous failed attempts at bringing platforming into the third dimension.

Last edited by curl-6 - 6 days ago

Wyrdness said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

It still didn't kill the gaming computer at all. After all, around the same time came the Amiga and Atari ST, and PC got more and more turned to gaming by getting EGA and then VGA graphics cards. Even Apple tried to woo gamers at the time. Germany and France for instance continued gaming on those machines and others (Amstrad/Schneider CPC, anyone?), and the tradition of computer gaming has survived to this day, especially in mainland Europe where PC gaming is still considered very big.

What it did, was bring in a new type of competition. But the NES (or consoles in general) had no chance at all to kill the PC gaming market of the time since they couldn't compete with the prices that were usual on PC outside of big boxes, especially cassette games were dirt cheap (10$ would have been considered expensive for those back then). Also, the PC had genres the consoles didn't have, or not in that form or size, like managerial games and adventures, both which got bigger and bigger in the late 80's and early 90's.

On topic: Where's Tetris???

The performances of the gaming market say otherwise as both NES and SMS chipped away at the computer market to the point that the SNES and Genesis outright ended that era until PCs took over, cassette games were dirt cheap but non of those games were anything like SMB, Sonic etc... which consoles were being driven by it was a complete shift in the market that ended with the likes of the old guard going under as they couldn't compete with the new consoles. To give you an example the Amstrad CPC sold 3m compared to the 6m of SMS and 8m of the NES highlighting my point as consoles at the time of the release of these devices were dead yet the home computers were beaten out in the end.

What performances?

Just to make it clear, it wasn't the SNES and Genesis Megadrive! that killed the other computers, the PC itself did. Intel kept pushing the X86 further and further and after IBM stopped caring, other companies started to create their own graphics cards. Both ensured that no competitor in the computer market could keep up with the PC. Commodore went under, Atari tried to realign itself onto consoles with the "success" we know. Apple became a niche product for graphics and audio later on, but during the late 80's and early 90's, they actively tried to get computer gaming on the MacIntosh going strong like it did early on the Apple ][, but never got that known for that domain. However, none of this was the console's doing.

I gave the Amstrad as an example of computers other than PC or Apple of the time. But hey, 14M consoles sold better than 3M Amstrad, so consoles killed computer gaming, yay. Sorry, but that's patently false. Since you added up those two consoles (and I'll round it up to 15M with PC Engine and Atari 7800 sales), I'll do a similar thing with computers, with their sales during the lifetime of the third Gen, so 1985 to 1994, cutting off the sales before 1985:

Amstrad: 3M

Amiga: 5M

Atari ST: 2M

MacIntosh: 16M

Apple ][: 3M

PC: 158M

C64: 13M

Granted, those numbers are worldwide numbers, but only Apple computers and PC really were popular in the US. A part of those computers were used for professional reasons, especially with the MacIntosh and the PC. But if even just 10% of the PCs were used for gaming in Europe, which is a realistic number since Europe was the main PC market at the time, then those alone outsold the 3rd Gen consoles of the same timeframe.