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. 20 12.20%
 
Super Mario World 19 11.59%
 
Virtua Fighter (Saturn) 2 1.22%
 
Twisted Metal 2 1.22%
 
Super Mario 64 32 19.51%
 
Halo Combat Evolved 16 9.76%
 
Twilight Princess 3 1.83%
 
Breath of the Wild 64 39.02%
 
Other 6 3.66%
 
Total:164
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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.

What you've posted here doesn't debunk what I've said in fact it further highlights it as look at the numbers for a start outside of the C64 the home computers were outperformed by the new consoles in Europe and this was a time when they were meant to be on top in fact your WW numbers show that the console numbers in Europe were significantly higher than the HC's WW numbers if we go by WW numbers than it further shows what I've said. This is why Atari tried to realign with consoles because their time had come to an end and it took until the late 90s for PCs to reinstate that side of the market but they were still being dominated by consoles as gaming goes it's only later on in 00s when the market found itself as a mainstay again.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Replicant said:

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.

I still don't see how Breath of the Wild on Switch is that different from e.g. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation on Vita in terms of bringing open world games to handheld platforms.

I'm sure there will be handheld open world games that are more expansive and run better than Breath of the Wild in the future. It's the natural and continuous development and refinement of games.



Replicant said:
curl-6 said:

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.

I still don't see how Breath of the Wild on Switch is that different from e.g. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation on Vita in terms of bringing open world games to handheld platforms.

I'm sure there will be handheld open world games that are more expansive and run better than Breath of the Wild in the future. It's the natural and continuous development and refinement of games.

Basically, I feel Liberation fails to deliver on the AAA open world experience it aspires to as it feels cut down and runs very poorly. Liberation feels compromised; BOTW does not.



Wyrdness said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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.

What you've posted here doesn't debunk what I've said in fact it further highlights it as look at the numbers for a start outside of the C64 the home computers were outperformed by the new consoles in Europe and this was a time when they were meant to be on top in fact your WW numbers show that the console numbers in Europe were significantly higher than the HC's WW numbers if we go by WW numbers than it further shows what I've said. This is why Atari tried to realign with consoles because their time had come to an end and it took until the late 90s for PCs to reinstate that side of the market but they were still being dominated by consoles as gaming goes it's only later on in 00s when the market found itself as a mainstay again.

I showed WW numbers because I couldn't find European-only numbers in most cases. The Amiga stands at 4.2M in Europe only, the Amstrad is almost all European numbers, same for the Atari ST. That's already 9M just for those 3 platforms in Europe. While that's less than 14M, they are just a part from the European market. A small part, I might add.

Atari tried to realign to consoles because the Atari ST flopped compared to the main competitor, the Amiga - just look at the sales numbers I provided. Plus, it was very frontloaded (half of it's sales were done by 1988 while the Amiga peaked in 1991). It just couldn't keep up with the competition in the computer field. What's more, the ST was bleeding money. They tried to address this with the Falcon, but when it failed, they axed the entire Computer line in favor of the Jaguar, hoping it would have worldwide appeal, not just in Europe.

Also, if the Consoles would have killed the computers, then why did Atari kill it's 7800 successor, the Atari Panther, planned to release in 1991, early in development, resulting them to leave the console market for 2 years after they pulled the 7800 in 1992?

Your conclusion is just biased and slanted. I could prove just as well that consoles were a flop by comparing Amiga sales in Europe to PC their Engine sales and declare that consoles couldn't catch on in Europe. Out of those 158M

Finally, PC sales exploded in the early 90's. Out of those 158M, over 60 were just from 1993-1994, at a time when most companies already had computers. Why? Well, because some little game called Doom, that's why. Id Software at the time made $100,000 daily just from the sales of the $9 shareware episode unlocks. In other words, they sold over 10k games on a daily basis. The game was played by 10M people within 2 years of it's launch. Other games also put the PC into the frontlight, like the Monkey Island Series, Civilization II

Now tell me, how can a game sell 10M copies if the platform is dead?



Greatest launch title of all time? Well there can be only one answer to this question...

Half Life 2!

Fight me if you disagree but the launch of Steam was at least as important to the industry as any console launch and therefore Half Life 2 qualifies as a launch title.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Wyrdness said:

What you've posted here doesn't debunk what I've said in fact it further highlights it as look at the numbers for a start outside of the C64 the home computers were outperformed by the new consoles in Europe and this was a time when they were meant to be on top in fact your WW numbers show that the console numbers in Europe were significantly higher than the HC's WW numbers if we go by WW numbers than it further shows what I've said. This is why Atari tried to realign with consoles because their time had come to an end and it took until the late 90s for PCs to reinstate that side of the market but they were still being dominated by consoles as gaming goes it's only later on in 00s when the market found itself as a mainstay again.

I showed WW numbers because I couldn't find European-only numbers in most cases. The Amiga stands at 4.2M in Europe only, the Amstrad is almost all European numbers, same for the Atari ST. That's already 9M just for those 3 platforms in Europe. While that's less than 14M, they are just a part from the European market. A small part, I might add.

Atari tried to realign to consoles because the Atari ST flopped compared to the main competitor, the Amiga - just look at the sales numbers I provided. Plus, it was very frontloaded (half of it's sales were done by 1988 while the Amiga peaked in 1991). It just couldn't keep up with the competition in the computer field. What's more, the ST was bleeding money. They tried to address this with the Falcon, but when it failed, they axed the entire Computer line in favor of the Jaguar, hoping it would have worldwide appeal, not just in Europe.

Also, if the Consoles would have killed the computers, then why did Atari kill it's 7800 successor, the Atari Panther, planned to release in 1991, early in development, resulting them to leave the console market for 2 years after they pulled the 7800 in 1992?

Your conclusion is just biased and slanted. I could prove just as well that consoles were a flop by comparing Amiga sales in Europe to PC their Engine sales and declare that consoles couldn't catch on in Europe. Out of those 158M

Finally, PC sales exploded in the early 90's. Out of those 158M, over 60 were just from 1993-1994, at a time when most companies already had computers. Why? Well, because some little game called Doom, that's why. Id Software at the time made $100,000 daily just from the sales of the $9 shareware episode unlocks. In other words, they sold over 10k games on a daily basis. The game was played by 10M people within 2 years of it's launch. Other games also put the PC into the frontlight, like the Monkey Island Series, Civilization II

Now tell me, how can a game sell 10M copies if the platform is dead?

You forgot 5mil that ZX Spectrum sold. And that's pretty much all Europe. ;)

But ultimatelly, I would say as well that consoles did kill computers - at least for brief period of time and "gaming" computers of 80s specifically. While early 80s models (C64, ZX and 464 in particular) sold fairly well, what came after those models, although more than good enough to compete with consoles, due to price and rising popularity of consoles eventually couldn't get anywhere near numbers of their predecessors. Actually Amiga was only 16-bit computer that had any decent success vs SNES/SMD...but at much higher cost than say C64 vs NES/SMS.

On the other hand you're right as well. PC started to explode around '85, not as gaming machines though, but they were on constant momentum, rising in sales YoY quite a bit. I loved my Amiga 500, but when 1200 eventually launched in 92, it was too little, too late compared to PCs which were already at their i486 and VGA standard - I remember this vividly, I was kinda curious about A1200, but that year first seeing Wolfenstein 3D and then Commanche Maximum Overkill on my friend's PC showed me everything I needed to know about where the future of computer gaming is.



HoloDust said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I showed WW numbers because I couldn't find European-only numbers in most cases. The Amiga stands at 4.2M in Europe only, the Amstrad is almost all European numbers, same for the Atari ST. That's already 9M just for those 3 platforms in Europe. While that's less than 14M, they are just a part from the European market. A small part, I might add.

Atari tried to realign to consoles because the Atari ST flopped compared to the main competitor, the Amiga - just look at the sales numbers I provided. Plus, it was very frontloaded (half of it's sales were done by 1988 while the Amiga peaked in 1991). It just couldn't keep up with the competition in the computer field. What's more, the ST was bleeding money. They tried to address this with the Falcon, but when it failed, they axed the entire Computer line in favor of the Jaguar, hoping it would have worldwide appeal, not just in Europe.

Also, if the Consoles would have killed the computers, then why did Atari kill it's 7800 successor, the Atari Panther, planned to release in 1991, early in development, resulting them to leave the console market for 2 years after they pulled the 7800 in 1992?

Your conclusion is just biased and slanted. I could prove just as well that consoles were a flop by comparing Amiga sales in Europe to PC their Engine sales and declare that consoles couldn't catch on in Europe. Out of those 158M

Finally, PC sales exploded in the early 90's. Out of those 158M, over 60 were just from 1993-1994, at a time when most companies already had computers. Why? Well, because some little game called Doom, that's why. Id Software at the time made $100,000 daily just from the sales of the $9 shareware episode unlocks. In other words, they sold over 10k games on a daily basis. The game was played by 10M people within 2 years of it's launch. Other games also put the PC into the frontlight, like the Monkey Island Series, Civilization II

Now tell me, how can a game sell 10M copies if the platform is dead?

You forgot 5mil that ZX Spectrum sold. And that's pretty much all Europe. ;)

But ultimatelly, I would say as well that consoles did kill computers - at least for brief period of time and "gaming" computers of 80s specifically. While early 80s models (C64, ZX and 464 in particular) sold fairly well, what came after those models, although more than good enough to compete with consoles, due to price and rising popularity of consoles eventually couldn't get anywhere near numbers of their predecessors. Actually Amiga was only 16-bit computer that had any decent success vs SNES/SMD...but at much higher cost than say C64 vs NES/SMS.

On the other hand you're right as well. PC started to explode around '85, not as gaming machines though, but they were on constant momentum, rising in sales YoY quite a bit. I loved my Amiga 500, but when 1200 eventually launched in 92, it was too little, too late compared to PCs which were already at their i486 and VGA standard - I remember this vividly, I was kinda curious about A1200, but that year first seeing Wolfenstein 3D and then Commanche Maximum Overkill on my friend's PC showed me everything I needed to know about where the future of computer gaming is.

I thought most ZX sold before 1985, so I didn't include it.

I kinda agree with you on Amiga and Atari ST, as they were in a tough spot. They were cheaper than PC, though not as versatile, and if you equipped them properly for work an actual PC was mostly cheaper. On the other hand, consoles were still cheaper than them, though the games were more expensive. And like I said, the PC got constantly improved, and neither the Amiga or the Atari ST/TT/Falcon could nearly keep up with it, which is also partly due to the Motorola X68000 processors simply reaching their limits, but mostly because Commodore and Atari forgot to upgrade the graphical qualities accordingly. AGA was clearly a lot better than OCS, but in the meanwhile most PCs shipped with VGA graphics cards and SVGA was about to launch, thus having only HAM over PC and the rest was worse than SVGA or what consoles could deliver by then in every way.

So yeah, those got squashed left and right by both PC and consoles. But that didn't kill computer gaming in itself in the slightest.



It's quite clearly between Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

I'd give a big edge to Breath of the Wild.



curl-6 said:
Azuren said:

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.

Ok, pretty sure every survival crafting game on the market had not only already done that, but to a much more detailed degree.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Halo CE. It was the OG Xbox's killer app and its impact can be felt to this day in almost all shooters everywhere...



It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS!