Some observations of market leading consoles

[dunno001]

Viper1 said:

dunno001 said:

I'd actually like to extrapolate on a few of these, myself, based on observations I've also seen:

-Technically, there were a few games on a few systems that supported 4 players without a multi-tap. On the NES, I recall Anticipation supporting 4 human players with 2 controllers, and I know that the DS can support 4 (or more) systems wirelessly without need for additional dedicated multi-player hardware, or, in some games, even extra cartridges. You did need the systems, but they would be replacing the need for the extra controller on the Wii.

-Most powerful of the generation is a tough one; I take it that means you put the Neo-Geo in the same gen as the 16-bit era, then? Of the 16-bit systems, the SNES was the most powerful, actually. I'm also curious as to what system from the portable gen prior to the GBA you consider to be close to it? Turbo-Express and Wonderswan were both 16-bit, whereas the GBA was 32.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to see others thinking about this. I've done some thinking myself on it, but never bothered to compile everything. I'll keep thinking on it, though.

- That's just 2 controller.  He said 4.

- The Neo Geo is 4th generation so yes, it's included.  However, it's not the only console more powerful than the SNES.  The Genesis had a more powerful CPU and better GPU when you include all the attachements.  The TurboGrafx 16 (or PC Engine) and CD-i were also more powerful either outright or in many facets.  As for previous generation portable that holds up against the GBA, try the Sega Nomad.  The Turbo Express was 2 generations back, not 1.

And don't always look at CPu bit depth as a meausre of power.  PS2 is 128 bits while GC and Xbox (both more powerful) are 32/64 bit hybrids.

-First point: Okay, yeah, I misread that; I do that on occasion in when analysis mode. That would be my bad.

-Second point: I asked about the Neo-Geo because some people consider Neo-Geo, CD-i, etc, to be a "lost" generation. Nothing from those systems really generated much traction, which is why I asked. As for your Genesis point, not quite. First of all, I am looking at stock systems, not ones decked out with add-ons. The N64, for instance, I would look at without the memory expansion, and so on. But with the Genesis, while the CPU cycle was faster (it could do about 2 cycles to the SNES's 1), it was considerably weaker, with the SNES being able to get 4x the work done in a cycle to a Genesis one. So in raw work units, the Genesis would do 2 (1 x 2 cycles) where the SNES would do 4 (4 x 1 cycle). The TG-16 was fairly close to the SNES also, but it also had some similar issues.

-Second, part 2: Again, this is an assumption on generational divides I made based on the OP. The Game Boy Color was not brought up as a generation victor, so I went from the GB gen to the GBA gen. I do consider the GBC as seperate, going against things like the original Wonderswan. The Nomad I don't consider with the portables, but either way, is not as powerful as a GBA. And this leads to...

-...the third point. I hate using just the CPU bit depth myself. But it is the easiest to explain, and the most recognized one out there, so I use it. You will also notice that it was the prior generation where they stopped really referring to the bits, as they were learning other ways to push the systems. The prior generation, known as the 32/64 bit gen, showed how that wasn't the only metric in measuring things. The generation you are citing, with the PS2, was ALSO a 32/64 bit gen, with the XBox being the only one still using 32-bit. (The PS2 was not a 128-bit system. Not even high-end PCs are 128-bit, look at the 64-bit push with Windows 7.) Of course, at this point, CPUs on consoles had already caught up to computers, and needed other things to distinguish them. Needless to say, you're already aware of these, by your citing a 32-bit system (XBox) as correctly more powerful than a 64-bit system (PS2).