Do you consider the Turbo Grafx (PC Engine) 8 or 16 bit?

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ChiefFreeman (5513 posts) -

I'm considering getting.a Turbo Grafx console,  but apparently there's was a dispute back in the early 90's as to whether it was  true 16 bit system like the Genesis and Super Nintendo,  or just a souped up 8 bit system.  It had  a 16  bit gpu,  but just an 8 bit cpu.   But the quality of some its games graphically and sound wise equaled of surpassed some Genesis and SNES games.   It could display more colors onscreen than Genesis,  and its sound quality was better as well,  even if not as good as the SNES.  Just check out its amazing port of R-Type or Ninja Spirit to see how capable it was.  Do you  consider it to be 16 bit?

#2 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

I'm considering getting.a Turbo Grafx console,  but apparently there's was a dispute back in the early 90's as to whether it was  true 16 bit system like the Genesis and Super Nintendo,  or just a souped up 8 bit system.  It had  a 16  bit gpu,  but just an 8 bit cpu.   But the quality of some its games graphically and sound wise equaled of surpassed some Genesis and SNES games.   It could display more colors onscreen than Genesis,  and its sound quality was better as well,  even if not as good as the SNES.  Just check out its amazing port of R-Type or Ninja Spirit to see how capable it was.  Do you  consider it to be 16 bit?

ChiefFreeman
The technical answer is 8 bit, what I am wondering is that if you are talking about graphics or not. If you are talking graphics bits don't matter.
#3 Posted by GaussRiemann (183 posts) -

As far as understand the matter, I consider it 8 bit. I still like it better than the SNES.

#4 Posted by GSJones1994 (318 posts) -

I guess you could call it an 8-bit console with 16-bit graphical capabilities.

#5 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

I guess you could call it an 8-bit console with 16-bit graphical capabilities.

GSJones1994
Not could, that's exactly what it is.
#6 Posted by AtelierFan (1544 posts) -
I would say if you like it and want it, who cares how powerful it is :)
#7 Posted by penpusher (3573 posts) -

I think it would depends entirely on how you want to judge it. Most of the time the "bits" of a system is dictated by the cpu, just like home desktops are considered 32 bit or 64 bit by their cpu, and the Turbo has an 8 bit cpu. That said though it also has two, yes TWO, 16 bit graphics processors. So it could be argued to occupy a space between 8 bit and 16 bit. It doesn't really matter. The Turbo has lots of awesome, not to mention pretty, games on it especially if you like arcade style shooters.

#8 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

it's an 8 bit system. very simple. but who cares about bits. they don't mean anything. neo geo was 16 bit and look at that

#9 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

16-bit.

It has two 16-bit graphics chips, hence 16-bit.

Yes, the CPU is 8-bit, but who cares.

It's the video chips that give it the graphical edge over other 8-bit systems like the NES, SMS and Atari 7800 and poses a match for Genesis and SNES.

#10 Posted by Megavideogamer (5315 posts) -

The NEC TurboGraphx-16 did have a 8-bit CPU and a 16bit GPU or "Picture processing unit" so in a way it is a hybrid console. 12-bit if there were such a thing. Similar to the way SNK Neo Geo has a 24-bit console. or the Way Atari Jaguar was billed as a 64-bit console by adding together 2 separate 32-bit processors together. as SNK added a 16-bit and another 8-bit together to get 24-bits.

TurboGraphx did have a 16 bit chip in the GPU. but it is the CPU that counts which is a mere 8-bits. Similiar that Atari Jaguar is just a 32-bit console, and SNK is a 16-bit console. Abiet the very best and expensive.

So it is the main CPU that counts in the measuring of bits. which at one time was a way of judging how good a console was. a Crude way of measuring "Processor power" in a videogame machine. Bits were once very important in marketing consoles.

NEC paid dearly for this as it is just a 8-bit machine. Abeit a very good one, the very best of the 8-bit consoles. In 1987 it was cutting edge as the PC-Engine. But bombed in North America when pitted againt the Sega Genesis in 1989.

#11 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

who cares? sure the TG16 had an 8bit CPU (related to the 6502 found in the Atari 2600 and NES) , but its a whole lot faster than those, and the GPUs are much more capable , games were always more GPU intensive anyways.

 

this isn't exactly crazy, it happens with computers too , the Amiga 500 had a 68000 CPU which was a 16bit CPU , and yet Amiga games still looked and sounded considerably better than the 386 PCs at the time (the 386 was 32bit)

#12 Posted by Domino_slayer (763 posts) -

Bitage is meaningless

All you need to know is that the PC-Engine had-

  • Superior colour capabilities to the Genesis (inferior to SNES)
  • Superior CPU speed to the SNES (probably inferior to Genesis)
  • Comparable sprite capabilities to both.

The only area that the PC-Engine falls behind on in comparison to these two machines is background layers. Genesis and SNES both had hardware support for parallax scrolling, they both had 2 or more backgrounds which overlapped and could be scrolled at different speeds to give the illusion of depth. To create this effect the PC-Engine had to use tricks, such as line scrolling (which is more limited), or use sprites for the backgrounds (which leaves you with less sprites for the gameplay).

I don't think the sound chip is as good as the Mega Drive one by the way, though I'm not sure on that one (PC-Engine CD though had CD audio for music, so that obviously has superior sound to both SNES, and stock Genesis).

#13 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

So it is the main CPU that counts in the measuring of bits. which at one time was a way of judging how good a console was. a Crude way of measuring "Processor power" in a videogame machine. Bits were once very important in marketing consoles.

Megavideogamer

 

That was a very bad way of measuring console capabilities, tbh.

Console makers could just apply that "so many bits" sticker to the console and people would assume it was far better than the competition.

But it wasn't really all that effective as systems like the 32X, Jaguar, CD32, ect. all flopped commercially.

So it's not like people really bought in the "bits" hype that much.

Atleast not enough to care if the system didn't have enough compelling games and generally poor support.

#14 Posted by logicalfrank (1641 posts) -

I think of it as a 16-bit system. The reason for this being is, at least in the US and from what I remember, it was marketed is as competition for the SNES and Genesis which were also marketed as 16 bit systems. I'd imagine if I were a little older or if I was Japanese, where it was intended more as competition for NES, I might feel a bit differently. The distinction between x-bit and y-bit is somewhat arbitrary in terms of the performance of the system both graphically and otherwise so it is really just a marketing thing anyway.

#15 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

16-bit.

It has two 16-bit graphics chips, hence 16-bit.

Yes, the CPU is 8-bit, but who cares.

It's the video chips that give it the graphical edge over other 8-bit systems like the NES, SMS and Atari 7800 and poses a match for Genesis and SNES.

nameless12345
No it's 8 bit, bits do not matter. They never had, Intelivison is 16-bit. Having 16-bit parts if its not the CPU doe snot make one 16-bit.
#16 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

So it is the main CPU that counts in the measuring of bits. which at one time was a way of judging how good a console was. a Crude way of measuring "Processor power" in a videogame machine. Bits were once very important in marketing consoles.

nameless12345

 

That was a very bad way of measuring console capabilities, tbh.

Console makers could just apply that "so many bits" sticker to the console and people would assume it was far better than the competition.

But it wasn't really all that effective as systems like the 32X, Jaguar, CD32, ect. all flopped commercially.

So it's not like people really bought in the "bits" hype that much.

Atleast not enough to care if the system didn't have enough compelling games and generally poor support.

All your examples had game droughts and bad launches, so it's not that they did bot "buy" the bit marketing because look at N64.
#17 Posted by logicalfrank (1641 posts) -

Circa 1990, I bought the -bit marketing hook, line and sinker. In my defense, I was nine.

#18 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

16-bit.

It has two 16-bit graphics chips, hence 16-bit.

Yes, the CPU is 8-bit, but who cares.

It's the video chips that give it the graphical edge over other 8-bit systems like the NES, SMS and Atari 7800 and poses a match for Genesis and SNES.

TigerSuperman

No it's 8 bit, bits do not matter. They never had, Intelivison is 16-bit. Having 16-bit parts if its not the CPU doe snot make one 16-bit.

 

One 8-bit CPU, two 16-bit graphics chips.

NES and Master System had a 8-bit CPU and 8-bit graphics chip in comparison and Genesis had a 16-bit CPU & 8-bit graphics chip (derivative of SMS video chip) and SNES 16-bit CPU & two 8-bit graphics chips.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.

All that mattered, in this context, was that it had graphical capabilities that matched the SNES and Genesis and outmatched the SMS and NES.

#19 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

So it is the main CPU that counts in the measuring of bits. which at one time was a way of judging how good a console was. a Crude way of measuring "Processor power" in a videogame machine. Bits were once very important in marketing consoles.

TigerSuperman

 

That was a very bad way of measuring console capabilities, tbh.

Console makers could just apply that "so many bits" sticker to the console and people would assume it was far better than the competition.

But it wasn't really all that effective as systems like the 32X, Jaguar, CD32, ect. all flopped commercially.

So it's not like people really bought in the "bits" hype that much.

Atleast not enough to care if the system didn't have enough compelling games and generally poor support.

All your examples had game droughts and bad launches, so it's not that they did bot "buy" the bit marketing because look at N64.

 

Well N64 also sold considerably worse than the "32-bit" PS1 so...

Saturn's dual 32-bit CPUs were also advertised but it didn't help it not flopping (they make it "three 32-bit processors" in this commercial even):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqhu1wCpPk

#20 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

Let's get some facts straight about the PCE:

  • PCE CPU was 8-bit, but its MIPS performance was twice as fast as SNES CPU (7.16 MHz vs 3.58 MHz) and even slightly faster than Mega Drive CPU (6502 had slightly superior MIPS/MHz ratio than 68000)
  • PCE used two 16-bit GPU's, whereas the Mega Drive and the SNES each used a single 16-bit GPU
  • PCE had the same overall colour palette size (512) as the Mega Drive, though less than the SNES (32,768)
  • PCE could display more colours on screen (482) than both the Mega Drive (183) and even the SNES (256)

With the Arcade Card expansion, which added 2 MB RAM, the PCE produced even better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive. The only 16-bit consoles capable of producing better graphics than the PCE Arcade Card were the Neo Geo and the Sega CD.

Also, the CD-ROM expansion gave the PCE superior 16-bit audio quality (i.e. CD-quality audio) than the 16-bit sound chips of both the Mega Drive and the SNES. The only 16-bit consoles to match the PCE CD-ROM in audio quality were the Sega CD and the Neo Geo CD.

#21 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That was a very bad way of measuring console capabilities, tbh.

Console makers could just apply that "so many bits" sticker to the console and people would assume it was far better than the competition.

But it wasn't really all that effective as systems like the 32X, Jaguar, CD32, ect. all flopped commercially.

So it's not like people really bought in the "bits" hype that much.

Atleast not enough to care if the system didn't have enough compelling games and generally poor support.

nameless12345

All your examples had game droughts and bad launches, so it's not that they did bot "buy" the bit marketing because look at N64.

 

Well N64 also sold considerably worse than the "32-bit" PS1 so...

Saturn's dual 32-bit CPUs were also advertised but it didn't help it not flopping (they make it "three 32-bit processors" in this commercial even):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqhu1wCpPk

Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.
#22 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That was a very bad way of measuring console capabilities, tbh.

Console makers could just apply that "so many bits" sticker to the console and people would assume it was far better than the competition.

But it wasn't really all that effective as systems like the 32X, Jaguar, CD32, ect. all flopped commercially.

So it's not like people really bought in the "bits" hype that much.

Atleast not enough to care if the system didn't have enough compelling games and generally poor support.

nameless12345

All your examples had game droughts and bad launches, so it's not that they did bot "buy" the bit marketing because look at N64.

 

Well N64 also sold considerably worse than the "32-bit" PS1 so...

Saturn's dual 32-bit CPUs were also advertised but it didn't help it not flopping (they make it "three 32-bit processors" in this commercial even):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqhu1wCpPk

Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.
#23 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] All your examples had game droughts and bad launches, so it's not that they did bot "buy" the bit marketing because look at N64.TigerSuperman

 

Well N64 also sold considerably worse than the "32-bit" PS1 so...

Saturn's dual 32-bit CPUs were also advertised but it didn't help it not flopping (they make it "three 32-bit processors" in this commercial even):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqhu1wCpPk

Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

#24 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Well N64 also sold considerably worse than the "32-bit" PS1 so...

Saturn's dual 32-bit CPUs were also advertised but it didn't help it not flopping (they make it "three 32-bit processors" in this commercial even):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqhu1wCpPk

nameless12345

Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.
#25 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.TigerSuperman

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.

 

Being "64-bit" didn't help the Jaguar tho.

The "3D craze" already started with the PSX and Sega Saturn and you could say systems like the 3DO. (The Need For Speed, Wing Commander III)

Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on Genesis also got some of that "3D craze".

#26 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

nameless12345

Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.

 

Being "64-bit" didn't help the Jaguar tho.

The "3D craze" already started with the PSX and Sega Saturn and you could say systems like the 3DO. (The Need For Speed, Wing Commander III)

Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on Genesis also got some of that "3D craze".

No, the 3D craze did not take off till Playstation and really N64, the Jagaur was slammed with people claiming they were not 64 bit already and got worse when the N64 got announced and when it came out. It was that time were there was a "craze" not what you are thinking. When 3D games were pretty much what people wanted to buy. People usually forget baout the Jaguar and 3Do even now with them starting to come back up with homebrews and collectors.
#27 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.TigerSuperman

 

Being "64-bit" didn't help the Jaguar tho.

The "3D craze" already started with the PSX and Sega Saturn and you could say systems like the 3DO. (The Need For Speed, Wing Commander III)

Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on Genesis also got some of that "3D craze".

No, the 3D craze did not take off till Playstation and really N64, the Jagaur was slammed with people claiming they were not 64 bit already and got worse when the N64 got announced and when it came out. It was that time were there was a "craze" not what you are thinking. When 3D games were pretty much what people wanted to buy. People usually forget baout the Jaguar and 3Do even now with them starting to come back up with homebrews and collectors.

 

Well, it's true that N64 was advertised as "the true 3D console" or something along those lines.

Seeing Mario run, swim and fly in a fully 3-D world was quite amazing at the time.

And there were also the four controller ports which made 4-player multi-player viable on the consoles.

The system was quite hyped but game droughts and lacking 3rd party support prevented it to overtake the PSX.

And there was also the "kiddy" image Nintendo had at the time (actually they had it always, tbh) and no CD playback.

#28 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Being "64-bit" didn't help the Jaguar tho.

The "3D craze" already started with the PSX and Sega Saturn and you could say systems like the 3DO. (The Need For Speed, Wing Commander III)

Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on Genesis also got some of that "3D craze".

nameless12345

No, the 3D craze did not take off till Playstation and really N64, the Jagaur was slammed with people claiming they were not 64 bit already and got worse when the N64 got announced and when it came out. It was that time were there was a "craze" not what you are thinking. When 3D games were pretty much what people wanted to buy. People usually forget baout the Jaguar and 3Do even now with them starting to come back up with homebrews and collectors.

 

Well, it's true that N64 was advertised as "the true 3D console" or something along those lines.

Seeing Mario run, swim and fly in a fully 3-D world was quite amazing at the time.

And there were also the four controller ports which made 4-player multi-player viable on the consoles.

The system was quite hyped but game droughts and lacking 3rd party support prevented it to overtake the PSX.

And there was also the "kiddy" image Nintendo had at the time (actually they had it always, tbh) and no CD playback.

For console it was. It may be why it did not do well in EU, althogh for Japan I am not really sure what the reason is, the Jrpg excuse does not make much sense when you look at JP Saturn and PSX software sales and see quite some variety there.
#29 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] Well, in the U,S. the N64 did quite well for awhile.TigerSuperman

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.

What? Europe and Japan were equally obsessed with 3D gaming at the time. Here in Europe, 3D gaming became huge in the early 90s, when hit 3D racers like Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer and Daytona USA were released in the arcades. And it was more or less the same with Japan.

Also, Sony's marketing campaign in the US was hardly any different to Europe and Japan. Sony emphasized 3D gaming in every region the PlayStation released.

#30 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Because of 3D Mario, Wave Race, Turok, 3D Zelda and GoldenEye, not because it was "64-bits".

Jag85

Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.

What? Europe and Japan were equally obsessed with 3D gaming at the time. Here in Europe, 3D gaming became huge in the early 90s, when hit 3D racers like Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer and Daytona USA were released in the arcades. And it was more or less the same with Japan.

Also, Sony's marketing campaign in the US was hardly any different to Europe and Japan. Sony emphasized 3D gaming in every region the PlayStation released.

You have no idea how much the difference was in 3D games compared to U.S. That was literally the majority of games with good sales that were brought, and why the N64 was a big deal, which is not replicated on EU or Japan, I did not say there was no 3D liking but in the U.S. it was a totally different story. All the way THROUGH the 90's.
#31 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] Yes, it was, because 64-bits in the U.S.=3D gaming, no country has a 3D gaming craze at that generation other than the U.S. Where Europe and especially japan had tons of 2D games along with some 3D. Arguments about N64 being better because it was 64 bit were all over the place. And only because the market was different than anywhere else, which is why the N64 worked in the U.S. Heck, Sony had a greater emphasis on 3D on their Playstation in the U.S. than anywhere else.TigerSuperman

What? Europe and Japan were equally obsessed with 3D gaming at the time. Here in Europe, 3D gaming became huge in the early 90s, when hit 3D racers like Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer and Daytona USA were released in the arcades. And it was more or less the same with Japan.

Also, Sony's marketing campaign in the US was hardly any different to Europe and Japan. Sony emphasized 3D gaming in every region the PlayStation released.

You have no idea how much the difference was in 3D games compared to U.S. That was literally the majority of games with good sales that were brought, and why the N64 was a big deal, which is not replicated on EU or Japan, I did not say there was no 3D liking but in the U.S. it was a totally different story. All the way THROUGH the 90's.

How is that any different from Europe? The majority of games with good sales here were 3D, ever since the Euro launch of the PlayStation and Saturn. The same was also true for Japan, with the obvious exception of 2D RPG's.

#32 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

What? Europe and Japan were equally obsessed with 3D gaming at the time. Here in Europe, 3D gaming became huge in the early 90s, when hit 3D racers like Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer and Daytona USA were released in the arcades. And it was more or less the same with Japan.

Also, Sony's marketing campaign in the US was hardly any different to Europe and Japan. Sony emphasized 3D gaming in every region the PlayStation released.

Jag85

You have no idea how much the difference was in 3D games compared to U.S. That was literally the majority of games with good sales that were brought, and why the N64 was a big deal, which is not replicated on EU or Japan, I did not say there was no 3D liking but in the U.S. it was a totally different story. All the way THROUGH the 90's.

How is that any different from Europe? The majority of games with good sales here were 3D, ever since the Euro launch of the PlayStation and Saturn. The same was also true for Japan, with the obvious exception of 2D RPG's.

Not even close: Japan:http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1997/Japan/ http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1998/Japan/ Compared to: http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA It's hard to get EU numbers I had it before I'll find it and post it when I do, but side by side with the above two links and looking around, Uk seemed to be the only real area buying many games at this time due to the low overall numbers for console I see. Maybe PC was better can't tell.
#33 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Being "64-bit" didn't help the Jaguar tho.

The "3D craze" already started with the PSX and Sega Saturn and you could say systems like the 3DO. (The Need For Speed, Wing Commander III)

Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on Genesis also got some of that "3D craze".

nameless12345

No, the 3D craze did not take off till Playstation and really N64, the Jagaur was slammed with people claiming they were not 64 bit already and got worse when the N64 got announced and when it came out. It was that time were there was a "craze" not what you are thinking. When 3D games were pretty much what people wanted to buy. People usually forget baout the Jaguar and 3Do even now with them starting to come back up with homebrews and collectors.

 

Well, it's true that N64 was advertised as "the true 3D console" or something along those lines.

Seeing Mario run, swim and fly in a fully 3-D world was quite amazing at the time.

And there were also the four controller ports which made 4-player multi-player viable on the consoles.

The system was quite hyped but game droughts and lacking 3rd party support prevented it to overtake the PSX.

And there was also the "kiddy" image Nintendo had at the time (actually they had it always, tbh) and no CD playback.

 

amazing to you perhaps but not to me and many with me. n64's graphics were the most disapointing I can ever remember. it barely looked better than psx and looked considerbaly worse than pc. constantly the same repeating textures. all the fog. small levels. incredibly slow and tedious. that is how I remember the first generation of n64 games. after that it got better but what was the point. dreamcast came out and blew it out of the water

#34 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] No, the 3D craze did not take off till Playstation and really N64, the Jagaur was slammed with people claiming they were not 64 bit already and got worse when the N64 got announced and when it came out. It was that time were there was a "craze" not what you are thinking. When 3D games were pretty much what people wanted to buy. People usually forget baout the Jaguar and 3Do even now with them starting to come back up with homebrews and collectors.bultje112

 

Well, it's true that N64 was advertised as "the true 3D console" or something along those lines.

Seeing Mario run, swim and fly in a fully 3-D world was quite amazing at the time.

And there were also the four controller ports which made 4-player multi-player viable on the consoles.

The system was quite hyped but game droughts and lacking 3rd party support prevented it to overtake the PSX.

And there was also the "kiddy" image Nintendo had at the time (actually they had it always, tbh) and no CD playback.

 

amazing to you perhaps but not to me and many with me. n64's graphics were the most disapointing I can ever remember. it barely looked better than psx and looked considerbaly worse than pc. constantly the same repeating textures. all the fog. small levels. incredibly slow and tedious. that is how I remember the first generation of n64 games. after that it got better but what was the point. dreamcast came out and blew it out of the water

define PC, in 1995-96 , most people were still using either lower end Pentiums (usually 60-90mhz), or even a 486, and 3D acceleration was still new and quite expensive, try running a game like Quake on that kind of PC on anything more than 320X240 and you will find the game to be almost unplayable. compared to that the N64 or Saturn versions aren't that bad. the N64 kind of reminds me a bit of the pre 3DFX 3D accelerators that existed at that time, in most cases these were just the standard 2D chips with some extra filtering and such slapped on, which in some cases meant the "accelerated" versions were slower. the N64 is also a bunch of nice effects like texture filtering added on top of a weak foundation (that weak foundation being the blurry textures and lower polygon counts)
#35 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] You have no idea how much the difference was in 3D games compared to U.S. That was literally the majority of games with good sales that were brought, and why the N64 was a big deal, which is not replicated on EU or Japan, I did not say there was no 3D liking but in the U.S. it was a totally different story. All the way THROUGH the 90's.TigerSuperman

How is that any different from Europe? The majority of games with good sales here were 3D, ever since the Euro launch of the PlayStation and Saturn. The same was also true for Japan, with the obvious exception of 2D RPG's.

Not even close:

Japan:

http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1997/Japan/
http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1998/Japan/

Compared to:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA

It's hard to get EU numbers I had it before I'll find it and post it when I do, but side by side with the above two links and looking around, Uk seemed to be the only real area buying many games at this time due to the low overall numbers for console I see. Maybe PC was better can't tell.

Yes, I know the N64 sold much worse in Japan, but what does that have to do with 3D gaming? The VGChartz lists you posted only support what I have stated before: With the obvious exception of 2D RPG's, most of the best-selling games in Japan were 3D games.

As for Europe, the N64 was very successful here, but not to the same extent as it was in North America. Either way, most of the best-selling games here were also 3D games.

#36 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Well, it's true that N64 was advertised as "the true 3D console" or something along those lines.

Seeing Mario run, swim and fly in a fully 3-D world was quite amazing at the time.

And there were also the four controller ports which made 4-player multi-player viable on the consoles.

The system was quite hyped but game droughts and lacking 3rd party support prevented it to overtake the PSX.

And there was also the "kiddy" image Nintendo had at the time (actually they had it always, tbh) and no CD playback.

Darkman2007

 

amazing to you perhaps but not to me and many with me. n64's graphics were the most disapointing I can ever remember. it barely looked better than psx and looked considerbaly worse than pc. constantly the same repeating textures. all the fog. small levels. incredibly slow and tedious. that is how I remember the first generation of n64 games. after that it got better but what was the point. dreamcast came out and blew it out of the water

define PC, in 1995-96 , most people were still using either lower end Pentiums (usually 60-90mhz), or even a 486, and 3D acceleration was still new and quite expensive, try running a game like Quake on that kind of PC on anything more than 320X240 and you will find the game to be almost unplayable. compared to that the N64 or Saturn versions aren't that bad.

the N64 kind of reminds me a bit of the pre 3DFX 3D accelerators that existed at that time, in most cases these were just the standard 2D chips with some extra filtering and such slapped on, which in some cases meant the "accelerated" versions were slower.

the N64 is also a bunch of nice effects like texture filtering added on top of a weak foundation (that weak foundation being the blurry textures and lower polygon counts)

In early 1996, there was the NEC/VideoLogic PowerVR, which could produce better 3D graphics than the N64. Either way, a high-end PC back then would have been a lot more expensive than a high-end PC today. And most early 3D accelerators back then (with the exception of PowerVR, and later 3dfx and ATI) barely managed PS1 quality graphics, let alone N64 quality graphics. For the price it launched at, the N64 was quite powerful, as the only superior options were either a very expensive high-end PC or an even more expensive arcade machine. But otherwise, the N64 wasn't much of a jump in 3D graphics compared to the PS1 & Saturn before it or the Dreamcast after it.

#37 Posted by Darkman2007 (17929 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="bultje112"]

 

amazing to you perhaps but not to me and many with me. n64's graphics were the most disapointing I can ever remember. it barely looked better than psx and looked considerbaly worse than pc. constantly the same repeating textures. all the fog. small levels. incredibly slow and tedious. that is how I remember the first generation of n64 games. after that it got better but what was the point. dreamcast came out and blew it out of the water

Jag85

define PC, in 1995-96 , most people were still using either lower end Pentiums (usually 60-90mhz), or even a 486, and 3D acceleration was still new and quite expensive, try running a game like Quake on that kind of PC on anything more than 320X240 and you will find the game to be almost unplayable. compared to that the N64 or Saturn versions aren't that bad.

the N64 kind of reminds me a bit of the pre 3DFX 3D accelerators that existed at that time, in most cases these were just the standard 2D chips with some extra filtering and such slapped on, which in some cases meant the "accelerated" versions were slower.

the N64 is also a bunch of nice effects like texture filtering added on top of a weak foundation (that weak foundation being the blurry textures and lower polygon counts)

In early 1996, there was the NEC/VideoLogic PowerVR, which could produce better 3D graphics than the N64. Either way, a high-end PC back then would have been a lot more expensive than a high-end PC today. And most early 3D accelerators back then (with the exception of PowerVR, and later 3dfx and ATI) barely managed PS1 quality graphics, let alone N64 quality graphics. For the price it launched at, the N64 was quite powerful, as the only superior options were either a very expensive high-end PC or an even more expensive arcade machine. But otherwise, the N64 wasn't much of a jump in 3D graphics compared to the PS1 & Saturn before it or the Dreamcast after it.

you sure about the powerVR? it did come out in 1996, but Im not sure when. at any case, it was indeed expensive, PCs in general were expensive back then , the first computer I owned was a Pentium Pro machine, and that cost in the region of 1000 US Dollars in 1997, even that machine couldn't really do that much better than the consoles.
#38 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] define PC, in 1995-96 , most people were still using either lower end Pentiums (usually 60-90mhz), or even a 486, and 3D acceleration was still new and quite expensive, try running a game like Quake on that kind of PC on anything more than 320X240 and you will find the game to be almost unplayable. compared to that the N64 or Saturn versions aren't that bad.

the N64 kind of reminds me a bit of the pre 3DFX 3D accelerators that existed at that time, in most cases these were just the standard 2D chips with some extra filtering and such slapped on, which in some cases meant the "accelerated" versions were slower.

the N64 is also a bunch of nice effects like texture filtering added on top of a weak foundation (that weak foundation being the blurry textures and lower polygon counts)Darkman2007

In early 1996, there was the NEC/VideoLogic PowerVR, which could produce better 3D graphics than the N64. Either way, a high-end PC back then would have been a lot more expensive than a high-end PC today. And most early 3D accelerators back then (with the exception of PowerVR, and later 3dfx and ATI) barely managed PS1 quality graphics, let alone N64 quality graphics. For the price it launched at, the N64 was quite powerful, as the only superior options were either a very expensive high-end PC or an even more expensive arcade machine. But otherwise, the N64 wasn't much of a jump in 3D graphics compared to the PS1 & Saturn before it or the Dreamcast after it.

you sure about the powerVR? it did come out in 1996, but Im not sure when.

at any case, it was indeed expensive, PCs in general were expensive back then , the first computer I owned was a Pentium Pro machine, and that cost in the region of 1000 US Dollars in 1997, even that machine couldn't really do that much better than the consoles.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure. I remember PowerVR releasing some time around the N64's release, but don't remember the exact month, but probably somewhere around mid-1996?

I remember my first PC in early 1997 only had a Pentium 166 MHz and was very expensive (I think it was at least £700+, or $1000+). Without any 3D accelerator, my PC couldn't do 3D graphics anywhere near what the much cheaper PlayStation I brought in 1996 (for only £60, or $90+, second-hand) could do.

#39 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

How is that any different from Europe? The majority of games with good sales here were 3D, ever since the Euro launch of the PlayStation and Saturn. The same was also true for Japan, with the obvious exception of 2D RPG's.

Jag85

Not even close:

Japan:

http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1997/Japan/
http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1998/Japan/

Compared to:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA

It's hard to get EU numbers I had it before I'll find it and post it when I do, but side by side with the above two links and looking around, Uk seemed to be the only real area buying many games at this time due to the low overall numbers for console I see. Maybe PC was better can't tell.

Yes, I know the N64 sold much worse in Japan, but what does that have to do with 3D gaming? The VGChartz lists you posted only support what I have stated before: With the obvious exception of 2D RPG's, most of the best-selling games in Japan were 3D games.

As for Europe, the N64 was very successful here, but not to the same extent as it was in North America. Either way, most of the best-selling games here were also 3D games.

The N64 was not "very" successful in Europe. Unless you can define "very" successful. Also no, it shows that Japan mostly had 2d games in their top selling games clearly, especially in 97.
#40 Posted by Domino_slayer (763 posts) -

3D games were bigger in Europe than most of the rest of the world due to the popularity of computers.

Some 3D games that were hugely popular in Europe were Elite, and Stunt Car Racer.

Others include Hunter, No Second Prize, the Starglider series, the Star Wars games, Carrier Command, Driller (and other Freescape games), Geoff Crammond Grand Prix, Hard Drivin etc etc, and that was before Sega's bigger offerings turned up.

Britain was very, very anti 2D when PS1 gained steam, I used to get tons of flack for playing Street Figher Alpha 2.

#41 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

3D games were bigger in Europe than most of the rest of the world due to the popularity of computers.

Some 3D games that were hugely popular in Europe were Elite, and Stunt Car Racer.

Others include Hunter, No Second Prize, the Starglider series, the Star Wars games, Carrier Command, Driller (and other Freescape games), Geoff Crammond Grand Prix, Hard Drivin etc etc, and that was before Sega's bigger offerings turned up.

Britain was very, very anti 2D when PS1 gained steam, I used to get tons of flack for playing Street Figher Alpha 2.

Domino_slayer
We are not talking about computers, and no, even with computers 3d gaming was not bigger in Eu, Especially when you go look at computer sales numbers for software. Btw I keep calling other computers Pc's I need to stop that lol.
#42 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] Not even close:

Japan:

http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1997/Japan/
http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/1998/Japan/

Compared to:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?page=1&results=200&name=&platform=N64&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=&sort=NA

It's hard to get EU numbers I had it before I'll find it and post it when I do, but side by side with the above two links and looking around, Uk seemed to be the only real area buying many games at this time due to the low overall numbers for console I see. Maybe PC was better can't tell.TigerSuperman

Yes, I know the N64 sold much worse in Japan, but what does that have to do with 3D gaming? The VGChartz lists you posted only support what I have stated before: With the obvious exception of 2D RPG's, most of the best-selling games in Japan were 3D games.

As for Europe, the N64 was very successful here, but not to the same extent as it was in North America. Either way, most of the best-selling games here were also 3D games.

The N64 was not "very" successful in Europe. Unless you can define "very" successful.

Also no, it shows that Japan mostly had 2d games in their top selling games clearly, especially in 97.

Have you even looked at the (not so reliable) VGChartz lists you posted? Most of the games on the lists are 3D, not 2D. And the ones that are 2D are just handheld RPG's... Besides, you do realize Pokemon also dominated the charts in North America too, right? According to your logic, 2D games must have been dominating North America as well...

As for the N64, that's just semantics. Makes no difference whether you add the "very" or not. The point is that the N64 was successful in Europe, much more so than Japan but maybe not to the same extent as North America.

#43 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="Domino_slayer"]

3D games were bigger in Europe than most of the rest of the world due to the popularity of computers.

Some 3D games that were hugely popular in Europe were Elite, and Stunt Car Racer.

Others include Hunter, No Second Prize, the Starglider series, the Star Wars games, Carrier Command, Driller (and other Freescape games), Geoff Crammond Grand Prix, Hard Drivin etc etc, and that was before Sega's bigger offerings turned up.

Britain was very, very anti 2D when PS1 gained steam, I used to get tons of flack for playing Street Figher Alpha 2.

TigerSuperman

We are not talking about computers, and no, even with computers 3d gaming was not bigger in Eu, Especially when you go look at computer sales numbers for software. Btw I keep calling other computers Pc's I need to stop that lol.

 

Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, X-Wing, Wing Commander III, F1 Grand Prix were all early 3D PC games and they all were extemely popular where I live.

Us Euro guys were just as impressed with 3D gaming than you US guys were.

I'd say consoles were still largly about 2D gaming back in the 16-bit era, but things changed drastically with systems capable of fast 3D like the PlayStation, Sega Saturn and N64 were.

And "3D accelerators" on the PC really made 3D gaming excell on the PC at the time.

Some PC gamers even refer to that era as the "golden age" of PC gaming.

#44 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

It's all very complicated. But I think we can all agree that TG-16 games generally look better than NES or Sega Master System games. They're DEFINETLY more colorful and pop out at you more.

I'd place somewhere between the 8-bit and 16-bit systems. Neo Geo AES claims to be 24-bit, so why not just say the TG-16 is 12-bit :P

With the Turbo-CD attchment, games start to rival the SNES in terms of graphics, even.

#45 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Yes, I know the N64 sold much worse in Japan, but what does that have to do with 3D gaming? The VGChartz lists you posted only support what I have stated before: With the obvious exception of 2D RPG's, most of the best-selling games in Japan were 3D games.

As for Europe, the N64 was very successful here, but not to the same extent as it was in North America. Either way, most of the best-selling games here were also 3D games.

Jag85

The N64 was not "very" successful in Europe. Unless you can define "very" successful.

Also no, it shows that Japan mostly had 2d games in their top selling games clearly, especially in 97.

Have you even looked at the (not so reliable) VGChartz lists you posted? Most of the games on the lists are 3D, not 2D. And the ones that are 2D are just handheld RPG's... Besides, you do realize Pokemon also dominated the charts in North America too, right? According to your logic, 2D games must have been dominating North America as well...

As for the N64, that's just semantics. Makes no difference whether you add the "very" or not. The point is that the N64 was successful in Europe, much more so than Japan but maybe not to the same extent as North America.

SO you backpedal your "very" statement, good. Now, Japan: out of top 20 in 97, 12 are 2D games, 2D games also bring up the vast majority of sales. Now, japan, out of top 20 in 98,Almost all the list is 2d, out of the 100 games, 6 2D games, but the 2d games again take the top 20, all the list below it are mostly 2D. Also I like how you tried to make it seem like Pokemon was the only 2D game in japanese lists, pokemon doing well in the U.S. have nothing to do with ALL THE OTHER 2d games. Good job.
#46 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

It's all very complicated. But I think we can all agree that TG-16 games generally look better than NES or Sega Master System games. They're DEFINETLY more colorful and pop out at you more.

I'd place somewhere between the 8-bit and 16-bit systems. Neo Geo AES claims to be 24-bit, so why not just say the TG-16 is 12-bit :P

With the Turbo-CD attachment, games start to rival the SNES in terms of graphics, even.

Emerald_Warrior
people used bits by the Cpu, the TG-16 is 8-bit, bits do not matter, calling it 12 bit could mean anything, since the Intellivision is 16-bit. i do get what you are saying, I would put the TG closer to the genesis than the SNES though.
#47 Posted by Domino_slayer (763 posts) -

We are not talking about computersTigerSuperman

Its pointless to talk about the European market and remove computers from the equation, mainstream gamers bought gaming computers here en masse (as in the Commodore Amiga was as popular, if not more popular than the SNES and Genesis in many European countries), computers made up a huge percentage of the gaming market, the beginning of the 16-bit generation in Britain was solely computers, Amiga was winning here until 1992 when the Genesis skyrocketed in popularity.

In Britain the Amiga sold on par with the SNES, and about half as much as the Genesis

In the USA the Amiga sold 20 times less than the SNES, and 20 times less than the Genesis.

even with computers 3d gaming was not bigger in Eu, Especially when you go look at computer sales numbers for software.TigerSuperman

Those software sales figures don't exist, I know because I've looked for them in the past.

Elite was bigger in Britain than any console game of the 80s by the way, it was one of the most popular games here of that entire period, completely eclipsing games like Super Mario Bros 1-3, The Legend of Zelda, Alex Kidd in Miracle World, Wonder Boy etc in sales.

I'm sorry, but there was no way in hell that the US mainstream moved towards 3D games before Europe, UK gaming mags from back in the day would constantly criticise consoles for their inability to handle 3D games, even during the 80s. The UK tried to design its own console called the Konix in the late 80s and the hardware design was very focussed on 3D graphics (it fell through), then the UK attempted to design another 3D focussed console which Atari ended up buying and naming the Atari Jaguar. Argonaut (who had been making popular 3D games in Britain such as Starglider) worked on making 3D games for the Nintendo Game Boy, they completed demo's of this and showed it to Nintendo, Nintendo were so astounded that they told the company to make them a 3D chip for the SNES, and then flew the staff to Japan to show Nintendo how to develop for 3D, creating the original Star Fox side by side with them (and Nintendo subsequently poached much of Argonaut's best staff). In the lead-up to launch Sony bought UK developer Psygnosis and had them create the original playstation's developer kits (which were very well received).

#48 Posted by TigerSuperman (1976 posts) -

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"]We are not talking about computersDomino_slayer

Its pointless to talk about the European market and remove computers from the equation, mainstream gamers bought gaming computers here en masse (as in the Commodore Amiga was as popular, if not more popular than the SNES and Genesis in many European countries), computers made up a huge percentage of the gaming market, the beginning of the 16-bit generation in Britain was solely computers, Amiga was winning here until 1992 when the Genesis skyrocketed in popularity.

In Britain the Amiga sold on par with the SNES, and about half as much as the Genesis

In the USA the Amiga sold 20 times less than the SNES, and 20 times less than the Genesis.

even with computers 3d gaming was not bigger in Eu, Especially when you go look at computer sales numbers for software.TigerSuperman

Those software sales figures don't exist, I know because I've looked for them in the past.

Elite was bigger in Britain than any console game of the 80s by the way, it was one of the most popular games here of that entire period, completely eclipsing games like Super Mario Bros 1-3, The Legend of Zelda, Alex Kidd in Miracle World, Wonder Boy etc in sales.

I'm sorry, but there was no way in hell that the US mainstream moved towards 3D games before Europe, UK gaming mags from back in the day would constantly criticise consoles for their inability to handle 3D games, even during the 80s. The UK tried to design its own console called the Konix in the late 80s and the hardware design was very focussed on 3D graphics (it fell through), then the UK attempted to design another 3D focussed console which Atari ended up buying and naming the Atari Jaguar. Argonaut (who had been making popular 3D games in Britain such as Starglider) worked on making 3D games for the Nintendo Game Boy, they completed demo's of this and showed it to Nintendo, Nintendo were so astounded that they told the company to make them a 3D chip for the SNES, and then flew the staff to Japan to show Nintendo how to develop for 3D, creating the original Star Fox side by side with them (and Nintendo subsequently poached much of Argonaut's best staff). In the lead-up to launch Sony bought UK developer Psygnosis and had them create the original playstation's developer kits (which were very well received).

It doesn't matter who did 3D gaming first, the thing I am saying is at the time of 1994+ no area was going into 3D gaming as fast and almost as exclusive as NA. It's the only reason the N64 did well there, THE ONLY REASON. I never said anything about the U.S. moving into 3D gaming before Europe only that it was more of a thing that was kind of exclusive since 2D games were teated as trash most of the time. it actually got to the point where GBC sales hit a wall for a bit. U.S. 3D era went from 1994 till, well to be realistic now outside of portabales like the GBa, which also had games with 3D effects and such.
#49 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

both europe and usa moved to 3d simultanously pretty much because of the arcades. in 1993 we got virtua racing, daytona usa and virtua fighter. it was a HUGE boom everywhere and succesful everywhere

#50 Posted by Jag85 (4365 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="TigerSuperman"] The N64 was not "very" successful in Europe. Unless you can define "very" successful.

Also no, it shows that Japan mostly had 2d games in their top selling games clearly, especially in 97.TigerSuperman

Have you even looked at the (not so reliable) VGChartz lists you posted? Most of the games on the lists are 3D, not 2D. And the ones that are 2D are just handheld RPG's... Besides, you do realize Pokemon also dominated the charts in North America too, right? According to your logic, 2D games must have been dominating North America as well...

As for the N64, that's just semantics. Makes no difference whether you add the "very" or not. The point is that the N64 was successful in Europe, much more so than Japan but maybe not to the same extent as North America.

SO you backpedal your "very" statement, good.

Now, Japan: out of top 20 in 97, 12 are 2D games, 2D games also bring up the vast majority of sales.

Now, japan, out of top 20 in 98,Almost all the list is 2d, out of the 100 games, 6 2D games, but the 2d games again take the top 20, all the list below it are mostly 2D.

Also I like how you tried to make it seem like Pokemon was the only 2D game in japanese lists, pokemon doing well in the U.S. have nothing to do with ALL THE OTHER 2d games. Good job.

I'd rather "backpedal" than get into a pointless irrelevant argument over semantics like what the word "very" means. All that matters is that the N64 was a success in Europe, which you can deny all you want.

And do you realize how ridiculous it is that you're using VGChartz as an authoritive source? Let's just stick to official Media Create sales...

http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-BestSell1997.shtml

1 Pocket Monster (Red, Blue, Green) - 2D
2 Final Fantasy VII - 3D
3 Derby Stallion  - 2D
4 Final Fantasy Tactics - 3D
5 SaGa Frontier - 2D
6 Everybody's Golf - 3D
7 Parappa the Rappa - 3D
8 I.Q. - 3D
9 Tamagouchi - 2D
10 Super Mario Kart 64 - 3D
11 Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon - 3D
12 Gran Turismo - 3D
13 Super Donkey Kong 3 - 2D
14 Puyo Puyo Compile - 2D
15 Crash Bandicoot - 3D
16 Ace Combat 2 - 3D
17 Crash Bandicoot 2 - 3D
18 Front Mission Second - 3D
19 Monster Farm - 3D
20 Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball 97 - 3D

(6 games 2D, 14 games 3D)

http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-BestSell1998.shtml

1 Biohazard 2 - 3D
2 Pocket Monster (Red, Green, Blue) - 2D
3 Gran Turismo - 3D
4 Pocket Monster Yellow - 2D
5 Dragon Quest Monsters: Terry's Wonderland - 2D
6 Tekken 3 - 3D
7 Parasite Eve - 3D
8 Yu-Gi-Oh Duel Monsters - 2D
9 Xenogears - 3D
10 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 3D
11 Jikkyou World Soccer Winning Eleven 3 - 3D
12 Dragon Quest Monsters: Terry's Wonderland - 2D
13 Star Ocean 2nd Story - 3D
14 XI (Sai) - 3D
15 Metal Gear Solid - 3D
16 SD Gundam G Generation - 3D
17 Brave Fencer Mushashi - 3D
18 R4: Ridge Racer Type 4 - 3D
19 Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball '98 - 3D
20 Beatmania - 3D

(5 games 2D, 15 games 3D)

I repeat: "With the obvious exception of 2D RPG's, most of the best-selling games in Japan were 3D games."