Game Gear Hey, Let's talk about Sega Game Gear games

[bcdusk]

hmmm most if not all popular game gear games were master system ports and sega genesis demakes

Tails Adventure

Sonic Drift 2

Sonic Triple Trouble

Are considered some of the best Game Gear games and are neither ports or demakes.

Although both Sonic Drift 2 and Sonic Triple Trouble got 16 bit made fan remakes.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Hmmm most if not all popular game gear games were master system ports and Sega Genesis demakes, and I think it barely had a good reputation regarding original games.

You know, you have opinions and all which is fine.

But making such statement is just proving some ignorance about the hardware.

The Game Gear's reputation was mostly for the batteries it needed to sustain itself yet the exclusive games never had any major negatives about them whatsoever.

 

[Ferik]

You know, you have opinions and all which is fine.

But making such statement is just proving some ignorance about the hardware.

The Game Gear's reputation was mostly for the batteries it needed to sustain itself yet the exclusive games never had any major negatives about them whatsoever.

Well batteries and the insane amount of screen blur. Which was also a problem on the Game Boy, but Mario isn't known for moving fast like a certain rodent. The GG's screen was both really impressive and really disappointing at the same time.

 

[bcdusk]

insane amount of screen blur

I played both the Brick Gameboy and the Game Gear.

The Brick Game Boy Blur was way worse.

Like it.or not the Game Gear was better.

Battery life and price was why my dad got me a Gameboy however.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I think that the blur was worse for a monochrome screen because the black lines could blend.

On the other hand the battery life may be the major factor to prefer it over the other.

 

[bcdusk]

I think that the blur was worse for a monochrome screen because the black lines could blend.

The original Gameboy had a lot of blur, The Gameboy Pocket while having a smaller screen had less blur that the original Gameboy.

The Game Gear blur was only noticeable in text heavy games but yes the batttery life was awful.

 

[KannonBlitz85]

The original Gameboy had a lot of blur, The Gameboy Pocket while having a smaller screen had less blur that the original Gameboy.

The Game Gear blur was only noticeable in text heavy games but yes the batttery life was awful.

I think the main reason the blur was more noticeable on the GG was because the screen was full colour and the colour LCD tech wasn't very good at the time, at least didn't look as good as dot matrix could've.

Post automatically merged: Nov 19, 2025

Sad news guys. At least we still have the Wonderswan port to look out for

 

[bcdusk]

I think the main reason the blur was more noticeable on the GG was because the screen was full colour and the colour LCD tech wasn't very good at the time, at least didn't look as good as dot matrix could've.

I literally played the Brick Gameboy and the Game Gear side to side; the Gameboy blurr was way worse.

The Game Gear only looks blurry compared to the Gameboy Color that literally released almost a decade later.

 

[Guinea]

When I was a kid I played a lot of Sonic Chaos, Sonic Triple Trouble and Side Pocket. Never beat the Sonic games but I tried. Probably played Side Pocket the most.

 

[Alarond]

This topic shows how the new generations have been influenced by too many PROPAGANDA against SEGA.

First of all: Game Gear had the NORMAL battery life in that era, for a portable system in the early-mid 90s. In fact, very decent one. Game Boy was the exception, not the "normal thing". Don't believe that? ask Atari Lynx or TurboExpress owners about that.

Second: the screen of Game Gear WAS NOT BAD, because ALL portable screens ,by then, were like that. Yes, NOW you can change a GG screen for a new modern one, a it's like a new portable, WE KNOW, but that was early 90s. The Original Game Boy had even a worse screen the the GG, and in just green tones (which for many games based on the use of color, made GB a CRAP of a machine to be ported there). Of course, if you compare GG screen with a GB Pocket screen, that last one had less ghosting effect. But that's because GB Pocket was released in 1996. Similar case to GB Color, in 1998.

Third: GG, I'm pretty sure, was more "powerdul" than the GBC from 1998, a console which, btw, I had. GBC was a very veeery veeeeeery outdated console, by 1998. But hey, it had nice games, huge catalog since day 1, and the new Pokémon phenomena alone sold the machine as candy. Battery life? Already very reduced compared to the original GB.

I'm pretty sure it was not until NeoGeo Pocket Color you could start to find a SIMILAR (similar, not more) powerful portable color console in characteristics to the old GG (but with a restricted game catalog compared to GG). And the "forgotten" Sega Nomad (being a full Genesis/Mega Drive variation) continued, almost for sure, to be the most powerful commercial portable console ever released, until the release of GBA in 2001.

Has to be remembered that Nintendo cancelled a 32bit portable console to be released around 1996, The so called "project Atlantis", which would surpass by far the GG, and most probably the "Nomad Genesis", many years before GBA did.
The "Atlantis" project was eventually cancelled for, probably, many reasons (like consumption, size, portability, and being perhaps too complicated and too expensive to produce). But originated some rumors in the media by then. Many people though that project eventually became GBC when that machine was announced and released in 1998... but it was in fact a more serious console, as we all know today thanks to Nintendo. GBC was just a slight revision of GB, but with color screen.

So..., until 1999-2000, GG was well remembered as an impressive machine. Atari Lynx was also remembered, but less, because it sold a lot less, and had a smaller catalog with not many big stars on it. Lynx case would be similar to the later Neo Geo Pocket Color in 1999 (which was a color revision of a b/w portable console released the year before: Very bad planning there, from the original SNK, which would eventually be bought, dismantled .. and its franchises sold in pieces, already in 2001).
In Early 2000s, that situation with color potables would FINALLY change forever, first with GBA, and later, by things like N-Gage, or an ultra failed and expensive (but interesting) products like Zodiac, or rare products like GP32 (a very eccentric korean console, with some official distribution in some european countries, at least for some time). It was like the 32bit domestic consoles era in the 90s: a lot of different machines, and obviously, many failed.

Already in 2003 PSP was announced in E3, and in 2004 Nintendo DS also was in the E3 (E3 was too important for the industry and consumers to have been killed in the stupid way it was killed few years ago, but I will not extend this topic here). Both consoles introduced the polygonal world finally in the portable consoles, and were released before the end of 2004 at least in one big market.

So, in only 3 years, portable consoles suffered a real revolution after maaaaany years of being basically in total stagnation during many years, being the Game Boy successive revisions the only portable console to buy, after the death of Game Gear around 1995 (and that GG death was caused because Sega Japan decision to abandon development for everything in the domestic market but the Saturn, already by 1996 (not in Arcades, which was another story). Not because GG being a "TOTAL FAILURE" as some idiots now say, which it was not).

And then, with DS and PSP already in the market, around 2006 and 2007, iOS and Android based Smartphones (and later, tablets) appeared and expanded the "serious" mobile gaming to them.
The Mobile "flash" games existed before, since around the 2000 year, but their games were always a chaotic market, because it was too many different brands, models, "Operative Systems", and even different hard characteristics in the same brand models, to be considered a "Serious market of videogames".
Also, the way to acquire or download those (wrongly called) "flash" 8/16bit-alike mobile games was also very diffused, and distributed in many digital shops owned by many different people, specially big national Telephone/IT companies. It was a very confusing "bazaar chaotic alike" situation to know exactly when a game would work in your phone, or not. So that market was never really serious.
Android and iOS standarized the Mobile gaming, and put some seriousness on them as a real competitor portable platform.

 

[Ferik]

Third: GG, I'm pretty sure, was more "powerdul" than the GBC from 1998, a console which, btw, I had. GBC was a very veeery veeeeeery outdated console, by 1998. But hey, it had nice games, huge catalog since day 1, and the new Pokémon phenomena alone sold the machine as candy. Battery life? Already very reduced compared to the original GB.

It was not. In fact, the GG had a slower CPU than the original GB. It had a more advanced video chip and more RAM, but compared to the GBC it was definitely less powerful and it's not close.

Also the GBC having less battery life is heavily misleading. It got more than half the time on half the batteries. Battery life had improved so much over the decade that they realized they could use 2 batteries instead of 4 and still get plenty of time while reducing the size of the unit. By contrast the Sega Nomad still needed 6 batteries because it uses a very similar panel to the GG and that thing still drained batteries at an obscene clip.

 

[Alarond]

It was not. In fact, the GG had a slower CPU than the original GB. It had a more advanced video chip and more RAM, but compared to the GBC it was definitely less powerful and it's not close.

Well, it seems you already answered your affirmation before even saying it (?), but ok:

"it's not close, cause the CPU is more fast, bro"
Oh... so, let's see now some CPU speeds on the same generation then:

16Bits
-Mega Drive/Genesis: 7.6 MHz
-Super Famicom/Super Nintendo: 3.58 MHz
"it's not close, SNES was definitely less powerful". RIght?

32birs
-Sega 32X: 23 MHz x 2 full CPUs
-Playstation: 33.87 MHz
"it's not close, PSX was definitely less powerful". Right?

Let's see now in detail, some remembered 8-bit portables of the 90s:

8-bit Portables
-Game.com: Sharp SM8521 at 10 MHz
-Game Boy classic: Sharp SM83 at 4.2 MHz / Game Boy Color: Sharp SM83 at 8.2 MHz
-Game Gear: Zilog Z80 at 3.5 MHz
"it's not close, Game.com was definitely the most powerful". Right?

You want to escalate that to the next steep?
Let's see Mini Portables from the turn of the millennium:

Memory Card/Mini Portables
-Sony PocketStation: ARM7T 32-bit RISC chip at 8 MHz
-Sega VMU: 8-bit Sanyo LC8670 at 6Mhz
-Pokémon Mini: 8-bit S1C88 at 4 MHz
"it's not close, PocketStation was definitely the most powerful" . And YES, it is. But for what? managing a bunch of dots in a calculator-alike dot-matrix display? Was PocketStation, as a "console", any better than the other 2? Nope.
Yes. Sony wasted 32Bits technology for that. Why? Who the fuck knows.

You see, the CPU is not what we are talking here. It is THE SYSTEM.

When I said, and I'm quoting: "GG, I'm pretty sure, was more "powerdul" than the GBC from 1998" is because I'm talking about the system. Not the CPU. Why? because sometimes, both things are not the same.

We also can talk about the PC-Engine/Turbografx, and how, although it has a 8-bit CPU at 7.16 MHz, NOBODY, and I mean, NOBODY, talks about it as an 8-bit console. Because it would be nuts to do that. Why? because its hardware was WAY superior to the NES and Master System. It was the system, the full chipset, not the CPU speed, what really makes that console a 4 generation console (MD/SNES), already in 1987. And it sold better than Mega Drive in Japan, during that generation.

Anyways, IF YOU want to believe GBC was "more powerful than GG", ok. I will not debate that. BUT, I will NOT share that view, sorry.

And of course, it is not just as simple as comparing CPUs: That may serve many times, but not always: Saying the original classic GB was "powerful" than the Game Gear... to me, is almost a joke.
Yes, SM Land 2 was fucking great and had massive character sprites, ok (it was a massive massive improvement respect to the 1st one). But Boy... GG had amazing games in full color, including platformers (and not only Sonics), action games, shoot em ups, or even great tactical RPGs.

And in ANY case, we will agree in that: both consoles were too similar to be considered different generations... when one of them was 8 years older, and that was a LOT (I mean, MASSIVE) in the 90s technology.
Because, I repeat, GBC, when it appeared, was a very old hardware already: in Nintendo, they basically just "overclocked" the old CPU to make it able to manage the new color games. That does not mean it was a BAD console (it was not a bad console, by any means).
But I'm gonna tell you this: sometimes, was ridiculous to see how while the"domestic" consoles achieved BIG developments in 10 years (1990-2000), from NES/MS to Dreamcast/PS2... portable games were just fucking stuck in 8bits 2D games, like the very ones you already saw in portable systems from 1991.
If you bought a Nintendo magazine in 1997-1998, you will get N64 previews and reviews of games with some big names, like Banjo Kazooie or Turok 2... and Game Boy games, like the ones you already saw when Super Mario World for SNES was brand new. Now with colors! Like in GG! remember GG??

Also the GBC having less battery life is heavily misleading. It got more than half the time on half the batteries. Battery life had improved so much over the decade that they realized they could use 2 batteries instead of 4 and still get plenty of time while reducing the size of the unit. By contrast the Sega Nomad still needed 6 batteries because it uses a very similar panel to the GG and that thing still drained batteries at an obscene clip.

GBC and Game Boy Pocket had a lot less battery life than original Game boy, being basically the same kind of hardware (especially GB Pocket). Yes they used less batteries, so, of course had less hours, but they had a lot less battery life than classic GB. Sorry.
The "improvement in using energy" was possible there, but nonetheless, was not a huge difference and was not that impressive after all those years, because GB hard was so basic and designed specifically to save battery already in 1989... it was difficult to improve its consumption after many years.

Nomad was a full official Genesis/Mega Drive portable console in 1995. That was very impressive and amazing, and could be used just as a normal Genesisi/Mega Drive connecting it to a TV, 10 years before PSP (even having a port for a 2nd pad).
Do not hate it, just love it. SEGA developed a new reduced board for it, and for sure, tried to make it less demanding in energy, but nonetheless, do not expect any miracles in battery life for a FULL Genesis with a full 68K CPU (and a bunch of other chips)... using normal batteries. Because, I repeat, their mission was to play Genesis games. Bigger changes in the board would provoked the console not being compatible and would have killed the idea. SEGA was not developing a new console there, just wanted to put a screen in a MegaJet, cause it made sense.

As it happened with TurboExpress, those portable "domestic consoles" were thought to be played mostly using an AC/DC adapter, with the possibility of battery gaming for some times. And yes, that makes a lot of sense in the 90s: not many TVs in the houses. In fact, TurboExpress and Game Gear, had official analog TV adapters because that: it was an interesting feature even in home.

Of course, Nomad had a LOOOT less battery life than a Game Boy. And forget about "the panel". the panel of Nomad was FINE. It had a full backlight, that means it used a little neon light behind the screen, like GG had. That could eat faster your batteries, but was very useful.
GBC did not had any backlight, as GB had not. In fact, the ORIGINAL GBA did not had backlight in 2001. GBA SP was the first one (not counting GameBoy Light, which is a japanese-only rare version of Pocket), and was very applauded for that (who would imagine that!).

 

[Ferik]

I was simply saying that the GG doesn't even beat the base GB in every category. They both have Z80 compatible CPU's and the GB's is a fair bit faster, but like I said the GG's graphics chipset is more powerful than the base GB's, it has twice as much VRAM and can do more sprites at once and have more "colors" on screen.

Know what it doesn't have more VRAM, colors, or sprites than? The Game Boy Color. It's significantly worse in every single aspect beyond having a backlight. This isn't an opinion, it's less powerful in literally every measurable performance metric. The GBC has nearly 3 times the CPU performance, 4 times as much system RAM, the same amount of VRAM, 56 simultaneous colors compared to 32 on the GG, and has faster memory access.

 

[UnDubious]

I was simply saying that the GG doesn't even beat the base GB in every category. They both have Z80 compatible CPU's and the GB's is a fair bit faster, but like I said the GG's graphics chipset is more powerful than the base GB's, it has twice as much VRAM and can do more sprites at once and have more "colors" on screen.

Know what it doesn't have more VRAM, colors, or sprites than? The Game Boy Color. It's significantly worse in every single aspect beyond having a backlight. This isn't an opinion, it's less powerful in literally every measurable performance metric. The GBC has nearly 3 times the CPU performance, 4 times as much system RAM, the same amount of VRAM, 56 simultaneous colors compared to 32 on the GG, and has faster memory access.

And yet the games aren't more impressive in terms of either speed and aesthetic. They do have more scope since the ROMs were bigger by then.
I wonder if the GBC has shmups that can compete with the GG Alestes? The GG feels like 16-bit light at its best (think Defenders of Oasis or Sylvan Tale for example), while GBC sticks much more to an 8-bit aesthetic (notably in terms of sprite sizes, etc.), but you can also see the progress in terms of years of game design in GBC originals vs games on the the old GB, for example, or as I said before, scope.
In any case, we didn't see a proper "new gen" of handhelds until the GBA. The GBC was mostly Nintendo making sure the Pokemon craze wouldn't be kneecapped in the West by the dated GB.

 

[Alarond]

I was simply saying that the GG doesn't even beat the base GB in every category. They both have Z80 compatible CPU's and the GB's is a fair bit faster, but like I said the GG's graphics chipset is more powerful than the base GB's, it has twice as much VRAM and can do more sprites at once and have more "colors" on screen.

Know what it doesn't have more VRAM, colors, or sprites than? The Game Boy Color. It's significantly worse in every single aspect beyond having a backlight. This isn't an opinion, it's less powerful in literally every measurable performance metric. The GBC has nearly 3 times the CPU performance, 4 times as much system RAM, the same amount of VRAM, 56 simultaneous colors compared to 32 on the GG, and has faster memory access.

And yet the games aren't more impressive in terms of either speed and aesthetic. They do have more scope since the ROMs were bigger by then.
I wonder if the GBC has shmups that can compete with the GG Alestes? The GG feels like 16-bit light at its best (think Defenders of Oasis or Sylvan Tale for example), while GBC sticks much more to an 8-bit aesthetic (notably in terms of sprite sizes, etc.), but you can also see the progress in terms of years of game design in GBC originals vs games on the the old GB, for example, or as I said before, scope.
In any case, we didn't see a proper "new gen" of handhelds until the GBA. The GBC was mostly Nintendo making sure the Pokemon craze wouldn't be kneecapped in the West by the dated GB.

That's the point, yeah.
If GBC is so superior... having the same CPU but "3 times more fast, more RAM and the same VRAM (which is by itself, bad, after 8 years)"...
Why doesn't feel like that? Why, in fact, NEVER felt like that?

You also can talk about colors in screen. GG games are remembered to be very very COLORFUL, and not only because original GB had NO color variety at all (which could help to create a fake memory in favor of GG), but because the games WERE very colorful. That "56 vs 32 colors" on screen, does not mean a big thing, or any thing at all.

What I felt with GBC during its years, was it simply had more ROM space... so developers could put more non-playable screens between levels, some non-playable details like intros, some more "packaged" presentation inside the game*, etc... but in the end? the real games and the gameplay? was not BETTER than many games I saw many years BEFORE in the GG.

*Maybe they did that because videogames, during all the 90s, developed some "cinematographic kind of language, maybe because public was not ALWAYS children anymore, but teens or young adults, or maybe just because they could not make other technical things to be more attractive in GBC

Fuck, let's put a random example, not a BIG remembered game for both consoles: "Earthworm Jim"

Earthworm Jim for Game Gear

Earthworm Jim for Game Boy Color

(Yes, they are NOT EXACTLY the same game, but it will do the trick: same genre, same character, very similar game)

THAT is what I'm referring when I said GG seemed more powerful, or at least, THE SAME, being a lot older: many random games in GG felt just better or were more amazing... than what you get as a NORMAL game for GBC around 2000. Where is the better CPU speed here? GBC felt old. Yeah, had great games, but, you expected something else by late 1998.

 

[Ferik]

THAT is what I'm referring when I said GG seemed more powerful, or at least, THE SAME, being a lot older: many random games in GG felt just better or were more amazing... than what you get as a NORMAL game for GBC around 2000. Where is the better CPU speed here? GBC felt old. Yeah, had great games, but, you expected something else by late 1998.

You say that like the Game Gear Earthworm Jim game isn't running at 1/3rd the framerate of the GBC one.

Something you can see in another "Same franchise, different game" scenario with Road Rash.

The GBC uses simpler art styles for readability since it's not a backlit screen, but the power difference is undeniable. It's several times faster at rendering.

There's also a few games that use the Game Boy Color's faster data access to stream honest to goodness FMV which is something the Game Gear couldn't even dream of doing even if its cartridges supported ROM sizes big enough to do it.

If you thought the Game Gear and the Game Boy Color were in the same ballpark you simply weren't looking at the right games. They're both 160x144 resolution and have pretty limited color pallets so sure, games that don't try to do anything graphically crazy mostly just run smoother on GBC, but the console was quite a bit ahead of the GG in terms of performance. I mean it had to be, the Wonderswan and NeoGeo Pocket were both out by then. You could probably argue after 9 years it should have been more like the home console 8-bit to 16-bit leap instead of what we got feeling more like the Dreamcast vs the Gamecube, and I wouldn't disagree, but it still is significantly more powerful.

 

[Alarond]

You say that like the Game Gear Earthworm Jim game isn't running at 1/3rd the framerate of the GBC one.

It does not. What are you talking about?
Did you even see the GG video when the game is full platforming? you see there a 1/3rd of frame rate??

Something you can see in another "Same franchise, different game" scenario with Road Rash.

LOL. Is not a valid comparison, sorry.
The GG version literally imitates the original game for Genesis/Mega Drive, which had the same kind of "broken" framerate, like all the other versions of the era (like the original GB classic version, which by the way, is one of the 2 GB classic games NOT compatible with GBC, for some known CPU bug the game exploits. That bug was solved in GBC model).

GBC version maybe is the very same franchise, yes, but it uses a total different style of 3D effect. And not a very playable one, but very impressive to watch. Very similar to visual effects already seen in consoles like NES, by the way.


There are lots of GG racing games, and many of them more pleasing to the eyes.

More games here:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

The GBC uses simpler art styles for readability since it's not a backlit screen, but the power difference is undeniable. It's several times faster at rendering.

Really? has GBC something like this?

or like this?

There's also a few games that use the Game Boy Color's faster data access to stream honest to goodness FMV which is something the Game Gear couldn't even dream of doing even if its cartridges supported ROM sizes big enough to do it.

The FMVs are not "GBC technology", but the compression used, much more advanced in 2000 than in 1990. Resident Evil 2 in Nintendo 64 with full FMVs seemed impossible in 1996 (and in fact, it was an achievement). The intro of Sonic 3D for MD was IMPOSSIBLE to imagine in 1988 for the same console. With enough technology in compression advances, and space, you can put FMVs even in a classic Game Boy, and of course in a Game Gear.

If you thought the Game Gear and the Game Boy Color were in the same ballpark you simply weren't looking at the right games. They're both 160x144 resolution and have pretty limited color pallets so sure, games that don't try to do anything graphically crazy mostly just run smoother on GBC, but the console was quite a bit ahead of the GG in terms of performance. I mean it had to be, the Wonderswan and NeoGeo Pocket were both out by then. You could probably argue after 9 years it should have been more like the home console 8-bit to 16-bit leap instead of what we got feeling more like the Dreamcast vs the Gamecube, and I wouldn't disagree, but it still is significantly more powerful.

If GBC was that much powerful as you think, it did not show it almost never during its day. Really.

Instead, GG had lot of amazing games, and many younger people just receiver PROPAGANDA against SEGA in general, and against GG in particular, the last 20 years. MANY LIES propagated by youtube "expert" in their repulsive channels (can give names), making believe non critical young gamers things like for example "the GG was a failed crap", or its "games pure shit"...

...similar to the stupid lies many youtubers said THIS YEAR about Switch 2, the last 6 months, telling the people things like "they returned the console", or "Nintendo was laughing at them", filling Youtube of stupid videos and MORE REPULSIVE thumbnails. And THAT was NOT organic. WAS PLANNED.

You have to ask WHO benefits ALWAYS from those piles of SHIT and LIES, and who NEVER receives the same kind of propaganda against them. And I mean NEVER.



.

 

[Ferik]

It does not. What are you talking about?
Did you even see the GG video when the game is full platforming? you see there a 1/3rd of frame rate??

I have played both versions. The Game Gear version runs poorly with incredibly choppy scrolling, relatively common slowdown, and a severe lack of animation frames relative to the GBC game or console originals, are you just unable to tell?

LOL. Is not a valid comparison, sorry.
The GG version literally imitates the original game for Genesis/Mega Drive, which had the same kind of "broken" framerate, like all the other versions of the era (like the original GB classic version, which by the way, is one of the 2 GB classic games NOT compatible with GBC, for some known CPU bug the game exploits. That bug was solved in GBC model).

GBC version maybe is the very same franchise, yes, but it uses a total different style of 3D effect. And not a very playable one, but very impressive to watch. Very similar to visual effects already seen in consoles like NES, by the way.

The Game Boy and Game Boy Color Road Rash games are actually different games, and no, it's not the same effect as the one used on the NES. You're right in that it's a different effect to the one on the Game Gear, it's more similar to the one on the original Game Boy, except it runs at twice the framerate of that game too. And in either case, no it's not actually that similar to the effect in Days of Thunder, the ability to generate hills and elevation changes is much more complex than you probably realize.

There are lots of GG racing games, and many of them more pleasing to the eyes.

Like I said, no elevation changes. That's an incredibly complicated and expensive effect for these early low power CPU's.

Really? has GBC something like this?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I mean it's not a particularly good game, but it throws a lot of sprites on screen and has some neat line scrolling in the Volcano level. Nobody that actually cared made any original SHMUPS for the GBC though because SHMUPS were kinda dead at the time. It did get a nice port of the GB R-Type games with color added, but obviously those are GB games not true GBC. That has nothing to do with the system's power and more to do with the fact that the style of game was simply out of fashion.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

And unlike Ristar, Shantae and Rayman run at 60fps instead of 30 and don't need to slow down if more than 2 enemies ever show up on screen at once.

The FMVs are not "GBC technology", but the compression used, much more advanced in 2000 than in 1990. Resident Evil 2 in Nintendo 64 with full FMVs seemed impossible in 1996 (and in fact, it was an achievement). The intro of Sonic 3D for MD was IMPOSSIBLE to imagine in 1988 for the same console. With enough technology in compression advances, and space, you can put FMVs even in a classic Game Boy, and of course in a Game Gear.

Bad Apple is a special case because it's entirely monochromatic, and not even shades it's literally just black and white. That tremendously lowers the data throughput required by a multiplicative degree. Even with compression the Game Gear is physically incapable of redrawing an entire bitmap screen that quickly.

If GBC was that much powerful as you think, it did not show it almost never during its day. Really.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Check out how well animated the sprites are in Metal Gear Solid

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Instead, GG had lot of amazing games, and many younger people just receiver PROPAGANDA against SEGA in general, and against GG in particular, the last 20 years. MANY LIES propagated by youtube "expert" in their repulsive channels (can give names), making believe non critical young gamers things like for example "the GG was a failed crap", or its "games pure shit"...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Street Fighter Alpha has significantly more frames of animation and the backgrounds update at 60fps

Also, I never implied the Game Gear was crap, or was unimpressive for the era. I mean, the Lynx was a lot more powerful than the GG or GB in basically every way, but the games on it were largely actually terrible which is why it failed. The GG wasn't a runaway success but it did decently well for itself. I know I liked mine as a kid. But I also know that Sonic 2 was really nasty with the screen blur meanwhile Mario Land 2 ran much slower and didn't have color so the blur wasn't nearly as bad of an issue to deal with, and I also know that I pretty much exclusively played the GG with an AC adapter only bringing it to school a handful of times whereas the GB didn't piss my parents off nearly as much constantly having to buy batteries.

...similar to the stupid lies many youtubers said THIS YEAR about Switch 2, the last 6 months, telling the people things like "they returned the console", or "Nintendo was laughing at them", filling Youtube of stupid videos and MORE REPULSIVE thumbnails. And THAT was NOT organic. WAS PLANNED.

You have to ask WHO benefits ALWAYS from those piles of SHIT and LIES, and who NEVER receives the same kind of propaganda against them. And I mean NEVER.

I feel like you just have a few issues you need to work out there. People want the Switch 2 to fail because they feel betrayed by Nintendo due to the price hike and nasty TOS changes, it's not coordinated or planned that's insane. You can't look at Nintendo legally forcing Pocket Pair to remove features from their game, and literally bricking consoles for putting a MIG into them and say "Oh nobody actually hates Nintendo it's a psyop" with a straight face.

 

[bcdusk]

As someone who used both the Brick Gameboy and the sega Game Gear back in the 90s, here is my take on it. (Yes I didn't own a Game Gear cause money but I did use one).

The Sega Gamegear was more expensive.

The battery life was shit.

The Brick Gameboy was cheaper and came with Tetris included.

The Brick Gameboy battery life was insane, it even worked with almost drained batteries.

The Game Gear was in color and was literally a portable Sega Master System, one that had MORE COLORS THAT THE SEGA MASTER SYSTEM!

The Brick Gameboy was less powerful that the Nes.

The Brick gameboy screen was more blurry that the Sega Game Gear, a problem that wasn't solved until the Gameboy Pocket that has a screen SMALLER that the Brick Gameboy and got released several years after the Sega Game Gear.

Overall what ruined the Sega Game Gear was the battery life, despite the Game Gear having some great games.

Remember back then it was parents who bought the portable videogame consoles and the fact the Game Gear was a money sink due to the shitty battery life made it doomed for the start.

It still was the second most popular videogame console of its time, beating anything not made by Nintendo.

Sure the Wonderswan became the most popular portable in Japan for a while but by then the Game Gear had been dead for a while.

 

[UnDubious]

The Game Gear was mostly played with the AC Adapter, at the end of the day. I know I always wanted one when I was a little kid, but it was too expensive, so I ended up with a Game Boy. I played all those games later.

 

[Alarond]

I have played both versions. The Game Gear version runs poorly with incredibly choppy scrolling, relatively common slowdown, and a severe lack of animation frames relative to the GBC game or console originals, are you just unable to tell?

You "played both versions". And obviously, you did not see the 2 videos above.

The Game Boy and Game Boy Color Road Rash games are actually different games, and no, it's not the same effect as the one used on the NES. You're right in that it's a different effect to the one on the Game Gear, it's more similar to the one on the original Game Boy, except it runs at twice the framerate of that game too. And in either case, no it's not actually that similar to the effect in Days of Thunder, the ability to generate hills and elevation changes is much more complex than you probably realize.

Like I said, no elevation changes. That's an incredibly complicated and expensive effect for these early low power CPU's.

gnha...

I mean it's not a particularly good game,

(talking about Power Strike II for GG)
"I mean it's not a particularly good game"

but it throws a lot of sprites on screen and has some neat line scrolling in the Volcano level. Nobody that actually cared made any original SHMUPS for the GBC though because SHMUPS were kinda dead at the time.

Skiiiiinner with his crazy explanations
The superintendent's gonna need his medication!
When he hears Skinner's lame exaggerations
There'll be trouble in town tonight!

It did get a nice port of the GB R-Type games with color added, but obviously those are GB games not true GBC. That has nothing to do with the system's power and more to do with the fact that the style of game was simply out of fashion.

R-Type DX was probably the best Shoot 'em up for GBC. Yes, that crap, which, using your own delicate words (used before in this very same thread) "runs poorly with incredibly choppy scrolling, relatively common slowdown, and a severe lack of animation frames".

Ask urgently anybody with contact to the real world if the Shoot 'em ups "were dead" or "out of fashion" (as you literally said) in late 90s. This is not a topic about humiliating you, but that is PRECISELY when bullet hell games were exploding in popularity. You have FAMOUS shoot 'em ups IN ALL CONSOLES of that era (DON'T MAKE ME DO A LIST), ALL OF THEM... but not in GBC.
Why not in GBC? Because the console is heavy outdated and it can't move them.

So... as this genre is ALWAYS VERY WELCOMED in a portable console (by obvious reasons: fast to play in any little moment)... they just ported "crap" (sorry for the word) from the 80s to GBC, and barely.
THAT'S what happened. I HAD THAT CONSOLE, I told you that, remember?
You are welcome.

This video below is very explanatory about the "shoot 'em ups" situation in GBC. ("Unfortunately", you have to click it, to see it in youtube).

(And NO, I'm not a huge fan of that genre. I tell you that, because I just know you NOW will try to say that, in some way, to attack me "ad hominem" to discredit what I just explained).

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

And unlike Ristar, Shantae and Rayman run at 60fps instead of 30 and don't need to slow down if more than 2 enemies ever show up on screen at once.

Shantae and Rayman do NOT run at 60fps. The screen of the GB does. Games adapt to that, and those 2 games DO NOT run at 60fps, because GBC is far to get any game running at that speed. It's an 8 bit console.

Btw: Shantae appeared so late in the GBC life, nobody cared and game got "niche famous" 15 years later. Why? cause this new "kid" below this lines was already selling as pancakes, and many classic 16bit games were ported to that by that time. Any of them "better shit" that Shantae, which is a good game.

Rayman for GBC is a joke compared to the original game, but yeah, it's a nice game for GBC. It would also be a nice game in GG :).

And Ristar for GG does not specially "slow down" as you can see in the videos (if you open your eyes while doing it). But for sure MANY (MANY) GBC games do that A LOT, when 3 o 4 enemies appear at the same time. That, or flickering. Or both. Yes, Really.
Cause I repeat, it's an 8-bit console.

Bad Apple is a special case because it's entirely monochromatic, and not even shades it's literally just black and white. That tremendously lowers the data throughput required by a multiplicative degree. Even with compression the Game Gear is physically incapable of redrawing an entire bitmap screen that quickly.

blablabla..., Steam Clams. That runs on a normal Game Boy! An FMV does not need to be that fast, you can put FMVs almost in any thing with a screen, now.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Check out how well animated the sprites are in Metal Gear Solid

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Street Fighter Alpha has significantly more frames of animation and the backgrounds update at 60fps

Of course: MGS Ghost Babel and Street Fighter Alpha.

With Shantae, now we have the complete Sacred Trinity to show to the world "the GBC was more advanced than a simple GB with an screen color".
Yes, they are very good games for GBC. They are. Yes.
You also have the Tomb Raider's Lara's animations. Also very good. A lot of effort from developers, there.
Or that visual mess "Alone in the Dark IV" for GBC is. Very nice pre-rendered backgrounds, though.

And yes, that V-Rally is probably the most impressive racing game in GBC. Do you know it is a color version of an older GB classic game, right? Oooh... boy.

Also, I never implied the Game Gear was crap, or was unimpressive for the era.

Yes... so you call them "Steam Hams"... despite the fact you have obviously been grilling the Game Gear from the start?

I mean, the Lynx was a lot more powerful than the GG or GB in basically every way, but the games on it were largely actually terrible which is why it failed. The GG wasn't a runaway success but it did decently well for itself. I know I liked mine as a kid. But I also know that Sonic 2 was really nasty with the screen blur meanwhile Mario Land 2 ran much slower and didn't have color so the blur wasn't nearly as bad of an issue to deal with, and I also know that I pretty much exclusively played the GG with an AC adapter only bringing it to school a handful of times whereas the GB didn't piss my parents off nearly as much constantly having to buy batteries.

Some heavy drama there.

I feel like you just have a few issues you need to work out there.

Yes, It's obviously me who is selling GBC as the 8th wonder of the world in 1998.
(note the sarcasm).

People want the Switch 2 to fail because they feel betrayed by Nintendo

"People want the Switch 2 to fail because they feel betrayed by Nintendo"

(youtube during 6 months, full of videos hating Switch 2, Mario Kart World,...)
-Good Lord, what is happening in there?
-Aurora Borealis

due to the price hike and nasty TOS changes, it's not coordinated or planned that's insane. You can't look at Nintendo legally forcing Pocket Pair to remove features from their game, and literally bricking consoles for putting a MIG into them and say "Oh nobody actually hates Nintendo it's a psyop" with a straight face.

Of course. ALL that instant hate to Switch 2 from DAY 1 was totally organic, from the public, and it was accompanied by extremely low selling numbers, right? Rwwaaight. And I'm the crazy one, because "I do not understand people feeling betrayed by Nintendo". Yeah.

Bye.

 

[Ferik]

Yeah, we're done here, you clearly have no idea how anything works from a technical standpoint seeing as you think 8-bit hardware can't run games at 60fps. Go read up on shift registers and how the PPU and VDP actually function.

Also that comment wasn't about Power Strike 2, it was about Project S-11. The video that was right above the comment in question. Also, yes, SHMUPS were dead. I know some absolutely fantastic ones were still being made, Mars Matrix and R-Type Delta being particular highlights for me, but Ikaruga sold less than 60k units worldwide on the Gamecube and Dreamcast combined. Border Down nearly tanked its company. The genre was a far cry from its 80's and early 90's success where Gradius pulled 1 million units on the NES alone. They were not getting greenlit outside of niche pitches from small teams. Hell, Gradius V got outsourced to Treasure because Konami didn't want to deal with it in house. Nobody with real skill made a SHMUP on the GBC because there was no money to make one and no faith it would sell, and Compile in particular was too busy desperately trying to fight off bankruptcy with Puyo Puyo releases.

 

[UnDubious]

Yeah, we're done here, you clearly have no idea how anything works from a technical standpoint seeing as you think 8-bit hardware can't run games at 60fps. Go read up on shift registers and how the PPU and VDP actually function.

Also that comment wasn't about Power Strike 2, it was about Project S-11. The video that was right above the comment in question. Also, yes, SHMUPS were dead. I know some absolutely fantastic ones were still being made, Mars Matrix and R-Type Delta being particular highlights for me, but Ikaruga sold less than 60k units worldwide on the Gamecube and Dreamcast combined. Border Down nearly tanked its company. The genre was a far cry from its 80's and early 90's success where Gradius pulled 1 million units on the NES alone. They were not getting greenlit outside of niche pitches from small teams. Hell, Gradius V got outsourced to Treasure because Konami didn't want to deal with it in house. Nobody with real skill made a SHMUP on the GBC because there was no money to make one and no faith it would sell, and Compile in particular was too busy desperately trying to fight off bankruptcy with Puyo Puyo releases.

This is true. Bullet hells have diehard fans, but they're a niche genre, and no one was particularly looking for one on the Game Boy Color. The reason I brought up GG Aleste initially is because of how impressive it is as an 8-bit portable title from that time (as well as being very good). I still find GG games often more impressive than GBC games, even if GBC games might run smoother (in some cases). Frame rates are a modern obsession, you hardly ever heard about them in the '90s or early '00s.