I think the point you're missing (intentionally?) that is being raised is that the Duo became the PC Engine system from 1991 onwards. The PC Engine evolved into the Duo so it ceased to be an add on any longer, it was the system. This did not happen for the Mega CD, Jaguar CD, 64DD, Famicom Disk System etc.
I don't understand why you think this matters. Systems are what they are, they don't change classification midlife.
I think that the point you're missing is that since Nintendo failed time and time again at something, anyone else succeeding at the same thing can't be acknowledged as legitimate. Doing so would admit to Nintendo being fallible.
The Famicom Disk System and Satellaview weren't big failures, though. They weren't as successful as Nintendo might have wanted, sure, but they weren't big failures. Of Nintendo's addons only the 64DD was a big failure. So as usual your Nintendo-bashing attack is off base.
I think the point you're missing (intentionally?) that is being raised is that the Duo became the PC Engine system from 1991 onwards. The PC Engine evolved into the Duo so it ceased to be an add on any longer, it was the system. This did not happen for the Mega CD, Jaguar CD, 64DD, Famicom Disk System etc.
O:) :-"
As I said in my last post that's irrelevant. How successful an addon is doesn't matter, what it is matters.
I can't think of even one reason why the fact that the Duo replaced the PCE/TG16, while the Twin Famicom did not replace the Famicom and the CDX did not replace the Genesis, is at all relevant when classifying them. All that matters for classification is that they are addons, with combo systems that released later.
I think "(intentionally)" is the key point of your paragraph. I don't think Black Falcon trolling for the purpose of trolling, as I honestly believe he believes the things he is saying. However, the fact remains that there is no other system that was ever replaced by a new variation of the system as its primary SKU. The Twin Famicom is another good example where a niche item was introduced (this one by a third party), but there was clearly no intention for this new product to take over as the main SKU. That is why the PC-Engine is different, the Duo was clearly INTENDED TO REPLACE THE ORIGINAL SKU, whereas the other systems mentioned were introduced as niche alternatives with no intention of replacing the primary SKU.
Seriously, your argument has no basis!
First, is there any basis for thinking that the Turbo CD was ACTUALLY originally "intended to replace" the PCE HuCard system? It was intended as a supplement, but as a replacement? Hudson's continued support for HuCards up until the end of '93 suggests otherwise, considering that they invented the thing. It was meant as a supplement which, as SamIAm said and I completely agree with, after the SNES released became the main focus as a way of differentiating the TG16/CD from the SNES. But that probably wasn't the original intent. It's something which NEC decided on later, and a majority of their audience did not follow them on that route, given the under-40%-adoption-rate-by-HuCard-system-owners fact.
As for the Duo, the Duo isn't a new system, just a TG16+CD combo system. The Turbo CD predates it by years, and its place in classification had already been permanently set as an addon. You can't go back and change that years after the fact, that's just silly! The Duo is not a new system. It's a combo system.
As far as classification goes it doesn't matter, just like the Twin Famicom and CDX don't matter. I can't understand why you'd say that somehow the TG16 and CD are the same system. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who's played both of them that they are not, just like the NES and Famicom Disk System are not, and the Genesis and Sega CD are not. That the Turbo CD became the only addon to outlast its base system is a very interesting and cool historical fact, but for classification purposes it's irrelevant. And again, the HuCard system sold better! Remember the sales SamIAm has shown. ~6 million systems with HuCard vs. ~2 million CD systems, 1 million of those the Duo systems which count towards both. The Turbo CD outlasted its originator, the only time an addon has ever done that, but it didn't outperform it. Addons never do that.
If the CDX was truly intended to replace the Genesis, then Sega would've moved all its AAA titles to the Sega CD format. This did not happen, as it had happened with the PC-E.
This is completely irrelevant when it comes to classification, as I said.
As for using success as a separator -- that is, saying that because the Turbo CD was more successful than other addons it deserves to be counted separately than other addons and isn't really an addon -- that is something I strongly disagree with. For example, one big issue I have with listings of console generations is that the new consoles of 1982 are (wrongly) listed on all the big sites as being "2nd generation" platforms. That's ridiculous of course; the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Vectrex are in no way 2nd-gen. They are early 3rd gen systems, which released less than a year before the NES (looking at first-release-anywhere, not just the US). And yet most people dump those systems in with systems released five or six years earlier, simply because the systems of 1982 all crashed and burned in the crash, while the NES released in the West several years later and brought back the market. I don't think that that should matter -- what matters is when it was first released and the systems' hardware power, and by those standards, there is absolutely no question that the 5200 and Colecovision are much closer to the NES than stuff like the 2600 or Odyssey 2.
This is another odd viewpoint you hold. I don't think that "generations" were ever defined by a year, but rather an event. The Famicom/NES was an absolute game changer to the industry, which is why it ushered in the new "generation" on its own. I tend to argue that the "generation" thing is foolish in general, why do these systems need to be grouped in some manner? But, if you are going to do it logically, then you need to take into account key events and not just dates.
Think about other entertainment, such as music. When Elvis or the Beatles hit the scene, everything changed. When Babe Ruth stepped on the baseball field, the entire game changed. When Nintendo's Famicom hit stores, gaming changed and everything on the shelf even months prior didn't matter anymore.
That's an America-centric viewpoint which is irrelevant nonsense from a technological point of view, or an international point of view. When Nintendo's Famicom hit stores in July 1983, everything did not change. All other platforms were instantly dated, as it was the most powerful console yet by a good margin, but the Colecovision, 5200, or Sega's Colecovision-based SG-1000, which, remember, launched in Japan the same week that the Famicom did -- were competitive. Early Famicom games, which didn't use any mapper chips, have better graphics than anything on those other systems -- compare NES to Colecovision Donkey Kong to see that -- but they're clearly in the same generation of systems. Again, look at the Colecovision homebrew game Ghostblaster, it looks about as good as a mid '80s NES game. It took a few years until, thanks to better mapper chips, NES games really crushed the competition, and even then Ghostblaster shows that the Colecovision hardware wasn't completely hopelessly dated when really pushed. Conveniently, this happened at about the same time that the system released in the West, so here we had Super Mario Bros. at launch in fall 1985, shortly after the game released in Japan. But look at the kinds of games available on the Famicom over the two years before SMB's release. In terms of both graphics and gameplay, they're nowhere near its level. The release list was thin, too -- in 1983 and most of 1984 Nintendo was pretty much the only publisher on the Famicom, and they had a slow release schedule. It's only once third-party games started appearing in '84-'85 that the library expanded. And pretending that the NES is a 1985 console and its first two years don't exist and don't matter simply because they only happened in Japan is absolutely wrong! They matter just as much as any other part of its history.
So should we say that 1983-1985 Famicom stuff is "2nd gen" but 1985-1994 Famicom/NES stuff is "3rd gen" because the NES mapper chips were a generational leap? I guess you COULD, but I would strongly disagree. No, it's all 3rd gen. People knew it at the time when the Colecovision released that it was ushering in a new console generation, and it was. It and the 5200 are in the same place as the Turbografx in the 4th generation, the Jaguar or 3DO for the 5th generation, or the Dreamcast for the 6th generation. For another game example, in addition to Ghostblaster, look at Wonder Boy on the SG-1000. It's clearly a lot worse looking than the NES version, Adventure Island, but it's also clearly not a full generation behind.
When historians talk about real history, there are various "ages." These ages are all triggered by key events, which is the sane way of looking at history. If your timelines only looks are the start and end of each year and clumps all that middle stuff on the line together because it is the same year so it must be similar, then you are not plotting things appropriately.
Wha... no, of course generations are tied to years! For instance, the Wii is a 7th gen console, not 6th. Everyone not crazily trolling it knows this. This is true despite its "last-gen" power. The same is true for the Wii U this gen. When a system releases is absolutely key. System power does not determine which generation a system is in. When it released does. Video game console generations are not like historical periods; they are more like, well, human generations. What separates them is time, not specific events. There's a reason the word "generations" is used for them, after all! The way that specific events matter is that when a new, more powerful system releases, after enough time has passed since the last-gen systems to make a generational gap (in gaming, a couple of years), it's a new console generation.
Now, there are some weird things which are hard to classify -- handhelds in the late' 90s and early '00s are probably the best example of this, or for a console case what about the Neo-Geo CD -- but they are the exceptions.
I would argue there's often a weird, transitional generation. 3DO, at least, falls into that category. Some would argue the PC Engine does. The PC Engine may have heralded the 16-bit generation, but in so many ways it was rooted very solidly in the 8-bit generation of the NES. The reason I think the PC Engine fits better in the 16-bit generation is because it was popular and hung in there and was ultimately able to be competitive. The 3DO, however, didn't last long into the 32-bit generation and so it really wasn't a part of it. It fizzled out before the 32-bit generation hit its stride.
You really need to play games like Gex, Blade Force, Star Fighter, and The Need for Speed. The 3DO is a 5th gen console, absolutely no question.
If I recall correctly, this whole tangent started over whether it was valid to compare the number of SNES games released every year to the number of HuCard and CD releases combined.
You're right, it did.
If the PCE and the CD expansion are some super-special case that needs its own special classification, then at least you have to admit that you can't really compare it head-on with the SNES or the Genesis in certain aspects. Apples and oranges, right?
If you're going to combine TG16 and CD (inc. Super/Arcade Cards), then of course you must compare it to the Genesis + Sega CD + 32X, and SNES + Satellaview. Anything else would be an obviously biased double standard. Either a console and its addons are one system, or they aren't. I know that online listing sites have to draw a line somewhere for what is a "system", and they list the Sega CD and 32X and 64DD as "systems" but not, say, the Turbo Super or Arcade CD or N64 Expansion Pak Required titles, and I agree with those classifications, but once you've chosen where to draw your line at what is an addon and what isn't, you have to be consistent. The things some people said here about how the 32X or Sega CD don't really count because they have more processors in them while the Turbo CD doesn't, or whatever... come on, that's just being biased. Either count addons or don't! Splitting hairs like that purely to get the better outcome for NEC isn't right (and something similar wouldn't be right in favor of any other console manufacturer either, of course).
So yes, you're right if you're saying that consistency is better.
Although I posted way back that I don't think we'll ever agree to what the PCE really "is", I personally think it's dubious and even lazy to just say that the PCE and the CD expansion are the same thing by just calling them one console. If the CD expansion goes beyond being an add-on, then to me it looks more like it's a new console entirely that grew out of the PCE. It sure as hell was priced like one.
I agree, except on the 'it's a completely new system' point; sure it was priced like one, but it really isn't one. But otherwise, yeah, you're right.
