What were the life time sales for the PCE/PCEDuo

[Necromancer]

I agree that it's more about some people here wanting to redefine things in order to make the TG16 look better, since clearly you need to include the CD library to keep the system competitive in comparison to the other systems of the generation.

And there's your ENTIRE problem.

"It's not fair to compare the PCE CDs to my beloved SNES!  CDs are cheating!!!!"

How invisible is it to the user?  Does the game go in the original system or the addon?  What did the company sell the device as?  These questions matter.

If those were determinants of what constitutes an add-on, they'd be part of the definition to which you linked.  They are not, and therefor you're making up your own definition to suit your argument.

HONEST QUESTION TO EVERYONE: how would you classify LaserActive and LD-ROM and PCE?

That's a good question.  It doesn't play games on its own, so the LA can't properly be called a console; if it's not a console, then the pacs can't be console add-ons; and the pacs themselves probably can't be called consoles because they don't work on their own or output to a TV.

I'd say the pacs are 'non-console' add-ons, akin to the 3DO Blaster and PC-FX GA thingys.

[A Black Falcon]

And there's your ENTIRE problem.

"It's not fair to compare the PCE CDs to my beloved SNES!  CDs are cheating!!!!"

No, that's YOUR entire problem.  For some bizarre reason you think that things like success, whether you like a platform or not, how well it sold, or anything else of the sort is is some way relevant.  It isn't.  It isn't at all. 

I know I've said this before, but once again, the way a system is categorized has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO with any of that subjective stuff.  Nothing whatsoever.  Stop projecting and making things up about what you wrongly think I like.  The only thing that matters for this discussion is what a system is, not any of the things you are complaining about here.

Also, this doesn't matter, but it's quite weird that you're claiming that the SNES is "my beloved" system, somehow, when of course I've always made it clear that I think the Genesis+Sega CD+32X is every bit as great as the SNES, and it's the N64, not the SNES, that is my favorite console.  And why do you think I don't like the TG16+CD a lot too?  There's a reason I'm here, it's because it's a great console!  The fact that the TCD is an addon and Duos are combo systems, not a new model which makes the CD not an addon,  is a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that opinion stuff.  You're the ones wrongly making it into something other than that, not me.  You are entirely, completely wrong here, 100%.

It's even weirder, of course, given that if you'd read all of my posts in this thread, you might have noticed that I said that it's entirely fair to compare the SNES to the Turbo CD... so even your attempt at an insult can't get its facts straight!

If those were determinants of what constitutes an add-on, they'd be part of the definition to which you linked.  They are not, and therefor you're making up your own definition to suit your argument.

Oh come on.

Add-ons, also known as peripherals, are devices generally sold separately from the console, but which connect to the main unit to add significant new functionality. This may include devices which upgrade the hardware of a console to allow it to play more resource-intensive games, devices which allow consoles to play games on a different media format, or devices which fully change the function of a console from a game playing device to something else. A hardware add-on differs from an accessory in that an accessory either adds functionality which is beneficial but nonessential for gameplay (like a Game Link Cable or Rumble Pak), or in some cases may only add aesthetic value (like a case mod or faceplate). Generally, a game designed for use with an accessory can still be played on a console without the compatible accessory, whereas a game designed for use with a peripheral can not be played on a console without the appropriate peripheral.

Please note that the term "device" is a term which really can't include enhancement chips in game carts -- then they'd say "games", not "devices".  That's why I also linked the Super FX article, to  show that it clearly calls it something else and not an add-on, which it isn't -- it's an enhancement chip in a game cartridge.

Otherwise, the quote covers the three major categories of addon -- new media formats, entirely new thing connecting to the system (such as a 32X), and hardware improvements in some way.

HONEST QUESTION TO EVERYONE: how would you classify LaserActive and LD-ROM and PCE?

That's a good question.  It doesn't play games on its own, so the LA can't properly be called a console; if it's not a console, then the pacs can't be console add-ons; and the pacs themselves probably can't be called consoles because they don't work on their own or output to a TV.

I'd say the pacs are 'non-console' add-ons, akin to the 3DO Blaster and PC-FX GA thingys.
[/QUOTE]Yeah, it's definitely a weird case.  The LaserActive alone isn't really a console, because it can't play games on its own -- it needs a Sega or NEC PAC for that.  So maybe the LaserActive ITSELF is the addon, and the Sega or NEC PACs are the "consoles"?  Because it's basically like a Sega/Turbo CD but with laserdiscs.  But as you say, those 'consoles' don't work on their own, which is a definite problem for that.  But they really aren't exactly add-ons either since the LA isn't a console on its own.  So... yeah, it's tricky.

[Necromancer]

Blah, blah, blah, more foolish rambling....... The fact that the TCD is an addon and Duos are combo systems, not a new model which makes the CD not an addon,  is a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that opinion stuff.  You're the ones wrongly making it into something other than that, not me.  You are entirely, completely wrong here, 100%.

Again, I've yet to say the CD was anything but an add-on.  If I say this enough times, will it eventually get through your thick skull?

It's even weirder, of course, given that if you'd read all of my posts in this thread, you might have noticed that I said that it's entirely fair to compare the SNES to the Turbo CD... so even your attempt at an insult can't get its facts straight!

This all started when you whined that it was unfair to include CD games when comparing the time periods that the two systems were supported ("no pce releases after '94!"), so why don't YOU get your facts straight?!?
 

Oh come on.

<<<  insert wikipedia definition that Black Falcon can't comprehend here  >>>

Only the first sentence of that paragraph is the definition of 'add-on', with the rest being examples of add-on capabilities and how an add-on differs from an accessory.  Again, it does not say that a media format change is required or that an add-on must be a stand-alone device un-coupled from a game.

Please note that the term "device" is a term which really can't include enhancement chips in game carts -- then they'd say "games", not "devices".  That's why I also linked the Super FX article, to  show that it clearly calls it something else and not an add-on, which it isn't -- it's an enhancement chip in a game cartridge.

Making up your own definition for 'device', eh?  Here's the dictionary definition:

de·vice (noun) - a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, especially a mechanical or electrical one.

See anything in there saying that a 'device' must be physically separate and distinct from any other function?  Nope, that's your addition.

It's a moot point anyway, as with or without helper chips they're all still Super Famicom games to me.  If you and Sam (among others) want to use "customer ignorance" and cost as deciding factors in what constitutes an add-on, I don't really care; just don't try to claim that it's a textbook definition.

[A Black Falcon]

Blah, blah, blah, more foolish rambling....... The fact that the TCD is an addon and Duos are combo systems, not a new model which makes the CD not an addon,  is a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that opinion stuff.  You're the ones wrongly making it into something other than that, not me.  You are entirely, completely wrong here, 100%.

Again, I've yet to say the CD was anything but an add-on.  If I say this enough times, will it eventually get through your thick skull?

Yeah, for you people somehow it's both an addon AND part of the library, because it shifts definition mid-generation.  As I've said, you can't do that.  What something is at the start is what it is.

This all started when you whined that it was unfair to include CD games when comparing the time periods that the two systems were supported ("no pce releases after '94!"), so why don't YOU get your facts straight?!?

There weren't any PC Engine games after 1994, though.  You can compare the SNES to the TG16, and you can compare the SNES to the Turbo CD.  Making both of those comparisons is just fine.  I don't know why you think that because I separate platforms by what system they're for I'm somehow saying that you can't compare the SNES to the Turbo CD, but that's complete nonsense. As I've said all along, of course it is entirely fair to compare platforms in the same generation.

Also, once again, in a list like https://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=16829.msg348682#msg348682 , if you had also done Sega also would you have merged the Genesis, Sega CD, and 32X all onto one list, or would you have kept them separate?  Those two lists there are TG16+TCD and SNES+Satellaview, so of course a Sega list should include all addons as well... but you people keep trying to split hairs in order to exclude Sega's addons, which is absurd if you're including Nintendo and NEC's.  No, the idea that addons must increase system power is NOT valid -- remember the Wikipedia definition saying that adding a new media format is also an addon!  If you would have included all Genesis addons then it'd be a fair all-formats comparison, but I'd still rather see a list that separates systems out from their addons as well -- the main consoles and their addons are not the same thing, and what is on what format is quite important.  It'd be fair to have both a merged list AND a separated list, but merged only I don't like.

Only the first sentence of that paragraph is the definition of 'add-on', with the rest being examples of add-on capabilities and how an add-on differs from an accessory.  Again, it does not say that a media format change is required or that an add-on must be a stand-alone device un-coupled from a game.

The use of the term "device" makes it clear that they are NOT including things inside game cartridges.  If you look up any enhancement chip article (NES mapper chips, Super FX, , you will see that none of them call them add-ons.  They are enhancement chips in games, not addons.  Wikipedia is clear and consistent on this point.  Only you people don't admit that that's how addon classification works.

Please note that the term "device" is a term which really can't include enhancement chips in game carts -- then they'd say "games", not "devices".  That's why I also linked the Super FX article, to  show that it clearly calls it something else and not an add-on, which it isn't -- it's an enhancement chip in a game cartridge.

Making up your own definition for 'device', eh?  Here's the dictionary definition:

de·vice (noun) - a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, especially a mechanical or electrical one.

See anything in there saying that a 'device' must be physically separate and distinct from any other function?  Nope, that's your addition.[/quote]
Nope.  No one would ever call a game a "device".  Read the quote!  Actually read it.  It is VERY clear that the add-on article is referring to expansion devices which are NOT games.  And once again no enhancement chip article calls the things addons.  If you think enhancement chips are addons that's your opinion, but it goes against all authoritative sources, and you need to recognize that.

It's a moot point anyway, as with or without helper chips they're all still Super Famicom games to me.  If you and Sam (among others) want to use "customer ignorance" and cost as deciding factors in what constitutes an add-on, I don't really care; just don't try to claim that it's a textbook definition.

It is, though.  It absolutely 100% is.  If you were right, sites like Wikipedia, IGN, GameFAQs, Gamestop, or any other game listing site would list things like the Super FX or NES mapper chips as addons, like they do the 32X or Turbo CD.  There's a reason why they don't: they are not addons.  They are enhancement chips built in to game cartridges.  They are categorized differently.

[Black Tiger]

Also, this doesn't matter, but it's quite weird that you're claiming that the SNES is "my beloved" system, somehow, when of course I've always made it clear that I think the Genesis+Sega CD+32X is every bit as great as the SNES, and it's the N64, not the SNES, that is my favorite console.

You don't need to be an SNES fanboy to realize that it does have the best hardware, you just need to look at its capabilities.

What? , that's just insane... the NES, SNES, N64, and GC were all advanced-tech machines that all pushed the industry in many ways. The Wii is their only exception, and then after that some people went back and retroactively changed history to pretend that Nintendo hardware was always behind, when it'd always been the precise opposite of that. It's too bad that you seem to have joined into that, but it's not true. The NES, N64, and GC were all the best hardware available for several years after their release (remember, NES was 1983 in Japan, SMS was 1985), and the SNES was too, apart from that Neo-Geo of course.

Which soundchip sounds "better" to each one is more a matter of taste than anything. FM-based and sample-based soundchip have their pros and cons...

Of course, of course, it's "better", but it's actually worse because you say so and you claim it's "not being used fully" and such. Your excuses are so ridiculous... the SNES DOES have better audio, that is a fact, but you sort of admit that, but then spend most of your time attacking SNES sound anyway. I don't know what you mean about the SNES sound chip not being used fully enough -- there are a lot of really impressive compositions on the thing for sure -- but audio is just as much of an advantage for the SNES as graphics are, certainly.

Heck, it's only with adding in the Sega CD ones that I'd put the Genesis above the SNES, in shmups(!)

Gradius III (best shmup of the generation and an all-time classic!)

And why do you think I don't like the TG16+CD a lot too?  There's a reason I'm here, it's because it's a great console!

Unless you're talking about shmups, no way does the Duo have better games than the SNES. I like the system a lot, but it's no SNES apart from that one genre.

As has been thoroughly explained, things like expansion chips in cartridges are not addons.  That's what I meant there -- only counting addons which fully fit the definition, not things you people claim are addons but aren't.

If we're actually judging the hardware, then the Genesis is by far the king of polygonal games. Some of its games being mentioned in comparison to Star Fox might not push as many polygons at once, but for them to be even comparable is amazing for games only using the Genesis hardware itself. The SNES is the add-on king, forcing players to buy hardware every time instead of a single purchase. Star Fox and other chipped games are add-on games and don't run on the base SNES hardware. Games that use in-cart add-on hardware for a single effect, massive storage or really as copy protection are only thing. Games with chips that beef up processing power are completely different.

That sounds like the argument Sega used when they released the 32X. It didn't work out too well for them, you know...

I mean, yes, you're right -- Nintendo forced you to buy addons each time. But Sega's solution to that, the 32X, turned out to be the worse solution to the problem.

As for polygonal games, maybe the Genesis has more. I've never cared about the polygonal games on the Genesis, and don't own any, but yeah, it does have some. SNES games are probably more likely to use Mode 7, I guess... though the SNES can do an alright job of it, too, if you look at stuff like Race Drivin'.

Oh, and what about first person shooters? Stuff like Wolfenstein 3D, Spectre, or Faceball on SNES, versus Blood Shot, Zero Tolerance, etc. SNES does well there, even without Doom, which of course uses the SNES's best addon chip.

Bullshit.
It was just a dick move by Nintendo.

No, along with the failed attempt at NES backwards compatibility, that's Nintendo's other stated reason -- the system was designed for addon chips, so it didn't need as fast a CPU. It's certainly true that the system was designed for addon chips on the carts; those side banks of pins exist for a reason. Was Nintendo being cheap, particularly when they didn't boost the CPU after NES BC was abandoned? Perhaps. But they did have a plan, and followed through with it by using addon chips in a decent number of SNES games.

As far as the SNES being better for addon chips or what not, a good way to look at it is this:
What's the SNES' biggest problem? The slow processor. Addon chips that do extra processing are very easy to add. It's just an extra processor which can be very simple and limited to certain kinds of calculations (like a DSP, used a lot in mode-7 games).

Indeed. This is a good point, and does explain some of the difference. I do think that the point that Nintendo did use addon chips in a substantial number of games increases the validity of their case, too -- Nintendo said that they'd designed the system for addon chips, and then followed through by, well, putting addon chips in lots of games. There is complete consistency  there between the design and the execution.

Aside from the hypocrisy of selectively choosing when to count SNES addons as addons, you said that Nintendo designed the SNES for addons and by releasing games with addons, it proves "complete consistency there between the design and the execution". But NEC/Hudson designing the PC Engine around NEC's CD-ROM and showing it off before it was released and then following through with releasing and supporting it, that doesn't count and is instead a tacked-on stop-gap years later?

PC Engine: >6 million consoles sold in JP / >7 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for JP

Super Famicom: 17 million consoles sold in JP / 50 million worldwide / 1440 published cart games + 232 Satellaview games for JP

So basically, the main point of your argument, that somehow because the SNES and Genesis in the US got as many game releases as the TG16+CD did in Japan it did as well there as those did here, is based on absolutely nothing.  In fact, in Japan you expect consoles to get more game releases than they get in the West.  It happens all the time.  Cheap distribution costs, easy access to the market, low budgets for games that match the expected sales... that's how the industry worked, and still often works, there.

Um, if the Genesis hadn't been popular, a fair number of those games would not have been released on the platform, they, or other ones like them, would have been on other systems instead. You do understand that right?

The SNES is definitely the best for performing SNES-specific stuff, but not the best overall, aside from personal preferences. Just as with other consoles, people who like to say this are thinking more of the SNES's strengths, oblivious to some of its limits/weaknesses and seem to either ignore or be oblivious to the ways in which rival consoles are superior.

The SNES has the best hardware, if you don't count the Neo-Geo. The Genesis is second, and the Turbografx third. This is a fact, just like how the next gen, the N64 had the best hardware, PS1 second, and Saturn third, overall (or, for the generation after that, first Xbox, then Gamecube, then PS2, then Dreamcast). Each system has strengths and weakness, but system power is a combination of all the factors, and you can always figure it out. This gen, for instance, the PS3 is the most powerful, 360 is second, and Wii is way behind.

Plenty of people prefer the visual looks of systems that aren't the most powerful system over the most powerful system's graphics, and that's just fine, but I find it really annoying how people insist that no, not only do they like the graphics of that #2 or #3 system more, but it's actually more powerful too. Never mind that when you actually look at the overall hardware it isn't true, they like it more so it is, right? That's not how things work. The most powerful system is the most powerful system overall, not the one that wins in only the cherrypicked stats that that system wins in.

I mean, why insist that it's the most powerful hardware anyway? Does that have an effect on how much you like the system, or something? (lol! ) That doesn't make much sense, system power and how much you like it shouldn't be too closely related... the Wii are DS are my favorite systems this gen, for instance. I don't care that they're far weaker than their competition...

Or, to return to the SNES v. Genesis, I don't think that the SNES is better just because of its graphics, or something. Yes, I like that it can put more colors on screen and I like Mode 7, but those aren't the reasons that it's great, the games are. As for the specs though, the SNES has better hardware because it's got a good amount more RAM, a better, higher-end sound chip, many more hardware features, 64 times larger color palette and four times more colors on screen, etc. The Genesis is older hardware. It was great for 1988, but the SNES is two years newer. You would hope that it was going to have better hardware, and it does. The denials in this thread are both odd, as I've said above (seriously, why do you care so much about arguing against facts? It shouldn't affect how much you like the systems.), and off base; yes, the Genesis has a few advantages, but it's the overall picture that matters, not only the things the Genesis has advantages in.

The SNES was an amazing machine, more powerful than anything that generation apart from the Neo-Geo by a significant margin overall. The system has beautiful graphics, a huge color palette, 256 color visuals, awesome Mode 7 scaling and rotation, a very powerful sound chip, and was designed for addon chips in the carts, too. "Needlessly and wastelessly feeble" is completely ridiculous and as false as can be. A console is more than just its CPU, and the SNES proves that. The SNES is better overall than the NES, and is only even with the Genesis once you add on the addons (which adds more to the Genesis than the SNES, because well, would many people say the Satellaview even matches up to the 32X, much less the Sega CD?).

Indeed, the Super Nintendo is the one and only partial exception to the general rule that the most powerful console of each generation never wins (in sales, that is). It's a partial exception because of course the Neo-Geo utterly destroys it, and technically counts as part of that generation, but with its $200 carts, I think it's arguable about how much real competition it was...

The SNES was the least powerful of its generation. Neo Geo, Genesis, Turbografx, CDTV, and CDi are all more powerful.

I really hope you're joking there.

What about more speed and less slowdown?

As I've said, SNES games don't have nearly as much slowdown after the first generation of titles. And some have decent speed.

[Necromancer]

Black Tiger's search skills for the win! 

Yeah, for you people somehow it's both an addon AND part of the library, because it shifts definition mid-generation.  As I've said, you can't do that.  What something is at the start is what it is.... There weren't any PC Engine games after 1994, though.

I guess you were just kidding when you said "They [PCE CD games] do belong in the broader category of TG16/PCE games."  You seem to be struggling to keep your bullshit straight.

Also, once again, in a list like this , if you had also done Sega also would you have merged the Genesis, Sega CD, and 32X all onto one list, or would you have kept them separate?  Those two lists there are TG16+TCD and SNES+Satellaview, so of course a Sega list should include all addons as well... but you people keep trying to split hairs in order to exclude Sega's addons, which is absurd if you're including Nintendo and NEC's.

I've already stated in no uncertain terms that the FEKA sales numbers I compiled (but didn't post) did include Sega CD and 32X.

No, the idea that addons must increase system power is NOT valid....

I've never said they did.

I have, however, claimed that not all add-ons (and their games) are worth counting separately.  It's a point you seem to agree upon, though, seeing as you lump together CD, Super CD, and Arcade CDs.

.... remember the Wikipedia definition saying that adding a new media format is also an addon!

I never said it wasn't.

If you would have included all Genesis addons then it'd be a fair all-formats comparison....

I've said I would have multiple times.

.... but I'd still rather see a list that separates systems out from their addons as well -- the main consoles and their addons are not the same thing, and what is on what format is quite important.  It'd be fair to have both a merged list AND a separated list, but merged only I don't like.

Then compile your own list, but make sure you do it for all add-ons (including ram upgrades) and not just the ones you've deemed worthy.

The use of the term "device" makes it clear that they are NOT including things inside game cartridges.

How so?  NOWHERE in the definitions of 'device' or 'add-on' does it disallow the possibility of the 'device' being within a cartridge.  Do you not understand plain English?

If you look up any enhancement chip article (NES mapper chips, Super FX, , you will see that none of them call them add-ons. 

None?  That page is even linked from the SNES enhancement chip wiki page.

Anyways, they don't call them "videogames" either.  They read along these lines: "The Super FX is a family of coprocessor chip used in select Super Nintendo (SNES) video game cartridges."; in this case, the 'device' mentioned in the definition of 'add-on' is the co-processor.  It's not that difficult to understand.

They are enhancement chips in games, not addons.

enhancement chip = add-on

It meets the three criteria listed within the definition of 'add-on'

  1)  sold separately from the console
  2)  connects to the main unit
  3)  adds significant new functionality

Nope.  No one would ever call a game a "device".

Similarly, nobody would call a CPU a "game".

Read the quote!  Actually read it.  It is VERY clear that the add-on article is referring to expansion devices which are NOT games. 

NOWHERE in the description of 'add-on' does it say anything about the impossibility of one being built in to a game.  You're just making shit up again.

And once again no enhancement chip article calls the things addons.

And once again, yeah they do.

If you think enhancement chips are addons that's your opinion, but it goes against all authoritative sources, and you need to recognize that.

Like it or not, my opinion fits the text book definition of add-on.

It is, though.  It absolutely 100% is.  If you were right, sites like Wikipedia, IGN, GameFAQs, Gamestop, or any other game listing site would list things like the Super FX or NES mapper chips as addons, like they do the 32X or Turbo CD.  There's a reason why they don't: they are not addons.  They are enhancement chips built in to game cartridges.  They are categorized differently.

Your argument is invalid.  Such sites separate based on media type; if they separated games based on add-ons, they wouldn't separate downloads from physical media and they'd count ram upgrade games separately.

[PunkicCyborg]

I found the real problem here

and it's the N64, not the SNES, that is my favorite console. 

[A Black Falcon]

Black Tiger's post above is a bizarre, bizarre post.  I'm seriously incredibly confused about why you'd somehow think that statements about hardware power are the same as opinion about what I think of the console as a whole, but those two things are completely different, you know... but you clearly don't, with this crazy post that combines game-opinion with hardware power  comparison and then insanely tries to call those two completely different, entirely unrelated things similar.  That's just ridiculous, stop it.


As for those numerous quotes, here are a few comments.

-For the block of quotes at the end about hardware power, I was comparing base systems there, SNES vs. TG16 vs. Genesis.  If you include addons, then the 32X is surely the most powerful system of the generation, and if you include the Neo-Geo it is of course.  Versus the TG16 and Genesis the SNES only loses in CPU power, but overall hardware power of a system is about more than just CPU power.  It's about overall hardware ability.

-For all of the quotes about opinion on games I like, that has nothing to do with this discussion.  I could respond to all of that stuff, but it'd be a complete waste of time and would divert this thread into something it should not be about, because none of that is in any way relevant here.  All I will say is that your massive anti-SNES bias shows.  I love all three major platforms that gen, they're all fantastic.  The TG16+TCD is certainly in my top 5 consoles ever.

-For the part about sales and Genesis games, I don't understand what you're trying to say there.  The Genesis did well enough in Japan to get some software support, obviously.  Not as much as the competition got, but some.  Because of Japan's easier distribution costs, systems could get good software support with less hardware sales than they would need in the West.

-Shmups - what?  I'm a huge Gradius series fan, and Gradius III is incredible.  So are Gradius I and II on the TG16 and CD.  All three are certainly among the best shmups ever.  Then I said Gradius III was the best, but next time I could say Gradius I is the best; with such incredible games, it's hard to decide.  As for the Genesis though, it does have lots of great shmups, but it doesn't have any from Konami...

Aside from the hypocrisy of selectively choosing when to count SNES addons as addons,

Console addons and addon chips / enhancement chips are not the same.  Sure, you've proven that I've used the word "addon" for enhancement chips before, but that doesn't mean anything... even if the word 'addon' was used there, the key term is 'chip', ie, chip in a cartridge.  Those chips are 'addons' in that they are additional chips in the cartridges, but they are not addons like the Sega CD because of the distribution method.    I know you people claim to not care about distribution methods, but for classification it is absolutely key.

you said that Nintendo designed the SNES for addons and by releasing games with addons, it proves "complete consistency there between the design and the execution". But NEC/Hudson designing the PC Engine around NEC's CD-ROM and showing it off before it was released and then following through with releasing and supporting it, that doesn't count and is instead a tacked-on stop-gap years later?

I don't get it, why would you say that addons are 'tacked-on stopgaps'?  An addon is just a hardware expansion with games that require it that is sold separately from the system it adds on to.  Usually they are designed after the original system, because the base system comes first, but also usually the idea for the addon was in development from early on in the project.  The 64DD was in development from before the N64's release for sure, for example, and it was originally designed to be a key part of the system.  It didn't work out that way, but that was the intent.  The Turbo CD is sort of like that, except the strategy actually worked.  Calling something an addon is not saying anything bad about it as a system.  It's just putting it into its category.

[Black Tiger]

I found the real problem here

and it's the N64, not the SNES, that is my favorite console. 

It's the only console of the time that doesn't have "hideous" graphics.

[A Black Falcon]

I found the real problem here

and it's the N64, not the SNES, that is my favorite console. 

It's the only console of the time that doesn't have "hideous" graphics.

3d graphics, that is.  The PS1 and Saturn obviously do 2d quite well.  And "hideous" is going a bit far as an overall generalization -- certainly not all PS1 and Saturn 3d games look equally bad -- but it is true that perspective correction and the rest of the N64's 3d features (anti-aliasing, triple buffering, z-buffering...) are really important things for 3d graphics which make them work much better.  Perspective-incorrect popping polygons are awful!

[TheClash603]

Since no one can define what the hell the Laseractive is, let's try another oddball.

WTF is a Turbo Express?  Is it its own system?  The games are the same as the TG16, but there is no TV out, where can you plug inanother controller, etc.  It isnt a console, what is it?

The Nomad is another one.  Is this the Genesis 4?  Or is it its own console?

[roflmao]

Since no one can define what the hell the Laseractive is, let's try another oddball.

WTF is a Turbo Express?  Is it its own system?  The games are the same as the TG16, but there is no TV out, where can you plug inanother controller, etc.  It isnt a console, what is it?

They were just waiting for modern techno-wizards to come along to add TV-out and a controller port. 

[esteban]

I always hook up my MegaDrive+MegaCD to my TurboExpress to use it as a monitor. Then I do the same with my PCE+SCD.

That little screen makes an excellent monitor.

[Necromancer]

Black Falcon is just too stupid for words. 

WTF is a Turbo Express?  Is it its own system?  The games are the same as the TG16, but there is no TV out, where can you plug inanother controller, etc.  It isnt a console, what is it?

The Nomad is another one.  Is this the Genesis 4?  Or is it its own console?

They're both handheld versions of consoles.

[ClodBuster]

Stupid in the way of he's not realizing that you're making fun of him all the time?