This is a great game and anyone who says otherwise is a retarded zoomer
>>11064350the game.com was a tragic piece of hardware
>>11064350best port ever
>>11064358Happy to see someone who agrees with me.
>>11064350>t. zoomer
うん...神ゲー!!
Shitpost all you want. Standalone S&K is still better than playing with with the STH3 con gimmick
>>11064350> game.comI like how they renamed blue spheres to black spheres in this version because this shit can barely display a monochrome image.They've could went with educational "ports" and perform a bit better on market, but probably still would've end demolished because that market segment was dominated by Leapster.
>finally decide to give the Sonic Jam game.COM version a look>...it's actually higher fidelity than the Genesis Sonic gamesYikes
>>11064350i luv sega. they always put so much effort into developing their games and ports and they always give themselves enough time.
>>11064350based. zoomers get filtered by the "clunkiness", but it's actually methodical and momentum-based platforming rivalling the likes of Prince of Persia in it's precision. The monochromaticity gives the game it dreamlike, chimerical mood, and the level design is of such high calibre that it has yet to be replicated honestly.
I'm assuming that anyone posting positively about this game is meming or played on an emulator. I had a gamecom and this game especially was unplayable due to the screen ghosting. Everytime the screen scrolls, every pixel ghosts, so it all becomes a blur. For Sonic, this means you're damn near blind until you come to a stop. Awful, awful, awful game, awful console, my sincerest apologies to my parents who I convinced to buy this for me.
>>11065120yeah theyre just trolling
I just don't get why they didn't focus on turn-based games for the game.com. Those would work perfectly fine on it...
>>11065120Yeah right zoomer everyone loves the Game. com with all of its great games.
>>11065301you gotta try harder, its not believable enough
>>11065301I unironically love it because of how shitty it is and it tries way too hard to punch above its weight and fail in every way.
>>11065301you're trying way too hard to fit in
>>11065120You were such a fucking retard, how could you have ever thought the Game.com was going to be good? Embarrassing.
>>11065120what made you want to get one? i'm curious.
>>11064354It was odd. They were building PC and PSX ports for a system that was built for board game licenses, gambling and TV gameshow licenses. If they were porting PSX games they should have been porting RPGs, turn based strategies maybe a Theme/Sim/Tycoon game.The screen blur was as bad as the original GB. With more screen and more detailed games it was a problem with action games. Otherwise it was a much more powerful system.
>>11064354>>11065475They were just hilariously cheap when it came to the hardware. The basic idea behind the system was sound but they went and fucked it up with a screen no better than the cheapest solar powered calculator. Tiger's handhelds could get away with that because they were cheap $20 distractions during car rides.
>>11065491Explain the CPU, ram, touch screen, backlit screen, higher resolution screen, the connectivity, the sound, dual cartridge slot. None of this was cheap. If they were being cheap they would have just made something like the GB. There was a reason behind each design choice, who knows what it was?I would guess that the touch screen was inspired by the growth of PDAs at the time. So they got the cheapest PDA screen they could find. The sound had to have the ability to play prerecorded audio as many tiger games at the time did. Backlight is a no brainer and that type of backlight was hyped by timex just a few years earlier. Dual cartridge probably the same inspiration of the Handspring products of the time. Graphics B&W with large scaling sprites.Very interesting combo of stuff.
>>11065301Not gonna lie, resident evil 2 is a technical marvel on it. Is it good though, meh.
>>11065451I was 8-9 at the time, yes.>>11065461In screenshots it looked better than the gameboy, it had more buttons, a touch screen, I saw it had sonic and Duke Nukem 3D which Nintendidn't, the console and the carts were super cheap, and the marketing swindled me into thinking it would have some kind of online multiplayer.>>11065241Jfc I just looked at the game release list -first, I can't believe I own the majority of gamecom games. Second, utterly retarded that the console had an action game focus with the dogshit screen - they almost had the right idea bundling a touchscreen puzzle game with the console.
>>11065491Also even weirder. Tiger did the Apple vs Mac thing. They made dedicated handhelds with the same licenses they were making on the game.com.
>>11065536>So they got the cheapest PDA screen they could find.Which is exactly the problem since PDAs didn't have anywhere close to the refresh rates a video game needs. The original Game Boy was actually better in that respect. Super Mario Land smeared like a motherfucker because they targeted 60fps but they figured out pretty quickly not to do that. But even a game like Mario Land 2, which was fine on GB, would be a mess on the Game.com.
>>11065781The game.com screen wasn't any worse than the DMG screen, but rose tinted glasses tell you otherwise. No one had rose tinted glasses for game.com.
>>11065953I had both, game.com was unquestionably worse lol
>>11066339Same here, DMG is unquestionably worse.
>>11066374Hurr, saying a console released in 97' has better specs than one released in 89', isn't even an argument. No one is arguing that. In 97 the system should have been magnitudes better, not just slightly less blurry with a some more pixels. They should have used a screen like gb pocket, not some garbage PDA screen that blurred slightly less than the 8 years older gameboy.
>>11066374>t. zoomer
>>11065491yikes I don't think you understand how computers work, bud
>>11066395>that blurred slightly less than the 8 years older gameboy.anon it blurred worse than the gameboy by a large margin
>>11066863Ok, make a game comparison.
>>11066941Alright, I'll bite2:15https://youtu.be/wfxzVFzvizE?si=m7QzWBYG9Iw1mvpcNotice how you leave an afterimage when moving? That you can see 3-4 copies of your own sprite when moving across the screen? That enemies leave behind a lingering image each time they move a space?https://youtu.be/wOYU-p-fzqc?si=2CpD2FXGEIQZQQRXNotice how you don't leave behind a trail of tetrimos afterimages when quick dropping?>hurr not the same gameGamecom has 20 games total. If you want to be a contrarian for this piece of shit, feel free to buy one yourself and see with your own eyes.
>>11067123>Durr, no blur on DMG it looks better.Provides DMG vs aftermarket screen sidebyside video where you can't even see the DMG.Here, let's look at a DMG, full screen with original screen.https://youtube.com/shorts/nnR0SHD9oTw
>>11067198The pocket came out in 1996, before the game.com and looked better than that.
>>11067823nooo, not like this!!!https://youtube.com/shorts/YVP1pVMFc_k
>>11064350Show me your copy right now.
>>11067982>b bb but the game.com is inferior in every measurable way compared to the DMG GameBoy.
>>11064350it plays more games than you idiots have braincells
>>11068436There were absolutely 0 portable systems that were better than the Original Gameboy by any measurement until the next handheld made by Nintendo.
>>11067198Thank you, those videos are much better. And the gamecom still looks miles worse in motion.
>>11064350you've never played any game.com games huh
