Also what made Game and Watch any better?
some were genuinely good, like Terminator and the Simpsons mini arcade
>>12618678Yeah. Shallow gameplay is what made them bad. Some G&W games are better, notably Donkey Kong, Mario, and Zelda 2. The rest are just as boring. The best LCD games are most definitely the ones from Mattel.
>>12618678Nintendo knew to make their Game & Watch line simple and easy to understand what's going on (granted, there are admittedly some stinkers in the lineup). Plus, when you git gud, you have a nice rhythm going on.
>>12618734Most G&W games are stinkers.
I don't even consider them video games. It's like fiddling around with a calculator.
>>12618779>snake isn’t a videogame
The Game and Watch series started in 1980, a few years before Nintendo had a console and nearly a decade before they had a portable system. Most of them at the time were also original games that just tried to be simple and do what they could with the limited tech. The G&W line died pretty quickly after the release of the Gameboy that could do far more intricate portable gaming. Even after the release of the NES the G&W systems that came out later were more intricate and complex than 99% of Tiger's LCD games, many of the higher-end ones having dual screens because they could not properly depict the gameplay they wanted to on a single screen.Tiger on the other hand started theirs after the release of the NES and halfway into the lifespan of the G&W series, from the bat tried to rely in licensing IPs they believed would be popular with kids to turn into games even if it was something that would make zero sense to turn into a game like FULL HOUSE, tried to market them as if you was getting a console-quality gaming experience, attempted to license every game IP under the sun to try to act like they were a comparable alternative to Gameboy, and kept making them well into the year 2000.The G&W started before Nintendo had consoles at all, were later more intricate and complex, even going with dual-screens to bypass limits of a single-screen LCD game, and were sunset once a proper handheld console released. Tiger came into the mix halfway into the G&W;s lifespan and just tried to license anything they could get their hands on to rapid-fire shit out the absolute cheapest and lowest-quality "handhelds" possible for 25 years no matter how impossible the IP would be to adapt to an LCD game or unsuited the IP was for any kind of videogame at all.G&W is nothing to write home about today, but that's like shitting on the 2600 today for not being comparable to the N64, the 2600 was fine for it's time, as were the G&W, Atari didn't try to keep re-releasing the 2600 for 25 years.
>>12618678As >>12619023 notes this is a stupid comparison to make when Tiger handhelds were being made well past when they would have been a sensible proposition, and were clearly produced with a quick buck in mind using licenses they didn't even remotely live up to with as little effort as possible. Game and Watch was a novel concept at its initial time of release and they were pushing the absolute boundaries of what they could by the time they stopped being made.
calculator game:/calculator game, Japanese:o
>WhereBrown thread.
>>12619023>G&W is nothing to write home about today, but that's like shitting on the 2600 today for not being comparable to the N64, the 2600 was fine for it's time, as were the G&WWrong. G&W were already obsoleted by Mattel's and Coleco's LED games from the late 70s. They were older than G&W, yet had more complex gameplay. Microvision also predated G&W and already had carts and dot matrix display.
Tiger shit tried to be more than what they were, g&w kept it simple
>>12619095You're seriously trying to claim that junk in your image was better than G&W? I had one of those, specifically picrel, it was TRASH. They didn't even have an LCD screen, just horizontal LCD blips of light meant to represent... everything. The screen didn't have the space to show the whole playfield so it would just wrap around when you went from one end to the other, but all the opposing players would still remain in the same position on the screen instead of now be behind you, it was barely a game and more just moving a blip of red light along a rectangular grid. Pong was more of a game.
>>12619770The anon you replied to is like 5 years old and has never held a single one of these systems in his hands. He saw something that looks complicated and advanced until you actually play it and dug in his heels.
Why would I have a Gay Man watch when I could have a Tiger handheld?
>>12619585Also G&W was basically gone by the late 80s, where as Tiger was everywhere until around the 2000s, and latched onto every license
>tiger game: obstacle/enemy/collectible appears, press corresponding button to jump/hit/grab it>g&w game: obstacles are shown approaching in advance, allowing you to control the encounter. you will need to judge the timing and position yourself ahead of time to reduce risk, or you can attempt it faster at greater risk to obtain points fastertldr the tiger games were lame and gay
>>12620413That isn't always true. Sports and racing games were fine. Also Tigers big sellers were gambling, game shows and boardgames. The Gameboy version should have been as good, however it never was.
For me it was Konami
>>12618678If they used AA batteries it is ok in my book. Game nad Watch, goes straight into the trash.
>>12618729There's just something so hyperkino about cobblestone borders in the old games.
>>12618678G&W games were actually fun and were simple enough that you could make out what was actually happening.
>>12618678Game & watch used sprites while tiger used a bunch of shit that changed a bit.Just check the gbc ports of game and watch those are 1:1 conversions to see the difference yourself.
>>12619770>They didn't even have an LCD screen, just horizontal LCD blips of light meant to represent... everythingYes. Still has more gameplay than 80% of G&W slop. Your player character has 30 positions it could move to, while even the most sophisticated G&W games have like a third of that. And the enemy behaviors are actually challenging and much less boring than any G&W game. Also some Mattel games had sound effects and interesting simulations that any G&W slop. I mean, look at this piece of shit. Jesus h christ.
>>12621069Simple games like that are what LCDs are made for. Simple game loop without too much movement which the fixed "sprites" can perfectly accommodate.Looks like fun.Problem is when they tried to shove too much in there with the very limited capabilities. You cannot properly recreate a platformer on a static screen, come on man.
>>12621129>Simple game loop without too much movementNot necessarily. G&W was just junk. Entex made a full blown Pacman port with color LED in 1981. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC4Q5IqRydU
>>12618678The issue that you're missing it the timing.Tiger Electronic Games were not competing with G&W but with Gameboy and Gameboy Color. At that time G&W was already a retired brand and just a historical curiosity.
>>12621213>Required 4 C batteriesNot very practical
>>12618678G&W had mostly simple pick up and play design. Tiger was in a sense, overly ambitious in trying to adapt console and arcade games into LCD handhelds and usually added as many bits as they could. There are some simpler G&W quality Tiger games, Tiger Stix for example focused on simplicity.Some of the more complex Tiger games are neat though. I particularly enjoy the Snake's Revenge game they did, which even had electronic voices.
>>12618743Only Pinball, Blackjack and Boxing/Punch-Out.
>>12619023>the bat tried to rely in licensing IPs Actually, the older games they did at first were all original, generic things with no IP.
If you haven't played G&W Squish, you will never understand how addictive an lcd game can be.>>12621213Owning both, I can say that Squish is the supperior maze game.
>>12621069>Yes. Still has more gameplay than 80% of G&W slop.You are an underage b& who never touched any of these in his life if you truly think that.>>12621502I wouldn't call Tiger ambitious, they were just carpet-bombing LCD games as quickly and cheaply as possible, they didn't care about them being good. You generally need to care to be ambitious. That is, unless you want to go by the definition of just wanting to become rich in which case that's not a good thing for quality anyway.>>12621521>Actually, the older games they did at first were all original, generic things with no IP.Actually, no they weren't. In the very year they started making these over half of them were based on IPs of children shows.
>>12621541>G&W Squish1986. So two years after an actual handheld console with dot matrix screen and 2KB RAM was launched (Epoch Pocket Computer), and 5 years after Pacman 2. Early G&W games were primitive as fuck, and when they got complex enough to last more than 5 minutes, LCD handhelds were obsolete.
>>12619023Nobody but you was fooled into thinking they were getting a console quality experience with cheapo LCD handhelds. Other than that silly exaggeration, yes Tiger's approach was licensed IPs and flashy "graphics" which necessarily yielded mostly simplistic and shallow gameplay.
>>12621883And what's your point? Squish is still more addictive than anything else of comparison on a handheld anything of the time.
>>12621839>You are an underage b& who never touched any of these in his life if you truly think that.I have, just a few Mattel ones. Mattel games used LED screens that had far superior visibility and refresh rate to LCDs making twitch reflex games like pic related possible. Really simple game that takes forever to master. G&W games were a lot slower and more boring, and yes while I don't have the real thing, I had G&W collection on GBA.
>>12621839>wouldn't call Tiger ambitious,I certainly would, even if it to their detriment. A lot was junk, but you also had them experimenting with stuff like voices, card readers, different form factors, the R-Zone and the late 90s Sonic (and Crash i believe) titles that tried to do more in depth games with some akin to a dot matrix display. It's admirable that they tried implementing often times as many different elements as they could, like for example I was playing their Hook release recently and despite having one screen, they had multiple scenes squished in to it that allowed for different types of rounds with their own objectives. It's impressive that they bothered, though im sure the value of the IP determined how much effort went in.
My favorite lcd game was solitaire
