nintendo or sega never happend?

well for me
1.capcom would be the leading gaming company
2.mario owuld never happen
3.sonic would never happen
4.capcom would somehow end up dissapearing

thats probly what would happen :/

bluebot092
nintendo or sega never happend?

well for me
1.capcom would be the leading gaming company
2.mario owuld never happen
3.sonic would never happen
4.capcom would somehow end up dissapearing

thats probly what would happen :/

If nintendo didn't happen there would be no good video games other than on the 360 or the computer.
If sega never happened then that wouldn't make much of a difference from now.

*prepares for counterposts*

Well, if Nintendo never happened we wouldn't have a videogame industry right now.

Well, that's not true. Odds are it would have recovered from that whole ET thing eventually; it just probably would have taken longer or been under dramatically different circumstances.

If Sega never existed Nintendo wouldn't have had their competition in the NES days, and we wouldn't have the SNES. Even further along the line they wouldn't have felt the need to contract Sony's help on a disk drive, then screw them over enough for Sony to just release their own video game system.


Anyway, I think you're really understating what it means for a company to have never happened. It doesn't just mean that their IPs wouldn't be around, everything they have ever done and every effect they would have had would not have happened. At this point it's impossible to conceive of the modern gaming industry without the foundation of Nintendo or its rivalry with Sega. I wouldn't say that gaming itself wouldn't happen, but it would be so different as to be completely inexplicable in relation to gaming as we know it.

If Nintendo never happened, things would probably still have ended up like they are now, only probably later. I think the breakthroughs Nintendo created would have eventually been done by some other company eventually. I'm sure it would've taken longer to climb out of Atari's console market crash without Nintendo.

I know some people will hate me for this, but I never felt like Sega was a huge innovator in the videogame world. They've done some good things and had some great games, but they've always seemed like a reactionary company.

I kind of feel the same way, Hawk. What Sega actually did on their isn't as important as what other companies did in relation to them. Maybe it's just because they didn't last, but somehow their impact just seems lessened compared to the industry-savers like Nintendo, or the new hotness of Sony and Microsoft.

Until this latest generation I pretty much though of Microsoft, as a gaming company, in the same way, but the way they're affecting the market in the moment is changing things for me. Still, I think a few more years are needed to see what kind of lasting impact they have.

If Nintendo had not been around, Sega would have most likely been the company to bring consoles back onto the market. The Master System was in development around the same time as the NES and both companies were looking to make a more cost effective solution for consumer gaming than the computer systems the Japanese were using at the time. The Master System probably would have gotten the recognition it deserved had it not had the NES to compete with.

If Sega were not around, we likely would have seen 2D gaming completely disappear after the 16-bit generation. Both Sony and Nintendo had pretty strict 3D policies in the 32-bit generation. Beyond that, though, most of the differences are limited to franchises.

Now if both companies were not around, then odds are, we'd all be playing games on the PC. After all, the video game "crash" was for the most part a product of the expanding computer market. Games were still selling after the crash, they were just selling primarily on the PC market.

Marth, because he is- oh. . . sorry.

If neither company was around, we'd still have video games. But they wouldn't be the quality that they are. I always thought that the video game industry crashed in the old days because of all the mediocre/terrible games released *coughETblech*. There'd be no rivalry, and no drive to make better games. There'd be no reviewers to rate the games, and we wouldn't be able to tell the great games from the ones that deserve to be flushed down the toilet...

Lonnehart
If neither company was around, we'd still have video games. But they wouldn't be the quality that they are. I always thought that the video game industry crashed in the old days because of all the mediocre/terrible games released *coughETblech*. There'd be no rivalry, and no drive to make better games. There'd be no reviewers to rate the games, and we wouldn't be able to tell the great games from the ones that deserve to be flushed down the toilet...

hm i was actulyl thinkign the same thing

I always thought that the video game industry crashed in the old days because of all the mediocre/terrible games released *coughETblech*.

ET was certainly a bad game and a poor business decision, but not a sign that quality in terms of developers was on the decline. People began to lose interest in the console market because it didn't evolve early on. Gameplay options were limited and with Atari having a virtual monopoly on the market, they saw no reason to expand with any real upgrades to their hardware. With nothing new to buy and the arcade and home PC market blasting past them in terms of technology, consumers lost interest. The quality of games back then was less of an issue than the quality of the system, itself.

There'd be no rivalry, and no drive to make better games. There'd be no reviewers to rate the games, and we wouldn't be able to tell the great games from the ones that deserve to be flushed down the toilet...

Rivalries are based on competition. Even if Nintendo and Sega weren't around, you would still have competition between developers fueling advancements in game design and technology. The PC market never needed the console market to advance, the competition was already present due to the open architecture of the hardware. Reviewers, likewise, would still be around, they would just focus on a slightly different market. You had game reviews before the NES and they didn't stop reviewing games when the console market crashed. In fact, if anything, the PC market has been the source of most of the innovations we see in modern gaming both in terms of technology and in terms of gameplay and genre.

Yes. If Sega never happened, Nintendo would have stalled like Atari. The Megadrive/Genesis came out before the SNes. That stage really pushed development, as well as during the investment in the unsuccessful Sega CD, the 32 bit stuff and into the Dreamcast. Without that you'd very likely not have had Sony at all in there.

I don't think the U.S. really got the full force of Sega, Nintendo was always bigger there, but Sega was every bit as important and massive a force, they just didn't have the name Nintendo did in the United states.