For your custom home arcade machine needs, visit here and use Coupon Code: DREAM220



Remember me

Sponsored Links
Awards Received
PC Mag top 100 award.
A Reader’s Guide to the System Ranking Matrix (2005 Update)

A Reader’s Guide to the System Ranking Matrix -
Technical Statistics and Ratings for U.S. Game Capable Systems

2005 Update

Author and Article Layout: Bill Loguidice
Application Development: Don Ferren

View the matrix via the link on the main menu (System Matrix) or by clicking here

The System Ranking Matrix is designed to be an at-a-glance guide to the various capabilities and demonstrated marketability of the major videogame and games-capable computer systems released in the United States.

System Information lists the standard technical specifications of each system. However, rather than list what each system was theoretically capable of, I have listed the standards set by the majority of its game library. For instance, if a system supported up to 128 on-screen colors, but the majority of games utilized only 32, then 32 will be the number given. I have also rounded certain values for consistency.

The matrix not only provides objective technical details for each system, but also thoughtful Armchair Arcade Ratings, which are subjective and generally in relative comparison to each other, as well as specifically to other systems of their generation. While one system may have better technical specifications on paper than another, in real world observations that consider multiple factors such as game availability and quality, the technically weaker system may outscore it. Scores higher than 10 are allowed only where necessary, like Visuals and Audio, as are scores lower than 1. Only whole (such as 3.0) or half points (such as in 7.5) are allowed.

An asterisk (*) indicates a dominant game system in popularity for its era and class.

NOTE: We have tried our best to provide accurate information and careful evaluations of each system. However, you are encouraged to use the “Add your comment” section to provide corrections, feedback and anecdotes.

It's How Much You Get
As this classic Commodore advertisement demonstrates, "IT'S HOW MUCH YOU GET." The matrix is all about what you really get with each system. [Scan by Bill Loguidice from the back cover of Family Computing magazine, May 1985, Volume 3, Number 5]
Why a matrix? There is no easy way, without lots of research and hands-on experience, for the average user to visualize where a particular system fits in the context of history and technical capabilities, among other areas. We can spew strictly technical specifications, but the reality is most want to know what a system’s demonstrated or real-world abilities were.

There are so many factors to consider other than simple technical specifications. For instance, the Atari Jaguar may have been a 64-bit system, but did it ever show its full potential? Because the Jaguar was 64-bit, did that automatically make it better than Sega’s later 32-bit Saturn? How do the legendary Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS) or Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) stack-up to Sony’s PlayStation 2 (PS2) or Microsoft’s Xbox in key categories? These are questions that can only be answered through direct observation. That’s the purpose behind this matrix—to sift through the hype as objectively as possible so we’ll have our answers.

Why only focus on the U.S.? One reason is to keep the number of systems to a more manageable number. Another reason is that this is where the author’s expertise lies. It is open to see if other authors will take up the cause for other territories that they’re intimately familiar with, such as Japan or Europe. In any case, if you feel there is a system we omitted or would like to comment on other territories, please write in our discussion forums or use the “Add your comment” section provided for each system within the matrix itself.

The Armchair Arcade Ratings has eight categories leading up to a ninth, which is the overall score.

Let’s face it. For many, the Atari 2600 and NES are the penultimate game machines of their eras or even all-time, but the reality is technology has moved on, and, while the games are certainly no less fun than they used to be, areas like control have arguably improved, and audio-visual technology has definitely leapt forward. Therefore, while the Atari 2600 and NES can potentially achieve perfect 10’s in several categories, it will be impossible to give them scores anywhere near 10 in some of the more technically-skewed categories. This gives relatively new systems like the Nintendo GameCube – which has a high ranking in visual and audio categories, but a lower ranking in software depth – a fairer basis of comparison. Alternately, the older the system, the more potentially mature the offerings, such as in software diversity, which should help to offset many of the newer system’s technical advantages.

Category Explanation
Let’s examine each of the nine categories, in order.

This category takes into account such features as a system’s resolution, colors and animation—basically everything that ends up on a screen. Some systems such as Tiger’s Game.com and Nintendo’s original GameBoy can display relatively high resolution black and white graphics, but blur on moving objects detracts from the overall experience. In fact, difficulty in actually seeing the action on the screen of the original GameBoy further hurts its score in this category since a good light source is required. Other systems like Sony’s PlayStation 1 have high resolution modes that were rarely used, so that factors little as a benefit in its final scoring. In fact, most systems have theoretical polygon or sprite output values that are quite high on paper, but in real world applications like games, they were rarely, if ever, realistic targets. Our final example to show how visuals were judged – the original Commodore Amiga – had a 4,096 color mode which was a bit odd and difficult to properly utilize, so most games only used 32 colors, so this is what that system was rated on.

This category judges a system’s inherent sound abilities, except where otherwise specified. For example, if a significant number of games utilized an add-on and the add-on was and still is quite common – like with the Magnavox Odyssey2’s and Mattel Intellivision’s voice modules – then those may be counted in the rating. For a system like the Apple IIgs – which in theory had incredible inherent stereo sound capabilities for its era – it was nonetheless crippled by the fact that without a relatively obscure add-on, it was only able to output a mono signal. In more modern examples, the Nintendo GameCube is “only” able to output Dolby Pro Logic II sound (analog cables), while the Sony PlayStation 2 and the Microsoft Xbox can output the superior Dolby Digital (digital cables), but only the Xbox utilizes the ability in the majority of its games. Nuances like these affect each system’s ratings.

Controller Options and Quality
In order to achieve a high ranking in this category, portable and handheld systems must offer an especially well-built control panel, and other types of systems must feature a wide-range of easy-to-find and well supported options. Criteria includes whether the system offers digital or analog control (or both, as applicable), gamepads, joysticks, light guns, dance or foot pads (or other specialty options), steering wheels, keyboards, vibration/force feedback, proper accommodations for more than one player, and so on. The more one system has and supports, the better the scoring.

Add-Ons, Peripherals, Expandability, Features
Items like disk drives, memory cards, display options, headphone support, touch screen capabilities, RAM add-ons, printer support and other types of upgrades and modules are the criteria used to evaluate this category. At the top is a system like the modern PC, which is the ultimate type of generalist system, with a seemingly endless array of useful and useless add-ons (sometimes at the expense of ease-of-use), while near the bottom is a system like the Emerson Arcadia 2001 where the system you got is the exact system you were always stuck with, hard-wired controllers and all. Having a lower score in this category does not necessarily indicate a poor system, but it’s almost always preferable to have more options and flexibility to tweak your entertainment experience rather than less.

Software Lineup Diversity and Complexity
First, this category determines whether a system has a good range of game genres with sufficient diversity. Second, this category determines if any of the games for the system in question have depth, or whether they are predominantly shallow diversions (a mix is best, but all depth over all shallow would rate a bit higher). For instance, the Atari 2600’s software library includes arcade, puzzle, racing, role-playing, adventure, fighting, card and text games, and offers options for those seeking quick or longer-term play, so it scores high. The Mattel Aquarius, on the other hand, misses many key genres, so its rating is quite low.

Software Density and Raw Number of Mainstream Titles
This category puts a great deal of emphasis on the total number of titles in a system’s library. Some systems, like the Nintendo Virtual Boy have a handful, while others, like the Sega Dreamcast have hundreds, while others still, like the modern PC, have countless thousands, so each system is scored accordingly. The primary focus of this category is on commercial titles, but certain systems either due to age or popular use of public domain software, blur the commercial designation, hence the use of “mainstream” as a qualifier. So any well distributed, readily available game of acceptable quality counts towards the system’s library and thus rating.

Ease to Set Up Optimal Game Playing System
DOS-based PC systems could be very powerful and quite flexible – thus rating highly in other categories – but were often quite unpleasant to try and set up to actually get a game running (can you free enough memory?), then working optimally (is there enough memory to have sound?), so these will score lower than a typical console, like the Atari Jaguar, which is basically plug-and-play. Some systems score lower in this category because of uncomfortable ergonomics or needlessly complex setups, physical or otherwise.

Initial Popularity
This category examines a system’s popularity with the general buying public, with a heavy bias towards when first released. Some systems achieved greater fame after they were pulled from the market, such as GCE’s Vectrex, and some systems are still popular with certain communities today, like Atari’s 2600, but those types of scenarios are not heavily factored into the score because of all the variables involved (for instance, newly published software is available for the Atari 5200, but some of the original software is difficult to find).

Overall Score
The grand culmination where we arrive at our system’s final ranking. What is your favorite system’s total score?

Category Breakdown Example
Finally, in order to illustrate the thinking that went into each rating, read the following breakdown of the Initial Popularity category.

Ranking of 0.5: APF M-1000, MP1000 and Imagination Machine; Entex Adventurevision; Fairchild Channel F; Memorex Video Information System (VIS); RCA Studio II; Spectravideo SV-series; Timex Sinclair 2068; Tomy Tutor; and Watara Supervision
The systems that achieved a 0.5 as a ranking essentially were released into the marketplace and available for purchase for at least a limited time, but few made purchases and even today the most hardcore gamers have a hard time identifying the systems.

Ranking of 1: Coleco Telstar Arcade, Commodore 16 and Plus/4, CP/M Compatible Systems (Kaypro, Osborne, etc.), Emerson Arcadia 2001, Mattel Aquarius with Mini Expander and 16K Memory Cartridge, Milton Bradley Microvision, NUON DVD Platform, Tapwave Zodiac, Tiger Telematics Gizmondo, Timex Sinclair 1000/1500 with 16K Memory Expansion, Toy Quest GoGo TV, and XaviX XaviXPORT Game Console
The systems that achieved a 1 as a ranking may have been released to some fanfare or expectations, but never took off in the marketplace, particularly in reference to gaming. The two Commodore systems suffered from a lack of software compatibility with the best selling Commodore 64 and were too underpowered at the time of release to establish their own niche. Other systems like the Tiger Telematics Gizmondo and Toy Quest GoGo TV are too new to understand their final impact on the market.

Ranking of 1.5: Commodore Amiga CD32, Commodore PET Series, IBM PCjr with Second Generation Keyboard, Nintendo Virtual Boy, Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer 3 (CoCo3) - 128K Unit, and Tiger Game.com
The systems that achieved a 1.5 as a ranking were popular or long lasting enough to have a devoted or somewhat mainstream following, but never in significant enough numbers to be competitive with other contemporary systems. The Commodore PET series of computers for example, did not have the audio-visual horsepower of other systems of the day to bring their gaming abilities to the next level, likely limiting their ultimate potential for market growth.

Ranking of 2: Bally Astrocade (and brand variations); Magnavox Odyssey2 with Voice Module; Nokia N-Gage/QD; Sega 32X; SNK Neo Geo Pocket Color; and Tandy TRS-80 Model I, III, IV
The systems that achieved a 2 as a ranking made enough impact on the marketplace to have reasonable sales and a memorable existence for most gamers. The Bally Astrocade actually had several re-releases, which helped its score, while SNK’s Neo Geo Pocket Color was always facing a losing battle going against Nintendo’s GameBoy juggernaut, but was around long enough and at the right time (a larger pool of gamers to draw from, for instance) to garner a loyal following.

Ranking of 2.5: Cell Phone Platform (BREW or J2ME-enabled late model phones), and Commodore VIC 20 (Vic-20)
The Commodore Vic-20 was a best-selling computer, but ultimately had a shortened lifespan once its more powerful sibling, the 64, was released. BREW or J2ME cell phones are in a lot of consumer’s hands with lots of gaming options available, but it’s still a growing category in the US.

Ranking of 3: 3DO Multiplayer, Apple IIgs, Atari 5200 SuperSystem, Atari 7800 ProSystem, Atari Jaguar and Jaguar CD, Coleco Adam, GCE Vectrex, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to 286's with CGA graphics and PC speaker sound (DOS), NEC Turbo-Grafx 16 CD/Super CD, Philips CD-I with Digital Video (DV) add-on, Pocket PC Platform (late model), Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer 1/2 (CoCo1 or CoCo2) - Up to 64K, Sega CD, and SNK Neo Geo and Neo Geo CD
The systems that achieved a 3 as a ranking had acceptable lifespans and a good amount of support. However, all of these systems lacked something to take their popularity to the next level, most typically never being able to overcome more popular contemporary competition. The Atari 5200 SuperSystem had poor controllers and was released too close to the videogame crash of 1984 to have more of an impact. The Pocket PC platform, while currently still active, has always taken a back seat to the Palm platform in terms of raw numbers. Systems like the Radio Shack TRS-80 CoCo2 was always a fourth or fifth choice in the U.S. to systems like the Apple II series, Atari 8-bit computers and Commodore 64, among others. Apple’s IIgs was limited by Apple themselves since it was in direct competition against their own Macintosh line, which Apple deemed the future of the company.

Ranking of 4: Coleco ColecoVision
Coleco’s system was only hampered by being somewhat in the shadow of Atari’s wildly popular 2600 and the videogame crash of 1984. The console had a brief life in mail order outlets after the crash.

Ranking of 4.5: Atari ST Series, Commodore Amiga Series - AGA Chipset, and Texas Instruments TI-994/A with Voice Module
The Atari ST series of computers never caught on like their contemporary PC, Macintosh, and Commodore Amiga (ECS) competitors, but still had a market impact. Commodore’s AGA chipset systems like the Amiga 1200, never reached the same popularity levels of their own prior ECS-based models and were soon overrun by the popularity of Windows PC’s. The Texas Instruments TI-994/A was popular, particularly after drastic price cuts, but never cracked into the top three systems of the day, which were the Apple II series, the Commodore 64, and the Atari 8-bit computer line.

Ranking of 5: Apple Macintosh pre-iMac PowerPC-based - Full Color, Apple Macintosh up to 16 color 680x0-based, Apple Macintosh up to G4 or better with Current Generation 3D graphics, Atari Lynx, Mattel Intellivision with Voice Module, and PalmOS Platform (late model)
The systems that achieved a 5 as a ranking represent the median of popularity. In the case of Apple’s Macintosh, it was always a popular system, but never approached the top in any of its iterations. Today, the Macintosh line has been marginalized by the popularity of Windows PC’s, but counts among its many millions of owners a rabidly devoted core of fans. Mattel’s Intellivision is one of the more interesting stories. While never reaching the top of the videogame world, Mattel’s system saw several revisions of compatible hardware and can count among its contemporary competitors both the Atari 2600 and NES, having a long and eventful lifespan.

Ranking of 6.5: NEC Turbo-Grafx 16 - Turbo Express, and Sega Saturn
Both of these systems were usually in third place in their respective generations, but still had devoted followings with good support and a continuously loyal fan base. The biggest problem with each of these systems was that they were up against systems that would become legendarily popular, which in the Saturn’s case was Sony’s PlayStation and in NEC’s case, the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo consoles.

Ranking of 7: Sega Game Gear, Sega Master System (SMS) and Sony PlayStation Portable* (PSP)
Both of the systems from Sega were distant seconds to Nintendo machines, but were popular choices for those that wanted an alternative to the choice of the masses. Relatively speaking, both of these systems did extremely well. Sony's PSP is too new to pass final judgement, but so far seems fairly promising.

Ranking of 7.5: Tandy 1000 Series
This series of systems from Tandy were among the most popular of the mostly PC compatible systems of its era, with some unique features such as improved graphics and sound that received great developer support.

Ranking of 8: Commodore Amiga Series - ECS Chipset, Amiga CDTV; Microsoft Xbox*; Nintendo 64; Nintendo DS*; Nintendo GameCube*; and Sega Dreamcast
None of these systems ever reached the top spot in their respective generations, but still moved a tremendous number of units and received a wealth of support. Microsoft’s Xbox and Nintendo’s GameCube are still going strong, creating an unprecedented long term three console race with Sony’s unstoppable PlayStation 2 (PS2).

Ranking of 9: Atari 8-bit Computers/XEGS* - 48K - 64K, and IBM and Compatible PC’s up to 386's with EGA graphics and Ad Lib sound (DOS)
Atari’s 8-bit computer line was active in the mainstream from approximately the late 1970’s to the very early 1990’s. While Atari was never able to overcome Apple’s II series or Commodore with the all-time best selling computer, the C-64, the devoted following and vast amount of support made these systems a good choice for the savvy or “accidental” consumer. The IBM EGA and Ad Lib standard began the PC’s dominance of computer gaming, finally reaching a point where the PC specification was becoming technologically competitive with other formats.

Ranking of 10: Apple II Series* - 48K - 128K, Atari 2600 VCS - Standard Unit*, Commodore 64/128* - 64K Software, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium II's with First Generation 3D (Monster 3D equivalent) graphics and Soundblaster Pro sound (DOS/Windows)*, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium IV's with Current Generation 3D graphics and Soundblaster Audigy-level sound (Windows)*, IBM and Compatible PC’s up to Pentium's with VGA/SVGA graphics and Soundblaster sound (DOS)*, Nintendo Enterntainment System (NES)*, Nintendo GameBoy Advance/SP*, Nintendo GameBoy Color*, Nintendo GameBoy*, Nintendo Super Nintendo*, Sega Genesis*, Sony PlayStation 1 (PSX/PS1/PSOne)*, and Sony PlayStation 2 (PS2)*
These systems were without question the best selling and most popular computers, consoles, and handhelds of their day, garnering huge followings and tremendous support, often to the detriment of other contemporary systems. For whatever reason, these were or are the systems that resonated with the buying public and set the mark that all other competitors strive to reach.

Let us know what you think of the rankings. If you feel a system should be higher or lower in a category, let us know. While you may feel passionately about a system, facts are always appreciated to backup your opinions. Remember, this matrix was not created to show favoritism to any one system or systems, but to provide as objective a ranking as possible in several key categories. Since this is a “living” document, it is safe to assume that there will be future revisions based on feedback and new system releases. Finally, while great care was taken to make sure the System Information data was researched as carefully as possible, common conclusions may be wrong (for instance, about the system’s most popular resolution) or other data may be incorrect. Since accuracy is our highest goal, please provide your corrections as you uncover possible errors. Keep in mind, the “Add your comment” section will be everyone’s best friend in order to make the matrix as indispensable a reference and discussion tool as possible, so make use of it!

email to someone printer friendly >> List articles in this category
<< Back to articles front page
Not rated
Comments ...
bullet Fighter17 | 10 Jul : 13:10

Comments: 64

Registered: 05 Nov : 06:31
Bandai Pippin: Meh, it was a waste! Then again, it's rare!
32x: POS, make it a 0.5!
Game Gear: Right place on the chart.
SMS: I would make the Master System lower in rank because it wasn't popular AT ALL in the U.S.
All the 6.5 systems: These systems all had poor ad campaigns, and hardware issues. The Saturn has two processers which was hard to program for, the TurboGrafx wasn't really a 16-bit system at all, and the Turbo Express always had bad LCD screens.

That's all I have to say.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 10 Jul : 15:33

Comments: 307

Well, the Sega Master System was the number two console in a time when the NES was overwhelmingly dominant. It did make a significant enough impact to justify its final scores. The 7800 was a distant third, with miscellaneous systems, like the 2600, Intellivision III and XEGS, bringing up the rear (but still selling).

The Pippin was among the worst positioned of the systems in its class, which included the Memorex VIS and Amiga CD32, which says a lot.

bullet davyK | 11 Jul : 07:36

Comments: 76

Registered: 19 Jan : 08:40
Because I'm not from the US I wouldn't really be in a position to comment rankings (for example the Tandy had little or no impact in the UK) but as an information resource the best has just got better.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 11 Jul : 10:57

Comments: 307

Thanks, Davy. I can't wait for Don to add in the few old features missing and some new ones. The good thing is that the code foundation is now stable and standard and it's considerably easier for me to update and add to.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 18 Jul : 01:58

Comments: 307

The Bandai Pippin has been removed, due to the inability to confirm any official US game releases (thanks to Fighter17 for helping with the confirmation). While the Tandy Pocket Computer series and Tandy Model 100 - 200 did receive a couple of games direct from Tandy, I cannot consider them as qualifying as game systems in any way, which says a lot considering what did make the cut...

bullet kirin jensen | 18 Jul : 20:53
Comments: 8

Registered: 12 Nov : 03:10
A 2? My beloved Odyssey2 gets a stinkin' 2? The 2600 gets a 10 and O2 gets 2? I ain't believin' this. Where's the love?

A 2. Dang. K.C. Munchkin kicks Pac-Man's li'l yellow butt and they get a 2.

You're all evil you are.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 18 Jul : 22:50

Comments: 307

Do you agree with the other Odyssey 2 ratings in the matrix itself? I'm fairly confident I rated it correctly, as it was one of the more straightforward systems. It is a favorite of mine in my own collection, however...

Soon enough we'll restore the ability to provide comments with the systems in the matrix...

bullet forcefield58 | 19 Jul : 21:53

Comments: 34

Registered: 23 Nov : 22:54
The Commodore Amiga Series and Amiga CDTV is right-on rated at an 8. Loved the Amiga computers and just wish mine still worked. Still have the Amiga 500 and had bought the Amiga 2000 but sold it overseas. You don't know how close I came to buying an Amiga 3000 with a Video Toaster, but since the board on the 3000 was so buggy, I didn't get it. I still think the demos I saw running on the 2000 must have placed the Video Toaster near the top of the graphics development platform of its time.

bullet ryuhayabusa | 25 Aug : 09:02

Comments: 13

Registered: 18 Jan : 18:26
No offense, but I believe the Matrix rating system is somewhat flawed. The visual and audio categories give newer systems too much of an advantage. For instance, the XBox has a 73.5 rating, higher than any other system other than the PS2, which has a 77.5. Honestly, does the XBox deserve to be rated above the NES, SNES, Genesis, Amiga, C64, etc.? All one has to do is look at the libraries of these systems to see it doesn't. In the future, with the PS3 and XBox360, if they have a good library of games, wouldn't that automatically qualify them for a perfect 80 score? I think the emphasis should be more on their library of games and the impact they made rather than how their graphics compare today.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 25 Aug : 10:35

Comments: 307

It will be more refined in the upcoming book, but let me just say that I've given a lot of thought to the rating system and believe that it generates fair scores. Indeed, older systems like the NES and C-64 CAN'T possibly hold a candle to the audio-visual abilities of the PS2 or Xbox - of course - but then the PS2 and Xbox don't have the advantage necessarily of the extreme maturity of the NES and C-64's software libraries or accessories. However, as one example, "game depth" (range of genres and topics) is actually fairly equivalent across all those platforms I mentioned, but certainly the C-64 and NES have more titles available, though with the PS2's ability to play PS1 software (which does count), it's debatable in the NES' case.

It's also important to keep in mind, that with all things being equal, a newer system should ALWAYS have a better score than an older system, simply because it has the benefits of newer technology. Technology is definitely a consideration in all of this, so why throw it out as a factor? The other categories are meant to balance out technological advantages. If a system has a lot of power, like the Nuon as an extreme example, but a weak software library, control options, etc., it gets penalized accordingly. In this way the rankings fall true. Besides, if you're not happy with the overall score, just look at the individual ratings (hopefully a future revision of the online database will make sorting much easier) in each category and I think you'll find that more agreeable and understandable.

Finally, a top system in an era is a top system in an era; that will never change. Those are indicated by the astericks and high ratings in the appropriate categories. The matrix is nothing if not a look at EVERYTHING that embodies a particular system, not just a subset of categories to keep systems like the NES or Atari 2600 artificially at the top.

bullet ryuhayabusa | 25 Aug : 17:10

Comments: 13

Registered: 18 Jan : 18:26
You said "that with all things being equal, a newer system should ALWAYS have a better score than an older system, simply because it has the benefits of newer technology." How does one determine when all things are equal? There's absolutely no way that the XBox has had the impact that the 2600, NES, or C64 had. Whether or not the XBox games are better than games for these platforms is purely subjective. However, it can be said that there were more innovative games for these older platforms, if for no other reason than they preceded the XBox by many, many years. I just don't believe the XBox deserves to be rated higher than all these other great platforms just because it has better graphics. Honestly, it hasn't even sold as many units as the N64, it's library isn't all that great, it's got a crappy controller, and a sizable number of the people who bought one within it's first year got one so they could emulate the games for these old systems. Something just doesn't seem right, and it's not simply nostalgia.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 26 Aug : 10:34

Comments: 307

Well, first off, in regards to the Xbox, the Controller S is consider by many, including me, to be one of the top controllers. To say that a sizable number of the people who bought one within the Xbox's first year did so for emulation is baseless. That's like saying that people bought the Dreamcast for emulation. Sure, some did, but that doesn't take away from what sold software-wise for the thing. In fact, I put the most consideration into MAINSTREAM and purely LEGITIMATE uses for these systems and COMMERCIAL software. Emulation is a very minor factor. Frankly, if I included that, then a modern PC would blow EVERYTHING else out of the water by a country mile, simply because it is capable of emulating nearly every system ever made.

Look, the matrix is a holistic look at these systems. "Impact" is merely indicated by an asterick (in that those systems that dominated their era are marked with an asterick). "Impact" is not something that a statistic - a number - can truly judge. That's what a detailed history and analysis is for, which again, is what will be covered in the book. I've chosen to judge on technical merits along with all the other categories, so again, newer systems will ALWAYS, LOGICALLY score MUCH better than older systems in key TECHNICAL categories.

Really, we can debate individual numbers (in fact, I encourage it and would be happy to modify any of them with a reasoned argument), but the methodology is set the way it is. If you're not happy with it, make your own where the Xbox is a "1" and Nintendo and Atari systems are a "10". Just understand that I have very specific reasons for every score that I gave every system and put a lot of thought into why I did what I did overall.

Let me finish by saying that you should be more concerned with comparing systems from the SAME era than systems of different eras. While I enjoy comparing the relative merits of an Atari 2600 to a PS2, the eras are monumentally different. It's better to look at the Atari 2600 versus Fairchild Channel F and a Commodore PET, or PS2 versus GameCube and a modern PC. Again, that's how the book is broken up and really that's how the matrix is skewed. Since technology improves, there WILL be a disparity between new and old since *I* feel technology MUST be taken into consideration. It doesn't mean, however, that just because "Visuals" and "Audio" are factors, an Atari 2600 can't kick the ass of say a Nintendo GameCube in the area of control options. Until recently the GameCube didn't even have a dance pad and it STILL doesn't have a light gun. Even the Atari 2600 had the latter. Again, these are all considerations and help to balance out the ratings. However, to leave out the GameCube's audio/visual prowess because it far exceeds what an Atari 2600 can do, is silly. It's just a simple fact. It doesn't change the software depth of the Atari 2600 or the fact that the games are fun.

bullet davyK | 26 Aug : 10:34

Comments: 76

Registered: 19 Jan : 08:40
This is a hardware matrix and the visuals section talks about the specifics of the hardware display - number of colours, resoultion, clarity on handhelds etc. What is done with them isn't necessarily being measured. Does Halo look "better" than Super Breakout ? It depends on how you measure it.

XBox's impact has been different - I don't see any real contribution to gameplay in the traditional sense - but the 1st truly universal successful online service is a big contribution (one I'm not really interested in but I accept its importance).

bullet Bill Loguidice | 26 Aug : 10:45

Comments: 307

In response to Davy, I do give raw figures for the most common "colors", "resolution", "sound channels", etc., of a particular system, but then also give a subjective rating between 0 and 10+ for the prowess. Of course each rating is in comparison to another rating. There has to be a "0", just has there has to be "10" (and in some cases greater). Otherwise there would be no basis for comparison. Why anyone would have a problem with audio-visuals being a comparitive category is beyond me. How else would a newbie know what the relative abilities of say a Commodore 64 - which they may have never seen - is to a Super Nintendo - why they may have a lot of exposure to?

As for the Xbox, some will debate that just about everything non-PC post NES contributed nothing to gameplay in the traditional sense, but if you believe that, frankly, you shouldn't bother playing games, because you're playing them for fun. It's like those people who despise mainstream music. Yeah, maybe it's not "art", but sometimes it's just fun to listen to. Besides, one person's art is another's junk.

bullet davyK | 26 Aug : 11:07

Comments: 76

Registered: 19 Jan : 08:40
Impact is pretty tough to measure - one metric would be the number of titles a platform has that have been the template for future titles or have even started a genre or sub-genre - but then everyone has their own idea as to when a genre started.

Another easier metric would be ownership - but that's a different type of impact isn't it?

bullet davyK | 26 Aug : 11:13

Comments: 76

Registered: 19 Jan : 08:40
You could end up drawing up a huge list of factors (ownership, #titles , #software houses, genre-definers, lifespan, copied titles) and try to come with some formula for arriving at some magic number - the problem is everyone would have their own factors and weightings...

As long as everything is specified at the start then you can at least back up your conclusions, but , as I'm sure Bill is aware, one can't really be totally right - or wrong.

The best of era is the best way to try to do it - one can only be the best of their time - its like trying to compare Marciano with Ali otherwise.

bullet Bill Loguidice | 26 Aug : 15:27

Comments: 307

Exactly, Davy. But there is a catch with the best of their era and it's something I address with the astericks in the matrix. There CAN be more than one "best" of an era. For instance, can we really say if the Sega Genesis was really the dominant system of its era over the Super Nintendo and vice-versa (remember the matrix is based ONLY on US systems). The Super Nintendo eeked out a sales win over the Genesis at the very beginning of the PS1 era, but for the longest time the Genesis was dominant. Hence, the astericks for BOTH. Of course I also separate computer dominance from videogame dominance. Handheld dominance is another separate indicator (and that pretty much means GameBoy).

By the way, I just removed the Tiger R-Zone series entry, dropping the current system number to 88 (89 for the book, with Xbox 360). I've been refining my definition of systems that are included in the matrix. The systems must be able to generate their own unique graphical displays on the fly (in other words, nothing pre-rendered, which is why FMV systems are eliminated) and of course use interchangeable games (on top of the fact that they must play UNIQUE games - no clone or compatible systems like the JVC X'Eye). Modifying the definition saved me from including other marginal systems as well...

bullet Bill Loguidice | 12 Feb : 22:42

Comments: 307

Just a note that this will regenerated on the new Website and made into a proper museum resource for all US-based systems that fit the necessary definition. I added quite a few systems for my forthcoming book and it will be reflected back on the new Website. It may not be ready for the relaunch of Armchair Arcade, but it will happen not too long after that.

You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup
All editorial content © 2003 - 2006 Armchair Arcade, Inc., all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. All trademarks and copyrights are retained by their respective owners. No content is to be removed or reused from the Armchair Arcade Website for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the principal Armchair Arcade editors, or the original trademark or copyright holders. Armchair Arcade, Inc., is not responsible for the content of any external sources or links. Further, endorsement of any external sources or links is neither implied nor suggested.