Support NeoGAF

[Feffe]

DSiWare was still releasing in 2016. It outlasted DS compatible software releases and by more time than GBC only games outlasted GB compatible releases.

My point was that they didn't stop developing major DS games in favor of DSi exclusives. Spirit Tracks (released one year after the DSi) could be played on every DS, Oracle of Ages could not.

Nothing to play from 1998-2001? Well Except Wario Land 2, Tetris DX, Mega Man Xtreme, Dragon Warrior I & II, DW Monsters 1-2, Pokemon R/G/Y/G/S, Pokemon TCG, Pokemon Pinball, Harvest Moon 1-2, Legend of the River King 1-2, Monkey Puncher, Link's Awakening DX, Game & Watch Gallery 2-3, Blaster Master EB, Bomberman GB/Quest, Pocket Bomberman, Survival Kids, R-Type DX, The Demon Slayer, Azure Dreams, Power Quest, Shadowgate, Mysical Ninja, Castlevania Legends and over 150 other games.

Memory can be a funny thing but your recalled perception doesn't automatically make it reality.

Well yes, and you also have lots of SNES games released between 1996 and 2000 (expecially in Japan) or PS2 games released well into the PS3 era. It doesn't mean N64 and PS3 weren't the successor to SNES and PS2.

 

[FingerBang]

I never had the original Game Boy and, thinking about it, there was a lot of confusion at first when the Color came out, but towards the end of the generation it was obvious they were different platforms.
Nintendo groups them together because probably they look better as a single family.

Could it mean the GBC underperformed compared to the og GB? No idea. I loved it.

I didn't even know those were a thing lol.

Oh man, before the DualShock there was the dual analog controller which had the dual sticks but lacked the vibration.
I am the only person I know who had one. It took me and all my friends YEARS to get used to the dual analog stick when the dualshock became standard.
Most games still didn't require one.

I feel old. Modernity scares me.

 

[Fiendcode]

My point was that they didn't stop developing major DS games in favor of DSi exclusives. Spirit Tracks (released one year after the DSi) could be played on every DS, Oracle of Ages could not.

So how major a release was Pokémon GS? Less notable than Spirit Tracks?

Well yes, and you also have lots of SNES games released between 1996 and 2000 (expecially in Japan) or PS2 games released well into the PS3 era. It doesn't mean N64 and PS3 weren't the successor to SNES and PS2.

The point was there wasn't exactly "nothing to play" from 1998-2001 for original GB owners. This was being used as a point of platform distinction but it's just not accurate. Settle down with those goalposts.

 

[flak57]

To no one in particular - if it seems more obvious to you that DSi and n3DS aren't new generations, so you try to shift the debate to be about them, then they aren't really relevant to the GBC.

 

[Fiendcode]

To no one in particular - if it seems more obvious to you that DSi and n3DS aren't new generations, so you try to shift the debate to be about them, then they aren't really relevant to the GBC.

They are relevant though because according to Nintendo they're the exact same sort of platform refresh as GBC.

 

[flak57]

They are relevant though because according to Nintendo they're the exact same sort of platform refresh as GBC.

That's not the sense the developer I quoted got who worked on both.

Regardless you've missed the point of what I said. It makes no sense to shift the debate to dsi and n3DS, and then vicariously have that count for GBC. The only reason to do that would be if it were an easier argument to make, and if it's an easier argument to make it isn't a match for the GBC's situation.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I think a good defining point is where people would start to buy the console in large numbers to access the exclusive games on the new system. GBC counts under that metric, n3DS does not.

Secondly, GBC came out 9 years after original game boy. It makes more sense to mark off a new generation there than at 3 and a half years.

Finally, the GBC was a massive improvement in power. A GBC exclusive game is instantly distinguishable from an OGB game. If you showed a rando a screenshot of xenoblade chronicles X alongside the more visually impressive 3DS games he wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Honestly I'm baffled this is even a debate. New exclusive games, better hardware, fits in the right timeframe - backwards compatibility doesn't erase all that. It's a new generation.

 

[KillerMan91]

I think a good defining point is where people would start to buy the console in large numbers to access the exclusive games on the new system. GBC counts under that metric, n3DS does not.

Secondly, GBC came out 9 years after original game boy. It makes more sense to mark off a new generation there than at 3 and a half years.

Finally, the GBC was a massive improvement in power. A GBC exclusive game is instantly distinguishable from an OGB game. If you showed a rando a screenshot of xenoblade chronicles X alongside the more visually impressive 3DS games he wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Honestly I'm baffled this is even a debate. New exclusive games, better hardware, fits in the right timeframe - backwards compatibility doesn't erase all that. It's a new generation.

Most people bought GBC to play Pokemon games. Pokemon games (aside from Crystal) worked also on original GB.

 

[beril]

I think a good defining point is where people would start to buy the console in large numbers to access the exclusive games on the new system. GBC counts under that metric, n3DS does not.

Secondly, GBC came out 9 years after original game boy. It makes more sense to mark off a new generation there than at 3 and a half years.

Finally, the GBC was a massive improvement in power. A GBC exclusive game is instantly distinguishable from an OGB game. If you showed a rando a screenshot of xenoblade chronicles X alongside the more visually impressive 3DS games he wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Honestly I'm baffled this is even a debate. New exclusive games, better hardware, fits in the right timeframe - backwards compatibility doesn't erase all that. It's a new generation.

If the N3DS or PS4Pro started getting some heavy hitting exclusives would they retroactively become new generations?
I think the GBC received way more exclusives than anyone expected because of the positive market response.

The timeframe doesn't really make it any more a new system, on the contrary it helps show just how old the hardware was.
It did however mean a few things, people were more than ready to upgrade regardless of the exclusives, even just for the much better screen and form factor. Also a lot of the old install base probably weren't very active anymore so it wasn't as big of an issue to cut them off and make an exclusive game.

And no the hardware bump really wasn't very big. Color is a very distinct feature, but outside of that the bump was tiny. Higher clock and more VRAM only means so much when you're working under the limitations of a system that was "withered technology" in 1989. A lot of the graphic improvement came from the fact that big carts were way cheaper in 2000 than in 1990

 

[Dreamwriter]

Nintendo didn’t want to market the GBC as a separate device, because for one that might make current DMG owners to stop buying games thinking their platform was dead, and for two it looks much more impressive to combine the sales numbers and lifespan. That’s why the sales numbers are combined, because it makes good press.

Speaking as a developer, GBC could be run at twice the speed, had a few new very useful features, much larger cartridges (DMG couldn’t use those), more memory, and of course colors. The hardware bump was a HUGE increase, especially the new features - having the ability to easily do scanline effects meant more sprites, more colors, cool effects, and being able to super-quickly move data from the cartridge to memory meant lots of great tile animations. But aside from that, the GBC wasn’t really different than the DMG, internally - everything else about it was programmed exactly the same, from how memory was mapped to the registers. I personally consider GBC a new generation up from the DMG, especially as my company really pushed the limits of what the GBC could do so our games would never have been remotely possible on DMG, but it could be argued either way.

 

[beril]

Nintendo didn’t want to market the GBC as a separate device, because for one that might make current DMG owners to stop buying games thinking their platform was dead, and for two it looks much more impressive to combine the sales numbers and lifespan.

Speaking as a developer, GBC could be run at twice the speed, had a few new very useful features, much larger cartridges (DMG couldn’t use those), more memory, and of course colors. The hardware bump was a HUGE increase. But aside from that, the GBC wasn’t really different than the DMG, internally - everything else about it was programmed exactly the same, from how memory was mapped to the registers. I personally consider GBC a new generation up from the DMG, especially as my company really pushed the limits of what the GBC could do so our games would never have been remotely possible on DMG, but it could be argued either way.

Well they haven't had that issue with any other generations, even when the market has been confused about their generations and when sales have been less impressive.

I just wouldn't classify a 2x clock and some extra RAM as a huge upgrade, especially for a 9 year gap. I guess the weaker the hardware is the bigger even a small bump seems; but when you're still working with the same 8-bit CPU, single layer 2-bit BG, 40 sprites/10 per line-limit etc I just can't see it as a new platform. Things like mirrored tiles was a nice addition but for the most part it felt like just about the minimum possible upgrade.

Though I'm curious about the cart sizes. as far as I know the MMC is inside the carts, so I don't see why there'd be a difference for GB/GBC but it's not something I've looked into.

 

[Celine]

Nintendo didn't want to market the GBC as a separate device, because for one that might make current DMG owners to stop buying games thinking their platform was dead, and for two it looks much more impressive to combine the sales numbers and lifespan. That's why the sales numbers are combined, because it makes good press.

By March 1998 (that is before Game Boy Color was released) Nintendo had shipped 65.78 million Game Boys therefore before GBC revision was released Game Boy was already the best selling game system in history.
It had no reason to add something that Nintendo doesn't consider fitting just to make the picture prettier because it was already the top.
Nintendo has always considered the GBC as a revision of the Game Boy line.
The first successor of which was the Game Boy Advance line.
This is quite obvious if you look at how Nintendo presents both Game Boy hardware and software sales data (GBC exclusive games are categorized more broadly under the Game Boy label with the games originally conceived for the black & white GB).

The idea that Nintendo would add DS and 3DS sales, even if they consider those two different product lines, just because "it makes good press" is stupid*.

EDIT:
* Actually now that I think about it Sony obfuscated PS Vita grim sales at first by adding up PSP sales and PSV sales during quarters.
So at least there may be a reason to do this stupid practice.
Nonetheless the situation between GB and PSV was the opposite and Nintendo has never obfuscated sales even with failures like WiiU.

 

[Dreamwriter]

By March 1998 (before Game Boy Color was released) Nintendo had shipped 65.78 million Game Boys therefore before GBC revision was released Game Boy was already the best selling game system in history.
It had no reason add something that Nintendo doesn't consider fitting just to make the picture prettier because it was already the top.

GBC wasn’t already at the top, how would that sound good for the GBC to announce that it had sold just a few numbers, worse than other competing systems? And yes, saying Gameboy has been the best selling handheld of all time, selling continually for 10 years, is very good press compared to saying GBC had only been selling for a little over 3 years before being canceled.

 

[Feffe]

Well they haven't had that issue with any other generations, even when the market has been confused about their generations and when sales have been less impressive.

I just wouldn't classify a 2x clock and some extra RAM as a huge upgrade, especially for a 9 year gap. I guess the weaker the hardware is the bigger even a small bump seems; but when you're still working with the same 8-bit CPU, single layer 2-bit BG, 40 sprites/10 per line-limit etc I just can't see it as a new platform. Things like mirrored tiles was a nice addition but for the most part it felt like just about the minimum possible upgrade.

Though I'm curious about the cart sizes. as far as I know the MMC is inside the carts, so I don't see why there'd be a difference for GB/GBC but it's not something I've looked into.

It is when you are actually coding to the metal. Some cross-gens titles like Wario Land 2 have slowdowns if played on OG GB.

Also Nintendo themselves think that Nintendo DS was the first console to have multiple Pokémon generations - meaning that the GBC is a different console than the OG GB.

Ishihara:
My happiness was overwhelmingly the stronger of the two. The Pokémon games began with Pokémon Red and Pokémon Green (Red and Blue in Europe) 5 (Red and Blue in Europe) for the Game Boy, and then Pokémon Gold and Pokémon Silver 6 came out for Game Boy Color.

5 and : The first generation of games in the Pokémon series. First released in Japan for the Game Boy system on February 27, 1996.
6 and : The second generation of games in the Pokémon series. The games were compatible with the Game Boy Color system, so Pokémon appeared in various colours. First released in Japan on November 21, 1999.

Iwata:
Game Boy Advance had Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire 7, and the Nintendo DS has Pokémon Diamond Version and Pokémon Pearl Version.

7 and : The third generation of games in the Pokémon series. First released in Japan for the Game Boy Advance system on November 21, 2002.

Ishihara:
It has been the series’ destiny to transfer to a completely new platform every time a completely new generation came out. The Nintendo DS, however, has had a long lifespan and spread around the world. We were able to make a second generation for the Nintendo DS by, from the point of view of development, making effective use of already-existing resources.

http://www.nintendo.co.uk/Iwata-Ask...ly-New-Sequel-for-the-Nintendo-DS-209957.html

See also the 3DS Virtual Console, where GBC games have a different price and more different banner than OG GB games.

 

[Fiendcode]

That's not the sense the developer I quoted got who worked on both.

Regardless you've missed the point of what I said. It makes no sense to shift the debate to dsi and n3DS, and then vicariously have that count for GBC. The only reason to do that would be if it were an easier argument to make, and if it's an easier argument to make it isn't a match for the GBC's situation.

You're trying to rationalize away key comparisons in an argument that's inherently about histoical platform comparisons. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

 

[Celine]

GBC wasn't already at the top, how would that sound good for the GBC to announce that it had sold just a few numbers, worse than other competing systems? And yes, saying Gameboy has been the best selling handheld of all time, selling continually for 10 years, is very good press compared to saying GBC had only been selling for a little over 3 years before being canceled.

Err of course consoles like GBA and DS started from 0.
What's the problem?

GBC (just like DSi or 2DS) began from 0 and the units sold were accounted under the Game Boy line (just like DSi under DS line and 2DS under 3DS line).
The reason being that GBC, DSi and 2DS are treated as revisions by Nintendo.

 

[beril]

It is when you are actually coding to the metal. Some cross-gens titles like Wario Land 2 have slowdowns if played on OG GB.

Getting rid of slowdown doesn't mean generational leap though.

 

[Feffe]

Anyway, I think the biggest problem here is that some people think that new platform =new generation.

The Sega CD, the Sega 32x, the Satellaview and the Nintendo DSi are new platforms, because they have game released exclusively on them. However, they are not new generations, as the MegaDrive, the SNES and the Nintendo DS continued to have a full-fledged support from the platfom holder and major third-parties. They co-exist with the main, more supported and more popular platform and are therefore part of the same generation.

On the other hand, the Saturn, the PS2 and the 3DS are not only "new platforms", but also "new generations", as the platform holders started developing games exclusively on them, along side major third-parties. They replace the market of their precedessor. Note that a significantly spech-bump is not necessarily. Wii was the successor to the GameCube, but it hadn't a significantly spech-bump. The PC-Engine was a 8bit system, yet was not part of the same generatione as the NES.

As some already pointed out the GBC had tons of AAA (for that era) exclusives. Oracle of Ages/Season, Metal Gear Solid, Shantae, WarLord, Resident Evil, Wario Land 3, Super Mario Bros. DX, Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble and so on. Even small developers made their game GBC-exclusive.

This means that if you had a OG GB you couldn't experience the latest portable games. Just like if you had a PS1 you couldn't play the latest console games. Of course, OG GB was a very popular platform and they continued to support it for a bit, expecially with cross-gen titles.

 

[Clefargle]

It's a new system in technical terms, but it's part of the same generation in nintendo's mind, which is all that actually matters. Sales groupings are somewhat arbitrary when it comes to iterative platforms. Sounds like Nintendo considered it part of the GB line. So that's really all there is to say

 

[Feffe]

It's a new system in technical terms, but it's part of the same generation in nintendo's mind,

The people behind the Virtual Console and the core Pokémon team don't really agree within that. See above.

I suspect Nintendo decided to combine them due to the black cartridge games. It was easy to create cross gen titles.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Wasn't the Gameboy pocket sold for like the entirety of the GBCs lifespan? That's mainly why I wouldn't consider them separate. Not a lot of games were GBC only and Nintendo probably sold more GBPs than GBCs during the same time period. It's basically like ps4 and ps4 pro, n3ds, and dsi. They weren't really the focus iteration of the system as far as software being developed for it or even hardware sales. They are slight spec bumps to prolong the generation and make some more hardware revenue.

 

[NXGamer]

They were two different systems. The vast majority of GBC games will not run on the b/w Game Boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_Boy_Color_games


Not that it ruins my day, but it's weird to hear that so often. I started to watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUDEaLa5Nwhttp://

and again that nonsense is told.

The GBC was one of the shortest lifespans of a mainstream and successful console ever, roughly 2 years from start to finish before the advance launched, the data is combined as they comprised the yin and yang of the Gameboy origins.

 

[iidesuyo]

Wasn't the Gameboy pocket sold for like the entirety of the GBCs lifespan?

I don't believe the GBP was officialy supported by 2001, but I could be wrong.

Not a lot of games were GBC only

Oh no, not again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_Boy_Color_games

and Nintendo probably sold more GBPs than GBCs during the same time period.

I highly doubt that. No way.

 

[D.Lo]

You're trying to rationalize away key comparisons in an argument that's inherently about histoical platform comparisons. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

No, your argument is essentially 'we can't say GBC was a new platform because then we have to say DSi was too'. Which is weak, they have similarities but also major differences. Deal with GBC on its own merits then get to DSi another day.

 

[RPGam3r]

I consider them the same bc when I upgraded it felt like oh cool its my GB but it has color now, and look all my games work on it too! It wasn't until GBA that I felt we were entering a next gen.

 

[flak57]

Sooo, anyone want to explain these? Series with actual numbered entries that either changed handheld exclusivity from GB->GBC, GBC->GBA, or both.

 

[345triangle]

when i was a kid, my game boy pocket got stolen on holiday. we filed a travel insurance claim and it took so long that the game boy color was out by then, so that's what i replaced it with — and it felt pretty much like a straight replacement.

i actually preferred the pocket in some ways at the time because of the contrast slider, and also i'd spent most of my time until then playing pokemon, tetris and the game boy camera.

but there's just no getting around the fact that the technical leap made the color a whole new platform, and there were more than enough exclusive games released to justify considering it as such. stuff like metal gear ghost babel, perfect dark, tomb raider, mario golf, zelda oracle, SMB etc were way beyond what you could've done on the original game boy, and they're what got the vast majority of hype, attention, and shelf space between 1999 and 2001.

 

[guyssorry]

I mean, didn't they all play the same games (or, about 99% of the same games)? To me, it's kinda like lumping the PS4 Pro sales in with the total PS4 sales. I'm not 100% certain though.

 

[Nostremitus]

This is the weirdest argument I've seen. "It wasn't a real new generation, but Nintendo pretended it was because they could get away with it."



The GBA had two new form factors though.

That wasn't what I said at all.

I said they milked the previous generation instead of releasing the new one. Which is exactly what they did.

And no, they didn't pretend the GBC was a new generation. Nintendo's always been honest about it being a Gameboy revision, as far as I know.

 

[iidesuyo]

I mean, didn't they all play the same games (or, about 99% of the same games)

No, more like 30% or so.

 

[Clefargle]

The people behind the Virtual Console and the core Pokémon team don't really agree within that. See above.

I suspect Nintendo decided to combine them due to the black cartridge games. It was easy to create cross gen titles.

Gamefreak isn't Nintendo, they always go at their own pace. So what?

 

[guyssorry]

No, more like 30% or so.

Hmmm. Interesting. I should have done some research instead of trying to remember something from when I was like 10 years old haha. Thanks for the correction.

 

[D.Lo]

We live in a world where the OP clearly states

The vast majority of GBC games will not run on the b/w Game Boy.

And provides clear evidence in the second line of the OP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_Boy_Color_games

Yet over and over people refer back to their 'feeling' that 'most GBC games worked on the old Game Boy'.

Wasn't the Gameboy pocket sold for like the entirety of the GBCs lifespan? That's mainly why I wouldn't consider them separate. Not a lot of games were GBC only and Nintendo probably sold more GBPs than GBCs during the same time period.

Sorry, your claim about Game Boy Pocket selling the whole time and outselling the Color holds no weight when you then falsely claim 'Not a lot of games were GBC only'.

Also many here misspell Game Boy. It is always two words, not Gameboy.

Sooo, anyone want to explain these? Series with actual numbered entries that either changed handheld exclusivity from GB->GBC, GBC->GBA, or both.

Nice post. I don't think anyone will find DSi or N3DS equivalents, rendering that comparison insert.

 

[flak57]

Nice post. I don't think anyone will find DSi or N3DS equivalents, rendering that comparison insert.

Added the Wars series, not meant to be an exhaustive list btw.

Edit: This is the best looking list I've found, and only lists a game once if it was released in multiple regions:
http://speedwaytotubelectric.tumblr.com/ ("GBC Complete List" in menu)

So across all regions it seems GBC has:

916 games total
604 exclusive

That excludes unlicensed games and Taiwan games with no DMG or CGB code that come in different cartridges

 

[LarsQMorient]

By March 1998 (that is before Game Boy Color was released) Nintendo had shipped 65.78 million Game Boys therefore before GBC revision was released Game Boy was already the best selling game system in history.
It had no reason to add something that Nintendo doesn't consider fitting just to make the picture prettier because it was already the top.
Nintendo has always considered the GBC as a revision of the Game Boy line.
The first successor of which was the Game Boy Advance line.
This is quite obvious if you look at how Nintendo presents both Game Boy hardware and software sales data (GBC exclusive games are categorized more broadly under the Game Boy label with the games originally conceived for the black & white GB).

The idea that Nintendo would add DS and 3DS sales, even if they consider those two different product lines, just because "it makes good press" is stupid*.

EDIT:
* Actually now that I think about it Sony obfuscated PS Vita grim sales at first by adding up PSP sales and PSV sales during quarters.
So at least there may be a reason to do this stupid practice.
Nonetheless the situation between GB and PSV was the opposite and Nintendo has never obfuscated sales even with failures like WiiU.

Separating GB and GBC sales would have made PS1 the best-selling console before GBA came out. Combining GB and GBC stopped this from happening and also allowed GBA to be known as the successor to the best-selling console.