3 ms·

Was it guaranteed in any way? I don't recall a lot of smash PC hits around this time, and most of the ones that were big were games that weren't really console

by nkozyra 11y ago

Was it guaranteed in any way? I don't recall a lot of smash PC hits around this time, and most of the ones that were big were games that weren't really console-esque anyway. Most of the successful ones were strategy games. It wasn't until hardware and insane innovation came together with Doom that consoles had a very real competitor in "action" video games. (perhaps Wolfenstein and its ilk could qualify, I remember it being big but never really registering as "mature" the way console games did) This demo is, to me, extremely impressive because it's close to the NES version. But it also has all the hallmarks of PC attempts at platformers. It never "felt" right. The reasons are explained a bit here, but there were ultimately a lot of limitations that made it very hard to compete even graphically with commonly-available hardware.

wsc981 11y ago
A few years after this demo, Jazz Jackrabbit [0] (1994) was a huge hit, I believe. Mario could have been successful as well. Though by releasing Mario on the PC, might have cost Nintendo console marketshare. I do think people by Nintendo consoles often because of the games / game characters like Mario, Zelda, etc... --- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b16upFloYak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b16upFloYak
- nkozyra 11y ago
  Sure, but there was "PC huge hit" and "console huge hit" and they were light years away in terms of metrics. Best I can tell Jazz Jackrabbit did not sell 1MM copies, SMB3 sold 17MM. Doom ended up selling something like 3MM, but the key difference was it was an experience that didn't exist much on consoles, and Carmack & Co. did everything possible to make it futuristic compared to anything then possible on PC. I just don't see an SMB copy doing anything noteworthy at that stage, and the end result probably would have stunk, too. But that was a limitation with the platform more than anything.
- jerf 11y ago
  Jazz Jackrabbit is another interesting example of the tech difference between the two consoles. That YouTube video is running on a Soundblaster. PCs had superior storage and a lot of processor power compared to the consoles, so Jazz had incredible music compared to consoles because it could use modfiles, basically CPU-synthesized music using arbitrary wave files as instruments, played through the Soundblaster (used as a generic digital sound out, which may not sound impressive, but the consoles didn't have that yet, it still just had various cheap synthesis chips and a smidge of wavetable capability not sufficient to play dynamically-generated sounds). The PS1 was not quite out yet, so the current (popular, people I know actually owned them) gen was basically Genesis and Super Nintendo. Neither could pull that off. Graphically, Jazz had more colors to work with. But mechanically, Jazz at best had parity and at worst would have been considered a low-tier platformer at best on the Super Nintendo. I honestly don't know what it was with PC platformers of the era, if they were actually incapable of "feeling good" for some technical reason or if nobody ever, well, for lack of a nicer way of putting it, did it right. But they were always bizarrely floaty and had poor physics and feel. Whether or not the PC hardware could have competed on platformers, I do not ever recall playing one that felt as good as a console game did.
rangibaby 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by smash hits, but the Sierra adventure games were massively popular (for PC games) from the mid 80s-90s. Prince of Persia was a platformer, and the PC version was released in 1990. The Keen games were successful enough, and within a year (late 1991) had graphics and gameplay that were what I would consider SNES-like. Being able to play Mario on a PC would've been a killer app for sure. The popularity of emulators since the mid-late 90s should be enough proof for that. Obviously RTS and FPS turned out to be the defining genres of PC gaming because of the tight controls, netplay, and being able to take advantage of Moore's law, but I think Nintendo missed out on a good chance to expand their business.
- nkozyra 11y ago
  My point is none of those games approached the sales of even modestly popular console games. And emulators aren't a fair comparison because they exactly replicate the game as it existed in console. Anytime crossovers like this were made up through the late 90s, they were always a shell of their console counterparts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronem 11y ago
  > massively popular (for PC games) And there's the problem. "Massively popular for PC games", at the time, would equate to "a serious flop for a first-party console game". People would buy an NES so their kids could play a popular game. Almost nobody who didn't already have one would buy a PC for similar reasons. And anyone who already had a PC almost certainly already had a console as well, so there'd be no meaningful additional market in PC ports. Nintendo had every reason in the world to make the decision they did, and none whatsoever to do otherwise. > graphics and gameplay that were what I would consider SNES-like You might, but no one else would. The Keen series's graphics are better than the NES could manage until very late into its lifecycle if at all, but they're certainly not up to what the SNES could do, even without the Mode 7 coprocessor.

by nkozyra 11y ago

wsc981 11y ago

A few years after this demo, Jazz Jackrabbit [0] (1994) was a huge hit, I believe. Mario could have been successful as well. Though by releasing Mario on the PC, might have cost Nintendo console marketshare. I do think people by Nintendo consoles often because of the games / game characters like Mario, Zelda, etc... --- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b16upFloYak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b16upFloYak

nkozyra 11y ago
Sure, but there was "PC huge hit" and "console huge hit" and they were light years away in terms of metrics. Best I can tell Jazz Jackrabbit did not sell 1MM copies, SMB3 sold 17MM. Doom ended up selling something like 3MM, but the key difference was it was an experience that didn't exist much on consoles, and Carmack & Co. did everything possible to make it futuristic compared to anything then possible on PC. I just don't see an SMB copy doing anything noteworthy at that stage, and the end result probably would have stunk, too. But that was a limitation with the platform more than anything.
jerf 11y ago
Jazz Jackrabbit is another interesting example of the tech difference between the two consoles. That YouTube video is running on a Soundblaster. PCs had superior storage and a lot of processor power compared to the consoles, so Jazz had incredible music compared to consoles because it could use modfiles, basically CPU-synthesized music using arbitrary wave files as instruments, played through the Soundblaster (used as a generic digital sound out, which may not sound impressive, but the consoles didn't have that yet, it still just had various cheap synthesis chips and a smidge of wavetable capability not sufficient to play dynamically-generated sounds). The PS1 was not quite out yet, so the current (popular, people I know actually owned them) gen was basically Genesis and Super Nintendo. Neither could pull that off. Graphically, Jazz had more colors to work with. But mechanically, Jazz at best had parity and at worst would have been considered a low-tier platformer at best on the Super Nintendo. I honestly don't know what it was with PC platformers of the era, if they were actually incapable of "feeling good" for some technical reason or if nobody ever, well, for lack of a nicer way of putting it, did it right. But they were always bizarrely floaty and had poor physics and feel. Whether or not the PC hardware could have competed on platformers, I do not ever recall playing one that felt as good as a console game did.

rangibaby 11y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by smash hits, but the Sierra adventure games were massively popular (for PC games) from the mid 80s-90s. Prince of Persia was a platformer, and the PC version was released in 1990. The Keen games were successful enough, and within a year (late 1991) had graphics and gameplay that were what I would consider SNES-like. Being able to play Mario on a PC would've been a killer app for sure. The popularity of emulators since the mid-late 90s should be enough proof for that. Obviously RTS and FPS turned out to be the defining genres of PC gaming because of the tight controls, netplay, and being able to take advantage of Moore's law, but I think Nintendo missed out on a good chance to expand their business.

nkozyra 11y ago
My point is none of those games approached the sales of even modestly popular console games. And emulators aren't a fair comparison because they exactly replicate the game as it existed in console. Anytime crossovers like this were made up through the late 90s, they were always a shell of their console counterparts.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aaronem 11y ago
> massively popular (for PC games) And there's the problem. "Massively popular for PC games", at the time, would equate to "a serious flop for a first-party console game". People would buy an NES so their kids could play a popular game. Almost nobody who didn't already have one would buy a PC for similar reasons. And anyone who already had a PC almost certainly already had a console as well, so there'd be no meaningful additional market in PC ports. Nintendo had every reason in the world to make the decision they did, and none whatsoever to do otherwise. > graphics and gameplay that were what I would consider SNES-like You might, but no one else would. The Keen series's graphics are better than the NES could manage until very late into its lifecycle if at all, but they're certainly not up to what the SNES could do, even without the Mode 7 coprocessor.