You're right, it's a quite unique game that almost created its owned genre. Thanks for sharing!

Of course there's a word between. Really not the same

Thanks for sharing! Seems like everyone loved it

Thanks! It IS skippable though you know

Thanks for the heads-up: next time, promise

Thanks a lot

you could have made these excellent points without the BS mention. always eager to learn from my mistakes

@@RetroDream Fixed

about which one

For the 360

Thanks a lot! 5 ST now

@@RetroDream cool

yup

don't remember

i just watahslak and im so nahppy!

Welcome aboard!

Thanks a lot!

That's it, you summed it up very well. Only real stuff not emulation.

Great game yes! Thanks for your interest

thanks for the heads-up.

better next time

Good point, thanks for mentioning. You're right, there's only one dominant at a given time. But it's unfair to say Sega never was, as opposed to Nintendo. There were short periods were at least a specific segment of the market was for Sega: in 89 with the Megadrive, the 16bit segment was entirely owned by Sega until the release of the SNES in 92. And same in 91, the Game Gear was number 1 if we consider color portable consoles.

@@RetroDream Outselling another system for a moment in time, especially one that wasn't even released yet, but not selling the most units overall doesn't really qualify as "dominating" and seems a bit of strange take imo. I'm sure many consoles have managed that feat, but we don't usually say they were "dominant" when talking about each generation of consoles historically like this. I mean, sure, some Sega consoles outsold the competition's systems before they launched for example, obviously. And they even had moments where they were the top sellers in one region or another for a while as well as actually sold more in some regions too. But that's not really the same thing as being "dominant" ultimately imo. If it is, we could and probably should then say the NES dominated the Genesis in the period before SNES launched actually, and globally at that, rather than saying the Genesis "dominated" against some system that hadn't even released yet. I guess it's a matter of perception and also how it comes across. I personally would just say "NES dominated the 8-bit generation, SNES dominated the 16-bit generation, PlayStation dominated the first 32-bit/-64-bit generation, PlayStation 2 dominated its generation, etc", for example. I think that's simple and clear, accurate, and would make sense to most people. And I don't think we need to confuse things by adding kinda random and somewhat narrative muddying [while still technically true] stuff like "NES dominated the early 16-bit generation, Genesis dominated over the unreleased SNES, Saturn outsold PlayStation before it launched, and Xbox dominated the GameCube, etc"--unless we do that equally for all systems and similar examples I suppose. Basically, Sega had no "dominance" of the global gaming scene in the late '80s early '90s (unless you're talking about the arcades). Nintendo completely dominated the globe with the NES during that time, and similarly with the Game Boy in the handheld space. And Nintendo also ultimately comfortably dominated the 16-bit generation globally when all is said and done with the SNES as well, by a decisive lead of 15-20 million units. But Sega did a very admirable job of making the Genesis compete with the SNES in terms of mind share in that generation for sure, and it had some cool edgy marketing and a bunch of great games and a bunch of expensive hardware add-ons that helped keep the Genesis relevant next to its 16-bit competition of the day. But, anyway, that's just my take on it.

The NA SNES was released in '91, and the Genesis maintained market lead for the next two years. The SNES would gain unquestioned market dominance thanks to Sega of Japan abandoning the market early, and failing to share the secrets of good game design with their western allies, unlike Nintendo with Rare and Argonaut. Another fun trick was sabotaging their own CD unit by hiding the specs from third parties; it's why the library is what it is. Sega of America, meanwhile, had questionable quality control, and even worse business sense. One of the least reported stories in game history is that they got on store shelves by giving retailers the ability to order as many games to be manufactured as they thought they could sell, and Sega had to buy back any unsold copies at their own expense. Suddenly, X-Perts looks a lot more painful, doesn't it? The Genesis made Sega famous, but it very nearly killed Sega. They absolutely couldn't afford to win that war, by the end. Especially not when Nintendo could get bargains on bulk order enhancement chips, while Sega was reduced to expensive add-ons to help ease the pain of the extra expense with a one time purchase that opened up libraries with limited audiences.

@@juststatedtheobvious9633 Yeah, that's basically all true as well, and it explains some of the reasons why things went down the way they did for Sega. And a situation where a console has a lead of multiple millions of units over another purely because it came out a year or more earlier and literally didn't have the main other system from the same generation competing with it for sales during that time is definitely not it "dominating" that console generation. Once SNES came out it slowly caught up in total numbers and then ultimately took the lead and ended up the highest selling console of the 16-bit era by a pretty huge 15-20 million units at the end of the day. It easily outsold the Genesis and all other systems we often speak of as part of the same generation. That could very reasonably be called a dominating performance for the SNES there, not the Genesis. The Genesis launched a year or more earlier than the SNES and sold without any direct 16-bit competition for that time. It didn't "dominate" anything during that period, and in fact was still outsold by the humble 8-bit NES. So, if anything, it was the NES that was absolutely dominating for its whole generation and even the start of the 16-bit generation too. And, in general, since Nintendo outsold Sega during the 8-bit and 16-bit eras by around 50-60 millions units overall (and maybe the same again if we include the Game Boy sales too), and it was even still completely normal for laymen to refer to and kind of gaming as just "playing Nintendo" at that time, it was Nintendo that had very clear market dominance during the late '80s and early '90s. Now, people can debate the how and why of this Nintendo dominance, but that's a separate point to who was the market leader, who was dominant during that time, and which systems dominated during their respective generations. And in every case where Nintendo and Sega had consoles in the same generation, Nintendo dominated, both home and handheld. That was even true of the recent Mini systems as well, with the NES Minis selling 3.6 million units, the SNES Mini selling 5.28 million units, and the Genesis Mini not even breaking 1 million units according to Wikipedia. That's a more than 5-1 sales ratio for the SNES there. Now that's a comanding and dominating sales lead. That's why I do think it's important for KZbin creators to use words like "dominant/dominance" correctly.

In certain regions it did. The Master System in South America and the Genesis/MD everywhere except Japan basically

Missing many, difficult to get all

Too long, my good friend :)

Also It is not COAL Ick O

The criteria was changeable cartridges

@@RetroDream The Channel F HAS changeable cartridges. It was the first console to have them. Just look at any video review of it. I had one. Just look at any video that reviews or shows it in use.

Correct indeed. Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks Michael for your interest and your support! Hope you enjoyed

Thanks! Will improve this series over time ;)

Thanks for your interest!

Oh yea, those were the days

haha

Also, you should've shot and uploaded the footage in 60p.

Thanks for the heads-up