Defuncts' 33 consoles of Christmas: Philips CD-i Edition

[Erronous]

Yes, those CD-i players were designed as audio components, not as game consoles. Take a look at the FW390i for example .

[Bas]

Yes, those CD-i players were designed as audio components, not as game consoles. Take a look at the FW390i for example .

For those who don't know the FW390i, this was a hi-fi stereo set with CD-i built-in. I guess this is the best design ever, you don't need a different place for your game console. I don't think the Defunct guys have ever seen it... I'd check the hardware library at ICDIA before posting statements like this Chad & Cyril...

[rupert]

yeah sorry i did just take it from you post hence the confusion there.

I only had a 210 and so did some friends. i actually prefer the look of it over some of the others.

and no i dont have a wondermega but i have been on the look out for one at a resonable price.

[DefunctGamer]

I'm sure they're waiting for our comments, and Cyril (I think) even mentions us when talking about "There are people out there that already think that we (as in Defunct Games) have something against the Philips CD-i."

No way! First create your own opinion and then read mine:

"the Philips CD-i is one of the ugliest consoles ever made." He starts with. Reading on I figure Mr. Cyril is in the supposition that there is only one CD-i player: the 450. He thinks that one is ugly. He also claims "what you can't see is how unbelievably huge the console is." I think we're talking about a different type. Unfortunately, he doesn't give any arguments or example, so he leaves me again in the supposition he doesn't no squad about what he's talking about. I think the console is the most 'adult' designed system around. The 450 is smaller than lots of other consoles. So Cyril, what the hell are you talking about? It's another downgrade for Defunct.

The only thing they talk about is about the second controllerport being on the back of the console. Without further thinking why they did this. Sorry, bad article. Not recommended.

Hello Bas.
Oh my oh my oh my. As you may or may not know, my name is Cyril and I wrote the article (well, half of the article) in question. Over the past month I have worked very hard to post a system review every single day (from Thanksgiving to Christmas). This was called the 33 Consoles of Christmas, and it's clear that you had some issues/questions about it.

First and foremost, you and I may not agree on the CD-i. I hope that you can respect our differences and at least give me credit for being man enough to read your comments and take them on. I actually got a kick out of the things you said, especially the last little bit, like "It's another downgrade for Defunct" and "bad article, not recommended." As somebody who works very hard on the website (note: I wrote some 60 articles on Defunct Games this month alone), I do take issue saying that it's not worth checking out ... but at the same time I appreciate that at least you linked my review.

So let me address some of my thought process. First up, the system I was reviewing was the one in the picture, which is the 450 model. This is the model I own and the one that Chad and I agreed on when we originally came up with the idea to review the 33 Consoles of Christmas. I do realize that there are other models, including a few that are much more attractive than the 450 version. We have talked about making a full show out of this and going through a bunch of different consoles we missed, including redesigns and different models (that would allow us to review different types of CD-i units).

You mention that the system is "smaller than lots of other consoles," which is true, but for the time and the technology it just seemed large to me. I'm sorry I didn't give fully fleshed out arguments backing up my side, but that wasn't the point of the article. I only had so much room and didn't feel like spending 400 words backing up every comment I made. The truth is that this article is nothing more than two people talking about what they like and dislike about each system's design, which doesn't have to be a wordy affair.

I accept that you think the system is the most "adult" designed system around, and I'll give you that it doesn't look like a toy. But that doesn't mean that I like the design of that specific model, and that's what this comes down to. Trust me, it's nothing personal against the CD-i, I'm merely stating my opinion.

And while I'm clearing stuff up, the part at the beginning that you think is about you is NOT about you (or this site). In fact, I rather like this site and enjoy reading your comments (even if they are negative towards Defunct Games). The person in question runs the site: http://cd-i.eigenstart.nl/. This person ended up making personal attacks and was generally hurtful towards my staff, which I did not appreciate. But I can't be too mad about that, so I tend to make a joke out of it (after all, that site currently has about a dozen links to Defunct Games).

Getting back to my comments, I stand by the "sports arena" thing, because when I look at the system that's what I see. My local football team plays in a staduim that looks almost exactly like the CD-i, which I don't find to be an endearing quality.

What do I think of the other versions of the CD-i? Honestly, I think that some of them are actually pretty attractive. I like the units that look like standard CD players, and would definitely rate those higher than the 450 unit. The FW380i doesn't do much for me, but I can appreciate that it's meant for audio playback and not gaming. It just so happens that I decided to talk about the 450, which perhaps I should have clarified in the synopsis. Either way, keep in mind that it's just an opinion and we are all entitled to one or two of those.

I love that the threat about Defunct Games managed to hit two pages, which means that at least a few people saw it. I received nothing but kind email about the feature and am thankful for sites like this bringing me back down to reality. I accept all comments, either good or bad. A site like this is hard to win over, especially when Defunct Games has been pretty negative on the system.

Just keep in mind that even though you and I may disagree, I work very hard on Defunct Games and am doing my best to offer a website that is completely different from everything else out there. There are a lot of video game websites out there, and it's not easy to stand out from the pack. Bas, I respect your opinion and know that it's going to be tough to please everybody. But how many other sites can you think of that are willing to do something like the 33 Consoles of Christmas? There are a lot of sites that are too worried about pissing off parts of their fanbase that they won't even try, and that's one of the things that sets Defunct Games apart from 1up, IGN or GameSpot. Whether or not we succeed is up to you, and I will always accept your comments, critiques and suggestions.

I think that this long winded response has answered most of the comments in this thread, and hopefully you will at least give me credit for defending myself. This thread brought a smile to my face, even though it was fairly negative in tone. Maybe one day we will agree, but until then I just hope that you will check in on the site from time to time ... we have a lot of unique content going up every day. And hey, not all of it bashes the CD-i!

Thanks again for the comments.

Cyril Lachel
Editor | Defunct Games
http://www.defunctgames.com

[Bas]

I love that the threat about Defunct Games managed to hit two pages, which means that at least a few people saw it. I received nothing but kind email about the feature and am thankful for sites like this bringing me back down to reality. I accept all comments, either good or bad. A site like this is hard to win over, especially when Defunct Games has been pretty negative on the system.

I really admire you for responding here. The way Chad responded here was so awful and negative I immediately hated the guy. That also adds to the whole point you know You're a guy I can talk with. Still, how should I explain what Defunct makes me think? I'm afraid I posted it all before.

Just keep in mind that even though you and I may disagree, I work very hard on Defunct Games and am doing my best to offer a website that is completely different from everything else out there. There are a lot of video game websites out there, and it's not easy to stand out from the pack. Bas, I respect your opinion and know that it's going to be tough to please everybody. But how many other sites can you think of that are willing to do something like the 33 Consoles of Christmas? There are a lot of sites that are too worried about pissing off parts of their fanbase that they won't even try, and that's one of the things that sets Defunct Games apart from 1up, IGN or GameSpot. Whether or not we succeed is up to you, and I will always accept your comments, critiques and suggestions.

I agree, and I mean no harm in that. As long as you have fun with it, that's the same I keep in mind every single day. You should also accept you can never please everyone, especially not when you're opinionated about CD-i like you are.

I think that this long winded response has answered most of the comments in this thread, and hopefully you will at least give me credit for defending myself. This thread brought a smile to my face, even though it was fairly negative in tone. Maybe one day we will agree, but until then I just hope that you will check in on the site from time to time ... we have a lot of unique content going up every day. And hey, not all of it bashes the CD-i!

I'm happy at least it gave you a smile. I post every thing with a smile, wondering how people will react. I've posted my back comments earlier in the thread, so there's no need to re-post those.

[DefunctGamer]

I really admire you for responding here. The way Chad responded here was so awful and negative I immediately hated the guy. That also adds to the whole point you know You're a guy I can talk with. Still, how should I explain what Defunct makes me think? I'm afraid I posted it all before.

I don't want to get into the personal workings of the site too much, but please understand that I too was very upset with the way Chad reacted to the whole ordeal. I think that he handled the situation poorly and ultimately made the entire site look bad. I still like his writing and he is my go-to guy for a lot of reviews, but he and I did have a long discussion about what was appropriate and what was not when it came to responding to forums.

When it comes right down to it I would like to be the only official spokesman for Defunct Games. I have seen others (Tom, Patrick) post as well, and I'm fine with that, but ultimately I'm probably the person to talk to about the concerns. The last thing I need is three or four people from Defunct Games talking over each other. I can understand why you were frustrated with Chad, and I know that it reflects poorly on the site. Just keep in mind that he is just one person, and the bulk of Defunct Games is written by me.