Editing Game.com (section)

==Reception==
At the time of the Game.com's launch in 1997, Chris Johnston of [[GameSpot|VideoGameSpot]] believed that the console would have difficulty competing against the Game Boy. Johnston also believed that text-based Internet and email would attract only limited appeal, stating that such features were outdated. Johnston concluded that the Game.com "is a decent system, but Nintendo is just way too powerful in the industry."<ref name=Tanner/> Chip and Jonathan Carter wrote that the console did not play action games as well as it did with other games, although they praised the console's various options and wrote, "Graphically, we'd have to say this has the potential to perform better than Game Boy. As for sound, Game.com delivers better than any other hand-held on the market."<ref name=sep25/> A team of four ''[[Electronic Gaming Monthly]]'' editors gave the Game.com scores of 5.5, 4.5, 5.0, and 4.0. They were impressed by the PDA features and touchscreen, but commented that the games library had thus far failed to deliver on the Game.com's great potential. They elaborated that while the non-scrolling games, particularly ''Wheel of Fortune'', were great fun and made good use of the touchscreen, the more conventional action games were disappointing and suffered from prominent [[Motion blur|screen blurring]].<ref>{{cite magazine |title=EGM's Special Report: Which System Is Best? |magazine=1998 Video Game Buyer's Guide |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=March 1998 |page=58}}</ref>

''[[Wisconsin State Journal]]'' stated that the Game.com offered "some serious" advantages over the Game Boy, including its touchscreen. It was also stated that in comparison to the Game Boy, the Game.com's 8-bit processor provided "marginal improvements" in the quality of speed and graphics. The newspaper noted that the Game.com had a "tiny, somewhat blurry screen."<ref name=Wis>{{cite news |title=Game Boy Has a Rival Now |url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/401434953/ |work=Wisconsin State Journal |date=September 26, 1997 |access-date=September 7, 2018|via=Newspapers.com|url-access=subscription }}</ref> ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'' wrote a negative review of the Game.com, particularly criticizing Internet connectivity issues. Also criticized was the system's lack of a backlit screen, as the use of exterior lighting could cause difficulty in viewing the screen, which was highly reflective.<ref name="Phil">{{cite news|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/177979339/|title=Internet connection on Tiger's Game.com does not earn its stripes|date=December 25, 1997|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|access-date=September 7, 2018|via=Newspapers.com|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Steven L. Kent, writing for the ''Chicago Tribune'', wrote that the console had an elegant design, as well as better sound and a higher-definition screen than the Game Boy: "Elegant design, however, has not translated into ideal game play. Though Tiger has produced fighting, racing and shooting games for Game.com, the games have noticeably slow frame rates. The racing game looks like a flickering silent picture show."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/1998/08/06/are-you-game-3/|title=Are You Game?|last=Kent|first=Steven L.|date=August 6, 1998|work=Chicago Tribune|access-date=April 28, 2016}}</ref> Cameron Davis of [[GameSpot|VideoGames.com]] wrote, "Sure, this is no Game Boy Color-killer, but the Game.Com was never meant to be. To deride it by comparing it with more powerful and established formats would be a bit unfair". Davis also wrote, "The touch screen is pretty sensitive, but it works well - you won't need more than a few seconds to get used to it." However, he criticized the screen's squared zones: "more often than not it proves distracting when you are playing games that don't require it."<ref name=VG>{{cite web|last=Davis|first=Cameron|title=A Closer Look at the Game.com|url=http://www.videogames.com:80/features/universal/game_com/|website=[[GameSpot|VideoGames.com]]|access-date=May 19, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010709152443/http://www.videogames.com/features/universal/game_com/|archive-date=July 9, 2001|pages=1–4|url-status=dead}}</ref>

''GamePro'' criticized the Pocket Pro's lack of screen color and its difficult controls, but considered its two best qualities to be its cheap price and a game library of titles exclusive to the console.<ref name=Roars/> ''The Philadelphia Inquirer'' also criticized the Pocket Pro's lack of a color screen, as well as "frustrating" gameplay caused by the "unresponsive" controls, including the stylus. The newspaper stated that, "Even at $29.99, the pocket.pro is no bargain."<ref name=Peace>{{cite news |title=Portable video games that keep the peace |url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/179186025/ |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer |date=July 22, 1999 |access-date=September 14, 2018|via=Newspapers.com|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Legacy===
Brett Alan Weiss of the website [[AllGame]] wrote, "The Game.com, the little system that (almost) could, constantly amazes me with the strength and scope of its sound effects. [...] It's astounding what power comes out of such a tiny little speaker."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=8006&tab=review|title=Indy 500 - Review (Game.com)|last=Weiss|first=Brett Alan|work=[[AllGame]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141115040612/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=8006&tab=review|archive-date=November 15, 2014}}</ref> In 2004, Kent included the modem and "some PDA functionality" as the console's strengths, while listing its "Slow processor" and "lackluster library of games" as weaknesses.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2004/01/31/nintendos-got-game-for-newest-challenge/|title=Nintendo's got game for newest challenge|last=Kent|first=Steven L.|date=January 31, 2004|work=Chicago Tribune|access-date=April 28, 2016}}</ref> In 2006, ''[[Engadget]]'' stated that "You can't fault Tiger Electronics for their ambition," but wrote that the Game.com "didn't do any one thing particularly well", criticizing its text-only Internet access and stating that its "disappointing games were made even worse" by the "outdated" screen.<ref>{{cite news |last=Melanson |first=Donald |title=A Brief History of Handheld Video Games |url=https://www.engadget.com/2006/03/03/a-brief-history-of-handheld-video-games/ |work=Engadget |date=March 3, 2006 |access-date=September 18, 2018}}</ref>

In 2009, ''[[PC World]]'' ranked the Game.com at number nine on its list of the 10 worst video game systems ever released, criticizing its Internet aspect, its game library, its low-resolution touchscreen, and its "Silly name that attempted to capitalize on Internet mania." However, ''PC World'' positively noted its "primitive" PDA features and its solitaire game, considered by the magazine to be the system's best game.<ref name=PC>{{cite web|last=Edwards|first=Benj|title=The 10 Worst Video Game Systems of All Time|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/168348/software-games/worst-game-consoles.html#slide3|access-date=November 25, 2017|work=[[PC World]]|date=July 14, 2009}}</ref> In 2011, Mikel Reparaz of GamesRadar ranked the Game.com at number 3 on a list of 7 failed handheld consoles, writing that while the Game.com had several licensed games, it "doesn't actually mean much when they all look like cruddy, poorly animated Game Boy [[Porting of video games|port]]s." Raparaz also stated that the Game.com "looked dated even by Game Boy standards," noting that the Game Boy Pocket had a sharper display screen. Reparaz stated that the Game.com's continuation into 2000 was a "pretty significant achievement" considering its competition from the Game Boy Color.<ref name=Rep/>

In 2013, Jeff Dunn of GamesRadar criticized the Game.com for its "blurry" and "imprecise" touchscreen, as well as its "limited and unwieldy" Internet and email [[User interface|interface]]s. Dunn also criticized the "painful" Internet setup process, and stated that all of the console's available games were "ugly and horrible." Dunn noted, however, that the Game.com's Internet aspect was a "smart" feature.<ref name=Dunn>{{cite news |last=Dunn |first=Jeff |title=Chasing Phantoms - The history of failed consoles |url=https://www.gamesradar.com/chasing-phantoms-history-failed-consoles/4/ |work=GamesRadar |date=July 15, 2013 |access-date=September 18, 2018}}</ref> In 2016, [[Motherboard (website)|Motherboard]] stated that the Game.com was "perhaps one of the worst consoles of all time," due largely to its low screen quality.<ref name=mother>{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Ernie|title=Tiger Electronics Took on the Game Boy with Devices as Powerful as Calculators|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/tiger-electronics-took-on-the-game-boy-with-devices-as-powerful-as-calculators/|access-date=November 25, 2017|work=Motherboard|date=August 25, 2016}}</ref> In 2018, Nadia Oxford of [[USgamer]] noted the Game.com's "paper-thin" library of games and stated that the console "died in record time because it was poorly-made, to say the least."<ref>{{cite news |last=Oxford |first=Nadia |title=Once More, with Weirdness: 8 of the Strangest Ports in Video Game History |url=https://www.usgamer.net/articles/once-more-with-weirdness-8-of-the-strangest-ports-in-video-game-history |work=USgamer |date=August 1, 2018 |access-date=October 9, 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916130250/https://www.usgamer.net/articles/once-more-with-weirdness-8-of-the-strangest-ports-in-video-game-history |archive-date=September 16, 2018}}</ref>