Why the NES can't be considered to be the best videogame console ever.

[The Ghost of RubangB]

BTFeather55 said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

BTFeather55 said:

Xen said:
Atari? better than NES?

what did you take before you posted that?

 People always want to prop up the NES and Mario as something great.  You know who did platforming just as well first?

Pitfall Harry on the Atari 2600 in Pitfall and the not as well known but absoloutely brilliant sequel Pitfall II:  The Lost Caverns.

Pitfall came out on the 2600 a whole year after Donkey Kong came out in the arcades.  It was called catching up with the platforming phenomenon, and sucking at it.

Only Atari 2600 game my friends and I still play is 4-player Warlords.  Haven't done it in a while though, but it rules.  There are a few other classics I need to eventually get my hands on though.

     No, Pitfall didn't suck at platforming.  It was clearly superior to the original Mario Brothers and the 2600's version of Donkey Kong.  It also introduced item collection to platforming.

     Pitfall II was even better. 

I'm not talking about the 2600 version of Donkey Kong or the arcade version of Mario Bros.  I'm talking about the arcade version of Donkey Kong, which was superior to Pitfall and came out earlier.  Of course the 2600 version of Donkey Kong sucked.  The 2600 couldn't handle the glory of Donkey Kong, and brought it down to Pitfall's level of slow awkward jumps.

Donkey Kong had hammers, conveyor belts, vertically moving platforms, and moving objects all over the screen.

Please tell me how Pitfall was superior.

Here are some reminders: