theRepublic said:
BTFeather55 said:
Fossil said:
BTFeather55 said:
Hawk said:
| BTFeather55 said:
I guess I have to agree with the believers then. But even if I give you Mario being superior to Pitfall, I really haven't seen one shred of evidence to contradict the notion that the 2600 had far better shooters coming from the early age of arcade than the shooters that were available on the NES. Megalomania, Missle Command, Moon Patrol, Atlantis, Yar's Revenge, Centipede, Phoenix, Berzerk, Vanguard, Defender, Space Invaders, Asteroids, River Raid those games were never matched by any shooters on the NES.
The NES never had a racer the equal of Enduro either.
So, that still adds up to the 2600 being better than the NES.
|
No way man. RC Pro-Am was a far better racer than Enduro. Not that I didn't like Enduro.
|
I don't know about that I don't ever remember playing RC Pro Am. However
http://www.atarihq.com/reviews/2600/enduro.html
And much like modern 360 games. 2600 games had achievements (something Nintendo games have always lacked), and if you could beat five days on Enduro and took a pic of it, you could send it off to Actvision and get your patch showing you were a true racer.
|
No, just that you wasted your time.
Face it, your entire argument has been disected and disposed of; all you're doing now is changing the focus: "Atari was better because it had a superfouose achivement system and it had better shooters" Ever hear of contra, gradius, life-force?
|
There wouldn't have been any shooters if it wasn't for the popularity of those on the 2600.
|
There wouldn't have been any shooters if it wasn't for the popularity of those in the arcade.
|
Man, I forget, what console did most of those shooters first appear on in their home version?
