RolStoppable said:
Eh, the Wii style is Nintendo's roots, so it's one and the same as the NES. In your preceding post you talked about how the NES was leaps and bounds beyond the Atari 2600, but that's easily explained by one being a console from 1977 and the other being one from 1983. While the NES may have been marketed as state-of-the-art tech in the USA, it should be obvious that it really wasn't. The system didn't launch nationwide until 1986 and it only took until 1989 before Sega brought their 16-bit machine to the states (which constituted as big of a technological jump over the NES as the NES was over the Atari 2600; actual state-of-the-art doesn't get so outdated so fast, nevermind that the NES motherboard was already three years old by the time the system fully launched in America). If it took consoles only three years to move to 16-bit, you can be sure that home computers were closing in or already there at the time of the NES's launch in America. The NES wasn't a powerful machine, it was cheap, accessible and innovative. It had to be designed that way because Nintendo was a Japanese company and Atari wasn't present in their country. So the only real way for Nintendo to establish a video game market in their home country was by giving the Famicom the same traits as the Wii. People who grew up with the NES also tend to mistake Nintendo's system for a very conventional home console, even though it wasn't. It came with a controller that was very different from the standard of the time. It had a d-pad instead of the common joystick. A difference so significant that it made the joystick gone altogether. |
Exactly, u also have to take into account price. The NES Basic Set was $99.99 or just over $200 adjusted for inflation. If u made a $200 console today, sold at a profit, it sure as hell wouldn't be state of the art.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.







