2nd gen (Atari 2600) has aged better than 3rd gen (NES)

[Nautilus]

VAMatt said:

Nautilus said:

Maybe its because I didnt grow up with an Atari, or even was born back then, but every Atari game that i do watch a video of or play with are simply horrible.Not saying that they are unplayable, but they are simply horrendous to play nowadays.Personally, the 3 gen (NES and Genesis) is when gaming became truly viable as a business(exclusing a few gems in the arcade space that came before)

Some of my first memories involve the Atari 2600.  So, it is certainly possible that my opinion is colored by nostalgia.  

I agree that Atari 2600 games are extremely primitive.  They are ball and stick, or stick man grabs onto swinging stick, jumps over green and brown blobs, releases stick.  The next generation (which, for me, was more about the Sega Master System than the NES) definitely represented a massive improvement over the 2600 era.  In fact, I think the 2600-era to NES-era was the biggest generational leap we've seen.  Nevertheless, I still find Pacman and Pitfall enjoyable, while most of the NES/Master System games just aren't.  

Fair enough.